While Chicago Review of Books Bans ‘Hate’, It Embraces Double-Standard

  1. Home
  2. Culture Wars
By Lukas Mikelionis | 1:24 pm, January 4, 2017

The Chicago Review of Books, which has announced they won’t be reviewing any books published by Simon and Schuster in 2017 because of the book deal with Milo Yiannopoulos, has a history of reviewing books by radical, provocative authors.

The literary magazine sparked a controversy after tweeting from their official Twitter account back in December, saying “In response to this disgusting validation of hate, we will not cover a single @simonschuster book in 2017.”

While some celebrated the decision for making a grand stand against the allegedly hateful rhetoric by Yiannopoulos, the magazine has a short memory when it comes to “validation of hate”.

In June 2016, the literary magazine published a review of “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide” by Emory historian Dr. Carol Anderson, who argued that so-called “white rage” is to blame for problems in the African-American community.

In the book, Anderson argues that Jim Crow laws and the public reactions to Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are the examples of white people rejecting progress within the African-American community.

“Every time African Americans have made advances towards full participation in our democracy, white reaction has fueled a deliberate and relentless rollback of their gains,” she wrote in the book description.

Anderson also engaged in unfounded conspiracy theories that Ronald Reagan deliberately created a drug crisis and flooded Black communities with drugs, specifically crack.

She contends that African-Americans were the intended victims of the drug crisis, adding that the war on drugs “replaced the explicit use of race as the mechanism to deny black Americans their rights as citizens.”

Who Do You Serve, Who Do You Protect? was also reviewed by the Chicago Review of Books, which described the title as “a collection of essays and reportage penned by some of Truthout’s most compelling and enlightened thinkers—including #BlackLivesMatter co-founder Alicia Garza.”

Alicia Garza, a radical co-founder of Black Lives Matter has risen to prominence as a national speaker of the movement. She candidly praised Assata Shakur—the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther member, and a convicted cop-killer who escaped to Cuba to avoid prison. Shakur, whose real name is Joanne Chesimard, is currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list with a $1 million bounty on her head.

“When I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what its political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context,” wrote Garza.

The movement she helped to co-found has also been embroiled in controversies, starting from spewing violent slogans during protests, defending a Starbucks barista who claims he spat in the drink of a law enforcement officer, saluting Fidel Castro, and many other examples. She has not criticized any actions of the movement, instead, she’s defended them.

Is the Chicago Review of Books really standing up to a “validation of hate” or are they just applying double-standards?

Advertisement