Take a photo of a barcode or cover
books_ergo_sum 's review for:
The Message
by Ta-Nehisi Coates
reflective
partly great, partly terrible. Idk, I wanted more grovel lol
The first two essays were good. But we’re all here for the third essay: Coates on the apartheid in occupied Palestine—it’s most of the book and all of the drama.
That essay was two things imo:
▪️ insights on apartheid
▪️ a confession
The insights? 10/10. This was great. He saw, in the apartheid and occupation, a techno-dystopian version of American segregation and discussed the ‘oppressed-to-oppressor’ pipeline he noticed. On point.
The confession part? 1/10. Nope. Coates used to write for The Atlantic, and—
TL;DR if that sentence doesn’t make you hiss like a vampire in the sun then it’s a 1/10.
The impetus for this essay was The Case for Reparations, the cover story Coates wrote for The Atlantic in 2014 where he argued that African Americans should receive reparations (a good idea) like Germany gave Israel and Israel is great (Israel last invaded Gaza in 2014 btw) 🥴 This was controversial, even then. Because he linked the Black freedom struggle—not to Palestine—but to Israel. In opposition to, say, Angela Davis in Freedom Is A Constant Struggle (2015).
Tbh, this is The Atlantic’s whole MO—their pro-Israel bias (its editor is an Israeli former IDF guy and Islamaphobic nut) manufactures consent for Israel’s militarism with Americans who might oppose it (ie. anti-racist Dem voters). And Coates stuck to this pro-Israel side for years. In 2017 Cornel West even wrote an essay in The Guardian titled ‘Ta-Nahisi Coates Is The Neoliberal Face of the Black Freedom Struggle’ condemning his defense of Israel.
Like, how do you come back from that??
That’s a genuine question. Because incredibly, I think Coates IS coming back from that. And that’s THE story here. And idk, we flubbed it.
But, was this essay flawed or ingenious—because it’s actually a Trojan Horse? Well, I think it’s the former, for two reasons:
▪️Trojan Horses need soldiers to come out at the end. And none did. A person could love The Message and not think twice about reading The Atlantic because where was the critique?
▪️ a Trojan Horse argument would’ve been crafted with Atlantic-reading Dems in mind, something Coates is against.
Reason 1: I was really struck by this because the day I finished this book was that Signal-Gate day—where the editor of The Atlantic was accidentally added to the Yemen bombing group chat. That article was widely discussed, but rarely with a critique of The Atlantic itself. Especially since the role that editor plays in manufacturing consent for wars against Arab countries is VERY relevant to why he was in the group chat in the first place. And why he might have delayed his article until after the bombings had already occurred.
Reason 2: Coates has been vocal about how he didn’t have Atlantic-reading Dem voters in mind when he wrote The Message and that he’s against strategic (and Trojan Horse-style?) writing. In a Novara Media interview, he said: “This wasn’t like I’ll write the thing that white liberals love and they’ll buy a lot of copies… I don’t have a ‘who will get angry with me’ perspective when I write,” and later: “whether [white liberals] will be upset about what I say about Palestine is wholly irrelevant—any writer who does that [writes with their audience in mind] is no longer a writer.”
Bonus rant-y thought: Coates quoted Benny Morris and I’m still not over it. Coates’ essay is not a history book. But it is the kind of book that could introduce new readers to the idea of Palestinian liberation. So when the first (and only) time Coates quoted a nonfiction historian author who could be a kind of ‘further reading’ moment and it was BENNY F*CKING MORRIS?! I couldn’t believe it, honestly. Morris is the only pro-Israel New Historian (couldn’t have picked pro-Palestinian New Historians like Ilan Pappé or Avi Schlaim?) and he’s openly racist. Like, one of the most openly racist people I’ve heard speak in a long time? He literally went viral last year for proudly saying “I’d rather be a racist than a bore” and then the crowd turned it into a song 😦 What was Coates thinking? There was a little (blink and you’ll miss it) critique of Morris at the end. But it sucked and was too subtle. The person looking for further reading already added Morris to their TBR, their library hold on a Morris book comes in next week, and I’d bet money they didn’t even notice that little critique at the end.
The first two essays were good. But we’re all here for the third essay: Coates on the apartheid in occupied Palestine—it’s most of the book and all of the drama.
That essay was two things imo:
▪️ insights on apartheid
▪️ a confession
The insights? 10/10. This was great. He saw, in the apartheid and occupation, a techno-dystopian version of American segregation and discussed the ‘oppressed-to-oppressor’ pipeline he noticed. On point.
The confession part? 1/10. Nope. Coates used to write for The Atlantic, and—
TL;DR if that sentence doesn’t make you hiss like a vampire in the sun then it’s a 1/10.
The impetus for this essay was The Case for Reparations, the cover story Coates wrote for The Atlantic in 2014 where he argued that African Americans should receive reparations (a good idea) like Germany gave Israel and Israel is great (Israel last invaded Gaza in 2014 btw) 🥴 This was controversial, even then. Because he linked the Black freedom struggle—not to Palestine—but to Israel. In opposition to, say, Angela Davis in Freedom Is A Constant Struggle (2015).
Tbh, this is The Atlantic’s whole MO—their pro-Israel bias (its editor is an Israeli former IDF guy and Islamaphobic nut) manufactures consent for Israel’s militarism with Americans who might oppose it (ie. anti-racist Dem voters). And Coates stuck to this pro-Israel side for years. In 2017 Cornel West even wrote an essay in The Guardian titled ‘Ta-Nahisi Coates Is The Neoliberal Face of the Black Freedom Struggle’ condemning his defense of Israel.
Like, how do you come back from that??
That’s a genuine question. Because incredibly, I think Coates IS coming back from that. And that’s THE story here. And idk, we flubbed it.
But, was this essay flawed or ingenious—because it’s actually a Trojan Horse? Well, I think it’s the former, for two reasons:
▪️Trojan Horses need soldiers to come out at the end. And none did. A person could love The Message and not think twice about reading The Atlantic because where was the critique?
▪️ a Trojan Horse argument would’ve been crafted with Atlantic-reading Dems in mind, something Coates is against.
Reason 1: I was really struck by this because the day I finished this book was that Signal-Gate day—where the editor of The Atlantic was accidentally added to the Yemen bombing group chat. That article was widely discussed, but rarely with a critique of The Atlantic itself. Especially since the role that editor plays in manufacturing consent for wars against Arab countries is VERY relevant to why he was in the group chat in the first place. And why he might have delayed his article until after the bombings had already occurred.
Reason 2: Coates has been vocal about how he didn’t have Atlantic-reading Dem voters in mind when he wrote The Message and that he’s against strategic (and Trojan Horse-style?) writing. In a Novara Media interview, he said: “This wasn’t like I’ll write the thing that white liberals love and they’ll buy a lot of copies… I don’t have a ‘who will get angry with me’ perspective when I write,” and later: “whether [white liberals] will be upset about what I say about Palestine is wholly irrelevant—any writer who does that [writes with their audience in mind] is no longer a writer.”
Bonus rant-y thought: Coates quoted Benny Morris and I’m still not over it. Coates’ essay is not a history book. But it is the kind of book that could introduce new readers to the idea of Palestinian liberation. So when the first (and only) time Coates quoted a nonfiction historian author who could be a kind of ‘further reading’ moment and it was BENNY F*CKING MORRIS?! I couldn’t believe it, honestly. Morris is the only pro-Israel New Historian (couldn’t have picked pro-Palestinian New Historians like Ilan Pappé or Avi Schlaim?) and he’s openly racist. Like, one of the most openly racist people I’ve heard speak in a long time? He literally went viral last year for proudly saying “I’d rather be a racist than a bore” and then the crowd turned it into a song 😦 What was Coates thinking? There was a little (blink and you’ll miss it) critique of Morris at the end. But it sucked and was too subtle. The person looking for further reading already added Morris to their TBR, their library hold on a Morris book comes in next week, and I’d bet money they didn’t even notice that little critique at the end.