Scan barcode
A review by mnboyer
Exposing Hate: Prejudice, Hatred, and Violence in Action by Michael Miller
3.0
The concept: Teach teen readers about hate, prejudice, and violence in America using discussions of recent (within the last few years) conflicts.
The concept itself is a great one. The problem is that this book then become a bit too simplistic in its discussion of hatred. To preface this review, I'd like to tell you that I think --all-- hate groups suck and that there is no place in the world for them. While this book agrees with that sentiment, it often does a good job of using "they" to lump a lot of different people together. Rather than trying to explore issues that lead individuals to joining hate groups, the first half of the book just makes broad statements about groups. The "alt-right" is lumped together as is the "alt-left" with very little wiggle room (at one point the author says there are extremes in each group, but this is after a lot of simplification). By lumping even hate group members into one resounding "they" this book presents problems in its analysis. Hate is not one-size-fits-all yet a lot of the times this book just uses "they" to lump groups together.
The audience is teens, but I'd suggest the earlier teens because the book tends to over simplify things. There are even words that the book goes on to define (most of which I'd like to think a teen could understand; or think teens know how to use a dictionary).
The position of the book is simple: Hate groups are terrible. While I do agree, the book starts off as if it is going to be unbiased and present two views. It does not, which is fine, but it then shouldn't begin as if it is going to give both sides of the argument.
This book does criticize President Trump -- but I think this again over simplifies hate groups. The book suggests that the rise in hate groups (and their lack of fear to now identify openly as being a hate group) revolves around Trump. The rise in hate groups could be attributed to Trump, but to not discuss or delve into the reasoning behind why there is a rise and just oversimplifying things is a poor methodological standpoint.
My overall opinion of this quick mini-read: It oversimplifies everything and only gives one side of the argument. It may be the correct side of the argument (hate groups do suck and it would be nice if they didn't exist) but the book fails to even explore the other side of the argument. It shouldn't present itself as being unbiased in the beginning, act like it will explore both sides, then not do so. But my biggest grief is the oversimplification of 99% of everything discussed in this book. I truly think teens are smarter than this book must assume them to be.
The concept itself is a great one. The problem is that this book then become a bit too simplistic in its discussion of hatred. To preface this review, I'd like to tell you that I think --all-- hate groups suck and that there is no place in the world for them. While this book agrees with that sentiment, it often does a good job of using "they" to lump a lot of different people together. Rather than trying to explore issues that lead individuals to joining hate groups, the first half of the book just makes broad statements about groups. The "alt-right" is lumped together as is the "alt-left" with very little wiggle room (at one point the author says there are extremes in each group, but this is after a lot of simplification). By lumping even hate group members into one resounding "they" this book presents problems in its analysis. Hate is not one-size-fits-all yet a lot of the times this book just uses "they" to lump groups together.
The audience is teens, but I'd suggest the earlier teens because the book tends to over simplify things. There are even words that the book goes on to define (most of which I'd like to think a teen could understand; or think teens know how to use a dictionary).
The position of the book is simple: Hate groups are terrible. While I do agree, the book starts off as if it is going to be unbiased and present two views. It does not, which is fine, but it then shouldn't begin as if it is going to give both sides of the argument.
This book does criticize President Trump -- but I think this again over simplifies hate groups. The book suggests that the rise in hate groups (and their lack of fear to now identify openly as being a hate group) revolves around Trump. The rise in hate groups could be attributed to Trump, but to not discuss or delve into the reasoning behind why there is a rise and just oversimplifying things is a poor methodological standpoint.
My overall opinion of this quick mini-read: It oversimplifies everything and only gives one side of the argument. It may be the correct side of the argument (hate groups do suck and it would be nice if they didn't exist) but the book fails to even explore the other side of the argument. It shouldn't present itself as being unbiased in the beginning, act like it will explore both sides, then not do so. But my biggest grief is the oversimplification of 99% of everything discussed in this book. I truly think teens are smarter than this book must assume them to be.