What is Reddit's opinion of
Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
16 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
u/Sophiadaputa, it's unlikely that anyone will be able do this question justice of AskReddit on all places. I would recommend reading this book: https://smile.amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617
It's by a Black developmental psychologist and includes descriptions of how White, Black, and other racial/ethnic/cultural identities develop in the U.S. As usual, reading a book is probably the best way to get a real answer.
People want to congregate with people who have shared experiences. Let them live lol. We already have single sex dorms, single sex sororities/fraternities, black fraternities, Asian sororities, HBCUs, queer housing, etc. This is nothing new. If you are actually intellectually curious, pick up a book like https://www.amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617
I don't mean the phrase literally lol. It's a phrase that's sometimes used to explain self-segregation. There's also a book by the same name. (https://www.amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617).
Also, yes people sit with their friends at lunch, but that answer is undergirded by a question of if those friend groups racially homogeneous, and why.
"Why do all the 'X' kids sit together at lunch is just another way of asking, "Why are all the X kids friends with other X kids" if that makes sense.
That isn't what racism is. Racism is prejudice or discrimination rooted in a belief of superiority of one race over another. That there are differences in the world navigated by black people and the work navigated by white people that puts different standards on behavior isn't racist, it's culturally responsive.
We all navigate our personal worlds recognising that there are groups we are part of and groups that we are not,and adjust our behavior accordingly. You speak differently with your friends than with your parents, and cringe when your parents try to speak with you and your friends the way way you do, because it rings false, coming across as them play-acting at being part of your group. Parents tpyically love their kids to death, and kids love their parents, but your parents and your friends are different. And you may see your black and white friends as just your friends, but I guarantee your black friends see you as their white friend, because your life is not their life and your culture is not their culture. In the same manner, a rich kid may just have friends, one of whom is poor, but guaranteed that poor person views them as their rich friend, different from their other friends. This is part of the way in which privilege plays out. Those with it often don't recognize its role in insulating them from harsher aspects of life common to those without it.
The N-word was and is used to denigrate and dehumanize blacks by whites. The current internal use of it in black culture can be viewed as a cultural identifier that says, "Hey, we're in this together, dealing with the past and currentjust trying to live our lives while a lot of white people still don't see us as individuals, but just another, n-word." You aren't part of that culture and can't be, because society at large doesn't view you as black or treat you as such. So you don't get to play you are and then complain that people are being racist when they tell you you're acting inappropriately at best, and veering towards abetting racism.
They may tell you they don't sit in the student section because it isn't cool, but the deeper reason is that they probably don't feel comfortable. There are a lot of reasons that could exist for that. What percentage of your school's teachers are black? What percentage of the administrators are black? What percentage of your student government is black? Does your school have a dress code that specifically targets dress or hairstyles common within their communities? Being a majority isn't what matters. What matters is having a voice, having a say, and having ownership. You see it as your school, but do they, or is it just a school that they attend.
You should read, Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria: and other conversations about race.
Some of ya’ll need some education. Here’s a good start https://www.amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617 or https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414/ref=pd_aw_fbt_img_1/132-0270931-6552858?pd_rd_w=xxvAG&pf_rd_p=0ac31943-e5c4-4aef-ab7b-6ab45d3ad9aa&pf_rd_r=0HRA5XVEDECM4ZMSVVTK&pd_rd_r=da7a9d64-3982-4533-824c-3d...
Microaggressions are not ambiguous. They are indicative of underlying biases. I understand that acknowledging one's own biases can be a painful process, but putting the blame on other people (e.g., calling them "sensitive") and pretending that racism only applies to overt interpersonal interactions is not helpful.
To be honest, I did not appreciate the level of harm of microaggressions for a while. I can invent a half dozen plausible sounding reasons: I excused them as a normal part of life (e.g., dealing with assholes, dealing with generational differences). I had had them directed at me and saw it as a normal cost of human interaction. I saw the problem as other people: Oh, I didn't mean X, Person A must be have misunderstood my intentions.
The more I read about microaggressions and other experiences of discrimination and bias, the more empathy I have for others. I feel embarrassed at how long I took to come to these realizations. I still make mistakes, but I consider it absolutely essential to take the time to examine my own behaviors and instilled beliefs and address and redress them as necessary.
It is so important to me as an instructor that my students feel comfortable. I have had folks confide in me that they feel frustrated at the frequency of gaffs like name mispronunciations or even flat out avoiding the student's name even though the prof says everyone else's name regularly. Mistaken identity is another common problem.
A student should feel empowered and secure that they can confide to a prof that they feel uncomfortable. The correct response for the prof is, "Thank you for trusting me enough to bring these matters to my attention. I will do better, and I am sorry for making you feel uncomfortable." And then the prof better damn well do better starting the very next class and continuing forward.
Here are a few resources that you might find helpful. I truly hope you get a chance to read a few. I see so much of what I used to think in your response. I wish I had read more and said less because I didn't appreciate how misguided I was.
Short Articles
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872371063/microaggressions-are-a-big-deal-how-to-talk-them-out-and-when-to-walk-away
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8031073/what-are-microaggressions
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/why-malcolm-gladwell-thinks-im-a-racist
Books https://www.amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617
https://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Antiracist-Ibram-Kendi/dp/0525509283/
https://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316010669
> I think the concept of citing academia when it comes to things like racism is quite laughable. Not too long ago academia was rife with white supremacist notions - eugenics, etc.
This is a large part of the reason there is a push for different definitions of racism. The colloquial definition is one that has been shaped by a history of racism. This is to the benefit of white people as it allows us to call people racist right back when they do such uppity things as demanding equality. The push for different definitions isn't coming from (though it is supported by) white people.
> I think that not too long (hopefully) from now people will look back on this age of instituting segregated spaces for POC (at some campuses)
White people have their own safe spaces. They're called "everywhere". Sometimes dissenting opinion is useful. Most of the time dissenting opinion is people who lack background coming in and discussing things that have already been beaten to death as though they're an enlightened genius. So it's useful to ensure discussion is kept at a certain level. You wouldn't want a professor to have to waste time explaining 1+1=2 in a calculus course; black people don't want to always have to explain their racial experiences to sea lions. Or if the comic doesn't do it for you, here's a slightly higher level source.
> especially in regards to the lack of utility to amending the definition, and the inconsistency it brings
I don't entirely disagree that there's not a lot of utility in it, but so long as people are clear with their terminology I'm not going to complain.
> especially young, white, middle+ class women are advantaged in society
Well, being young, white, middle+ class puts you at an advantage over many people on its own. That's why modern feminism is all about intersectionalism. Compared to men in the same boat, though, women have two options: use their looks to get ahead in the job market, or fight against unconscious (or sometimes conscious) biases that still exist from people who are hiring. One option is direct oppression, the other option is timegated, leads to a limited set of careers (aka their choices are oppressed), and is fueled by the sexual desires of richer men (aka no equality under capitalism).
> disproportionate sentences, extreme bias in familial matters
Feminism tends to be in favour of prison reform. That is, lower sentences for all. And thanks to the many axises on which somebody can be oppressed, it is possible for both men and women to be oppressed simultaneously; feminism acknowledges this. That's where the phrase "toxic masculinity" comes from. Men still control the bulk of the money, and we're good / the particularly rich are really good at using it to oppress ourselves via law creation / enforcement, and via use of violence.
Bias in family court isn't seen as a positive. It's seen as nonsense that society still thinks women are caregivers. Being a caregiver isn't a lucrative position to be in.
> current enrollment rates in academia being way higher than men
Enrollment rates in engineering, computer science, and business are abysmal, though. Bottom line is that - whatever the reasons - men are still the people in society making money. Additionally, going back to the class thing again, men who can't hack it in university can make money in a variety of manly men professions that aren't easily available to women.
> I don't even think it touches affirmative action, or social double standards which benefit women.
Affirmative action doesn't benefit women. It counteracts unconscious bias against women (or more typically people of colour). Resume studies continue to show that that bias exists.
> You don't really know that however. It's not unthinkable, for example to have a minority business owner who discriminates on the basis of race. Do I think this is common? Nope, I actually don't. But it's not impossible.
It's totally possible. In fact probable. I'm sure there are black owned businesses in the hood that want to stay that way. Here's the thing though: that's an individual instance, I'm talking about a systemic issue. What, if as a white person, you don't get hired at this business? Well, you can go to all the other businesses that do not hire black people instead for a job.
> I think it's very steep when it comes to race, and it tends to be a lot more fluid when it comes to gender.
Agreed, gender roles are very complex. As a man I don't face the same discrimination that women do and I get a lot of benefits, but I'm also subject to some pretty stifling gender roles that I'm not a huge fan of. Also, if I were a black man it would likely be a very different story. So yes, gender is very dynamic.
> Patterns. Humans are GREAT at recognizing them, probably too good in this day and age in a lot of ways. We tend to think in patterns, and that's what stereotypes are. And it's a very real problem. I'm not defending this in any way, shape or form. But this isn't an issue in terms of conflict between groups...everybody can and does have these stereotypes...some of them at least, to different degrees. This is why they're a problem. But it's not an issue with Group A vs. Group B, it's more of an issue of everybody about Group A and everybody about Group B.
That's cool that you think this, because it's sophisticated (and it takes a lot of people who don't believe privilege exists a lot of mental gymnastics to get here, ie. the social determinist angle) because basically what you describe here is the framework by which social psychologists analyze privilege and systemic bias. You've described a system. You're right, we all have biases and stereotypes. Humans are very adept at recognizing and incorporating patterns as methods for more easily interpreting the world, and we're not very adept at seeing them. What happens when these heuristics are used to construct a system of racial privilege and discrimination?
Also, side point: when you say "I'm not defending this" it makes me realize how poorly the social justice world has gotten its message out and how apparently confusing that message is. Why should you have to defend it? It's not your fault? It's actually normal. That's why it's a central component of white privilege. Because while everyone has these mental heuristics they use to interact with people of different races, white people, by virtue of being the majority and owning most of the wealth in the country, have the ability to systemically influence practically all walks of life with that bias whereas people of color do not.
> (and it's important to note that in SO many cases, a positive stereotype is a negative stereotype in a different context)
> Breaking these stereotypes involves breaking the patterns...once you have enough counter-examples, and people are more aware that they're doing this (and note. This means ALL OF US are aware that we're doing it), then you start moving past it. As well, you create systematic answers to get around these biases, things like blind auditions and testing practices. These are the type of things I support.
Well this is a huge part of social justice, anti-racism, cultural criticism, and affirmative action. So that's rad.
> The issue with the term "privilege", is that I don't like the focus. I much prefer the term underprivilege. The problem is RARELY with people having too much, and it's usually, even virtually always with other people having not enough. I want to raise people up, not tear people down.
I see this argument a lot. Ironically, Lawrence Blum, the person who came up with, thought privilege isn't strong enough. He advocates more for using the term "white supremacy." I agree with him actually, although I wouldn't use that term here because of its interpretation outside the context of race theory.
Privilege (let's go with white here for simplicity's sake) is actually a really important word because it points out a couple things. For one: you have been systemically advantaged because of your skin color, and for another: you will not be able to see it anecdotally because you do not face systemic discrimination based on your skin color.
> What I object to is the notion that we can just pin all this on "White CIS Males" and be done with it. I think it's simply the wrong track to fix issues regarding patternization in our society.
Anyone who pins "all this" on any individual whatsoever hasn't thought about systems of discrimination very deeply. I'm definitely not saying this doesn't happen, as I've read TIA and it clearly does. The problem is these are complex issues and it's hard to fault young people who aren't totally able to think through all the info they've been given.
> Let me give an example. The Wage Gap. This is the worst thought about issue I've EVER seen, and I've been around in progressive politics, let me tell you. It's just a god-damned mess, with extremely little actually being done about the issue.
I agree that it's very simplified in common parlance (as everything is) and the 77% number is oversimplified and leaves out important contextual details. However, I dunno how you could argue that there's nothing being done about it. For example...
> Now I'm probably going to blow your mind. I'm to the left of 99.99% of people on this issue. I'm an advocate for equal pay for equal work. Period. I think people in the same position in the same company/workplace should be making exactly the same hourly wage, backed by force of law. Yes, that means no individual raises or bonuses, you sink or swim as a group. Quite frankly, I'm very mistrustful about the ability of the corporate world to measure individual productivity in this highly interconnected world. Which maximizes how the bias affects this.
Ok that's cool, but since that's likely not to happen anytime soon, are you in favor of gender or race-based affirmative action? Because it sounds like you care about issues of gender and race parity, so until there's a complete political sea change and equal pay laws become a potential reality (this is not likely to happen any time soon, and doesn't really have anything to do with social justice activists, good ones or shitty ones), that's what we have to work with.
> But what I object to is the whole Step 1: Make people aware that they're horrible assholes, Step 2: ???, Step 3: Equality! plan. I simply don't think it works, and I think it does more damage than it helps....especially in terms of teaching people that they're shit doesn't stink.
I don't totally disagree with you, but you'd also recognize that awareness is important. People with privilege tend to be either unaware, or angry about it. In fact there's actually been a couple psychosocial theories of the various steps people take when confronted with privilege. Anyway, ignorance isn't going to change anything. Anger and shame might not either, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. People confronted with privilege either will never understand it, or will get angry at first and then realize that it's not something they need to be angry or ashamed about. I'm in the latter camp myself. I spent probably most of my life (including my years in a good ole lefty university as a humanities major) thinking privilege was just some bullshit concocted by people to justify their complaining. It wasn't until years later that I realized I was wrong.
There's an interesting book about self-segregation titled "Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?" about the development of racial identity.
Initially this seemed to read like old news. There exists literature in psychology about identity development (Beverly Tatum's <em>Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?</em> covers childhood and developmental psychology very well) but I suppose adult, post-formed identity is new territory.
Tatum cites work done by William Cross on racial identity development that explains why some Blacks would be happier. When trying to assimilate into white normative culture, there is a form of self-repression. There can also be anger at a society that wants you to assimilate but will never accept you. The only thing that can make someone happy in this situation is to embrace the identity that society forces upon them and making it a positive thing.
r/psychology's out-of-hand dismissal was rather surprising, but then again, I don't know how many of the commenters are academic or practicing psychologists, or just pop-(or worse, evo-)psych enthusiasts. The op did have some interesting comments regarding hir multiracial children.
Thank you for your comment. It is very illuminating and I think there are some similarities and lessons we can take from each other.
I mean, youre taking "whataboutism" to its logical extreme. Though since im pretty chill rn, Ill try to briefly address each one and not be rude about it so you might actually read all the shit Im putting the effort into typing.
>white-free spaces
You can just not invite the black friend and suddenly your squad is a minority-free space. A really interesting book about the topic. People just function with less anxiety when surrounded by people like them, whites included.
>pro-white groups
They arent nazis by literal definition, but real white nationalists enjoy being part of these groups to advocate against progressive change, which is a huge problem because nonwhites in general have huge disadvantages in life due to their nationality/skin color/economic upbringing.
>wypipo
POC are called way worse than that. As a white dude myself, i think youve gotta be pretty fragile to be offended by it considering the white color of your skin has very likely not had any meaningful negative impact on your placement in society.
>minority-only loans
Black people make up most of the lowest-income areas in America. There are almost no economic opportunities for most families living in poverty. Giving them a way out of there is a good thing. And if youre white and poor you still can apply for similar welfare-based economic solutions. In fact, black people are rejected more frequently from them on a per capita basis.
>affirmative action in university acceptance
Pretty much the same as above in terms of economics. Though universities thrive off the money you pay out of pocket to go to them, youre likely not going to be rejected because youre white. The admissions process doesnt really boil down to that point unless maybe theyre a small school with an already, largely-white campus.
>"its okay to be white"
Nobody except niche minority hyper-progeessives said otherwise. The statement itself implies that white people are the victim of racial discrimination. If you believe that (as my reply above yours states) its operating entirely outside of reality.
>white genocide tweets/black separatists
Im not sure what youre talking about here.
>white people dont season their food
LOL. Man, take a joke. We make black/mexican/jew jokes all the time. It isnt any different.
>why can people be racist towards whites societally
When people talk about "whites" they dont mean specifically YOU. They talk about the actual oppressors who see to the benefit of white people often at the expense of others. Often the poor, and by extension of that, minorities. Those people are almost always white guys. The legislature we pass, laws we enforce, and the electorate that vote to further the power of the ruling class (almost entirely white) are almost all white people themselves. If you get called a "whitey" or a mayo or something for having certain beliefs it likely comes from having a certain blind spot in your interactions with minorities.
I put a lot of effort into this, so please at least read it. Im not tryna pull a "gotcha" or anything, I just have the spare time to vent with the topics you put forward.
Yes, some racists have used the word "white" in conjunction with the word "pride". This does not mean they own the phrase, nor does it mean a white person can't be proud of their heritage. No one is arguing that they haven't uttered those words
Saying "white pride" is not solely indicative of racism. Context is more important than you realize, bud. Have racists said it? Sure.
Some racists also go to Wendy's - this does not mean that they own Wendy's, nor does it mean that everyone who likes Wendy's is also a racist simply because a marginalized group decided to utilize it
I suggest you use one of the books sourced in the link you just sent - https://www.amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617
>I don't see how that matters
If you don't understand why this matters, I would suggest you read up on race relations and the cause and effect of modern day segregation. A good starting point on this is this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617
I call BS on all of it. In her book here, she basically argues that most if not all white are racist and minorities aren't/can't be. She basically attempted to change the definition of racism.
I'm shocked that this book has such a high rating and sad.
This might help you figure out what racism is. The original assumption that was made is that someone who is not white and who has tattoos and a flat-brimmed cap is only out to cause trouble, will hit someone without provocation, and will not fess up to it all because he's "ghetto."
Chris Rock's bit isn't meant to advocate or reinforce racism towards people of color and, in fact, he disowned the entire joke because people interpreted it as some kind of license to affirm their own prejudices:
> In a 60 Minutes interview, Rock said, "By the way, I've never done that joke again, ever, and I probably never will. 'Cos some people that were racist thought they had license to say nigger. So, I'm done with that routine."
Tatum argues that racism is learned, not hardwired.
Popular alternatives to Why Are All the Black Kids ...
