Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Tap Giveaway Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Luxury Beauty Mother's Day Gifts Shop now Amazon Gift Card Offer TL256 TL256 TL256  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now Learn more
Customer Review

147 of 170 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Examine where you stand, even if you disagree, January 3, 2005
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race (Paperback)
As you review all the "reviews" thus far written, you get a sense that Dr. Tatum's book has gotten people thinking and taking stands. I appreciate the straightforwardness with which Tatum introduces her subject -- racism. Sure, we can disagree with her definitions and use of rhetorics. But she made the definition clear and prominent enough so that we can disagree. It is hard to measure oneself by a wishy-washy yard-stick. Tatum provided a solid yard stick by which you may examine your own stance, assumptions, and conclusions. In reading the reviews, especially the critical ones, it struck me that even those who strongly diagreed with Tatum understood her basic premises and her arguments. It is upon that understanding that we can disagree. I applaud the author for clearly laying out her arguments on a controversial issue.

The main strength of the book, to me, is in fact the redefinition of racism. You don't have to agree with it, but you do now need to examine whether a "system of advantage" exists and if it does, whether it should be included in the definition of racism. I am neither white nor black, so I cannot speak of black/white issues in first-person. But I come from a family with four generations of academics. The system of school, academia, and education benefits me greatly, and I suit the system particularly through my upbringing. By analogy, I am open to the idea that past explicit systems of racial inequality do not lose its effect in a mere generation or two, especially for the black race. (Sorry to be imprudent, but Comedian Louis C.K. had this great line about, "White people want to add 100 years to every year it has been since slavery.") On the flip side, I came from a country and culture with western colonization in recent history (<200 years), foreign invasion and practical enslavement (<100 years), but not being a "minority" in my own country, people re-bound. Through my reading, I am questioning and examining my own assumptions as well as that of the author's. To that extent, I think the book is doing its most important job -- make you think.

The weakest point of the book is also in relation to the definition. The author included both internal belief and external system of advantage into her definition of racism, but only spent significant time exploring the system, but not belief. The author talks much about how the environment shapes the individual, but not how the beliefs of an individual (particularly, a black person) can alter the environment and his/her own fate. It places the black individual in a powerless position, except through the path of activism in racial issues (versus other achievements). The book largely ignores the reverse stereotypes that many whites feel from the blacks. The book simply does not name it, or implies that it doesn't count as "racism" because there is no "systematic advantage". Whatever the name, minority stereotype of the majority exists, and it should/can be addressed. I am a racial minority, and I hold such stereotypes.

The integration of identity theory with the racial issue is a valiant attempt. Sure it's not perfect, but it is a working hypothesis and I applaud the author's ability to present it in a way that is understandable and arguable.

The weakness of the identity theory presented is the overemphasis that we develop positive self identity only (or at least, first) by "sitting together" with our own kind. By that suggestion, must whites first sit whites during teen years, and rich with rich, poor with poor, woman with woman, man with man, athletes with athletes, nerds with nerds? Sure, that IS a big part of identity forming. The cost of "sitting with your own kind" is that your development gets stuck in a rut. You have few exposures to fresh ideas, ideas that would conflict with each of our narrow and individual views (and thus stimulate you to oppose, assimulate, or digest). Cognitive theories of child development places much emphasis on "cognitive conflict" in conceptual development. Though the author do advocate cross-racial dialogue, it struck me that the author overtly favors within-racial identity development, particularly for the black youth. Perhaps the argument is that blacks are "conflicted" enough by a white society, so they need not seek more. Are the black youth in America so oppressed so as not to be able to reap much benefit from other groups in identity formation? I don't know. I do question the argument "same kind first, and then cross lines" ... My gut feeling is that both should proceed more or less simultaneously.

Each of us, as readers, have our own ongoing identity development in relation to the question of race. The author, through this book, is beginning a cross-racial talk. Her clarity and honesty in the positions she had taken confront our minds, as if a "different" person is suddenly sitting at our lunch table". To that extent, I greatly appreciate the book, even while disagreeing with some ideas, agreeing with some ideas, and still digesting others.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 4 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 15 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 10, 2010 8:54:42 AM PST
T. Hoberg says:
"The book largely ignores the reverse stereotypes that many whites feel from the blacks. The book simply does not name it, or implies that it doesn't count as "racism". Whatever the name, minority stereotype of the majority exists, and it should/can be addressed. I am a racial minority, and I hold such stereotypes."

What you're describing here is what I would call racial prejudice, which I regard as different from racism. It's been a while since I've read "Why Are All the Black Kids...", but doesn't she explicitly define prejudice that way and differentiate it from racism?

Posted on Apr 18, 2011 1:15:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 18, 2011 1:15:33 PM PDT
T. Hoberg (above) says exactly what I was going to say.

If you define racism as a system that perpetuates dominance of one racial group over another (with disparities in education, wealth, housing, sentencing, health etc as proof in the pudding) then, although reverse stereotyping is indeed race prejudice (at the interpersonal level), it does not rise to the level of structural racism (by definition).

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 6, 2011 10:43:45 PM PDT
Rob says:
Pretending that racism is actually (and not just a part of) structural racism is simply a cop out. It is not the same thing. When people define it as such it looks like an attempt to convince himself (and others) that it isn't hypocritical to rage against racism unless it is directed at people who happen to have lighter skin.

Racism = prejudice against a person or group of people based on their race. That definitely includes the despicable (and i'd bet small in number) white people who still hate all African Americans, or Asians, or Indians, etc. But it also includes black/hispanic people that hate white people... because they're white.

We will never really be post racial (even with a black president) until we can literally judge people on who they are, not what their skin looks like. That includes making permanent victims out of one group, and labeling another permanent racists.

Just my opinion anyway.

Posted on Dec 12, 2011 9:05:27 AM PST
Chilly Down says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2011 8:26:08 PM PST
Our society prepares us to talk about interpersonal racism but the muscles that equip us to look at structural inequities are atrophied.

http://tinyurl.com/76ove7n

Posted on Jan 2, 2012 8:10:19 PM PST
ilovecats says:
i disagree with some points of your review but i respect it for being objective even when some of her points made you uncomfortable.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 9:44:38 AM PST
wil w says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 6:14:24 PM PST
Trollwilw - Hah Hah! You assumed I was Jewish (Greenbaum) and was a knee jerk rigid Zionist. That's so perfect.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 6:17:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 6:19:05 PM PST
Anartican -
Interestingly enough, there is a decent amount of brain science on precisely this question. Humans definitely have "us/them" hard wired and hierarchy has been around as long as farming. But what is interesting is that race prejudice and hierarchy just isn't hard wired into our systems. Which doesn't mean we won't continue to be prejudiced. It just means that what we choose to be prejudice about is arbitrary.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2014 5:11:33 AM PST
yakapo says:
I agree with your statement regarding minorities being just as guilty of stereotypes. I'm a minority married to a Caucasian. Unfortunately, my own family members have exhibited racial prejudice against her.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›