What do you think?
Rate this book
Inzicht in alledaags racisme
Verslag van een studie naar het alledaags racisme zoals dat in het dagelijkse leven wordt ervaren, gebaseerd op interviews met zwarte vrouwen in Californië en Nederland. Essed, universitair docent aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, geeft een systematische analyse van racisme in Nederland en de V.S. Aan de hand van een theoretisch concept Alledaags Racisme interpreteert ze de ervaringen van de geïnterviewden. Ze hanteert het uitgangspunt dat racisme een structureel bestanddeel is van het sociale systeem in westers georiënteerde samenlevingen en dat het niet kan worden bestreden zonder een herbezinning op de waarden van de dominante, witte groep.
Deze studie gaat in op vragen als: hoe wordt racisme in alledaagse situaties ervaren? Hoe herkennen zwarte mensen bedekte vormen van racisme? Wat voor kennis hebben zij over racisme? Hoe kan deze kennis worden gebruikt bij het bestuderen van racisme? Het boek is geschreven voor iedereen die belangstelling heeft voor etnische verhoudingen.
Deze studie gaat in op vragen als: hoe wordt racisme in alledaagse situaties ervaren? Hoe herkennen zwarte mensen bedekte vormen van racisme? Wat voor kennis hebben zij over racisme? Hoe kan deze kennis worden gebruikt bij het bestuderen van racisme? Het boek is geschreven voor iedereen die belangstelling heeft voor etnische verhoudingen.
376 pages, Paperback
First published July 25, 1991
2 people are currently reading
392 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 1, 2019
I just got back into the office after writing this review in a coffee shop to walk into a conversation on exactly the topics covered in this book. I feel like I've moved to serendipity.
At nearly the start of this I had one of those sinking feelings. The author began talking about a woman going for a job interview - then started another similar story. I know, I'm far too anally retentive or something, but I couldn't help thinking, job interviews aren't really 'everyday'. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely see that they are highly consequential, I also get that they are important sites of racial prejudice - it is just that this isn't what it said on the box that this book was going to be about. I wanted to see 'everyday', not 'highly significant and consequential'. Not because I think 'highly significant and consequential' doesn't matter - but rather because I think everyday matters more in the sense that it makes 'highly significant and consequential' more likely.
But this book quickly started to live up to its promise - well, and beyond that promise in many ways. This is not a comfortable book to read - the older I get the harder I find it to look into mirrors. But this is an important mirror to gaze into, an important book to read.
I was talking to a friend at work yesterday about art - about how art is taught at school and how it is seen as sort of like 'sport' - you know, a bit of a break from the 'real' subjects. There are so many things I can see in art, but don't really have the language that would allow me to talk about it. That is what this book is particularly useful for - providing the language that helps to clarify things that make you grimace, but also that make you stumble when you need to explain why.
The book reports on research on black middle class and highly educated women and their experiences of racism in both the Netherlands and the US. What is really interesting is the differences between these two nations and the experiences of racism you might find in them. America is a racist country, at least in the sense that people are likely to judge you on the basis of your race and feel justified in doing so in America in ways they are less likely to in a European nation. That sounds much worse than I mean it to. And it sounds like I'm putting the US down and praising Europe - that is certainly not my intention. The point is that the US has a long history of defining people on the basis of their race and so of applying racial stereotypes which is seen as unproblematic, a kind of, 'Well, she's black, what can you expect?' attitude. Europe - or the Netherlands, at least - is here described as much less comfortable with direct racial discrimination of this kind. In fact, the Dutch are very likely to get very upset if they are accused of racism. They do not see themselves as discriminating against black people on the basis of their skin colour, or what that skin colour is supposed to imply (lower IQ, dysfunctional social relations, sexual potency and availability, lack of civilisation, blah, blah, blah). Rather, they are more than happy to accept anyone as 'equal' - it is just that everyone has to completely adopt Dutch ways of behaviour. Why? Well, obviously these are innately superior in all ways to other cultures and so any difference between 'your' culture and Dutch culture is to be overcome. In the US blacks are discriminated against racially, in The Netherlands they are discriminated against culturally. Clearly, these are not simple distinctions and clearly too it is more than easy to find counter examples from both cultures - however, I still do think this is an interesting perspective and one that shows something profound about how the game can be played in different ways and yet still end with the same result. That is, ending with the effect of white privilege that is not seen as anything other than 'common sense' by those who benefit from it, and often also seen as common sense by those who are disadvantaged by it.
So, lots of this book is about black women being confronted by racism, but then being unable to name it for what it is because, well, the Dutch aren't racist. There is a squirmingly awful encounter where - irony of ironies - a group of white and a black woman are at a bar to discuss racism when a waiter comes and asks all the white people if they would like something to drink, but completely ignores the black woman. The waiter leaves - they discuss the incident - all agree it was racist - but no one then calls the waiter on it when he returns - it is left to the black woman to deal with the situation. This is particularly interesting as it highlights the question of responsibility for racism. You know, the people who belong to the highly esteemed majority group in this situation are the people with the most power - leaving it to the person in the weakest position (female AND black AND who has just been racially assaulted) to clear away this mess is actually a racist act in itself.
There is also an interesting discussion on how verbal racist abuse is systematically undervalued for the impact this has on those it is directed against. This is something that someone also said in a lecture I attended recently that has really stuck with me. There is this thing that Australians do that is really odd. It is the idea that 'sorry' absolves you of all responsibility and that if you say sorry and the other person is still upset it suddenly becomes THEIR problem, and no longer yours. The conversation goes a bit like this. "I can understand you might be a bit upset that I killed your family and set fire to your pet dog, but look, I'm sorry." "You...you bastard!" "Hey, get over it, I said sorry, didn't I!"
The point being that with racism you don't have to say sorry, you just have to say, "Look, that's not what I meant, YOU'VE taken it wrong." This is a bit like men saying to their partners - 'I was only joking'. Intention is supposed to trump upset. And so the next line, after saying 'I didn't mean it' and when that doesn't prove to be enough to make the hurt and pain go away is to then blame the victim for THEM making YOU feel like a racist.
I found this idea repeated throughout the book, with the victims of racist situations having to walk on eggshells so as not to name something as racist for fear of hurting the feelings of those who created the racist situation. But if you are never allowed to name something as racist, then how do you address discriminatory practices?
I've used the word 'situation' because racism is a complex thing. One of the complexities is that it is really easy to define it as an individual matter. And this is because it is generally realised in an interaction between individuals - and so, it seems fairly obvious that to 'fix' it, you just need to fix individual's and their behaviour. The problem is that what is clearly discussed in this book is that although there are differences between the US and The Netherlands, none of the racist encounters found in one country were unheard of in the other. You might get more of one kind of racism, and less of another, but no one says, "Wow, really - they do THAT in Holland! Jesus!" The problem isn't just individuals, but a society's way of understanding itself and how that understanding might disadvantage some people while advantaging others on grounds that are essentially arbitrary. Such socially sanctioned prejudices are much harder to overcome, because they are taken by society at large as common sense. We just don't behave like that here ... And this cultural assumption places the person with the dysfunctional culture in the position of always being about to be blamed - particularly since any mistake they make will be defined as them being from a dysfunctional culture, while any racist mistake someone from the dominant culture makes will be an 'individual mistake'.
And here is the problem with 'tolerance' - a word that sounds so nice, while being anything but. What is interesting about 'tolerance' is pointed out in a lovely example here of a woman complaining about racism and those around her 'tolerating' her right to go "on and on about this shit - I mean, why is it always her that talks about 'racism'? She's obviously hyper-sensitive." Tolerance is often an excuse for not listening.
This also comes with the twin problem - that because I am not 'racist' (god forbid, the very suggestion...) when I act in a way that is clearly discriminatory - not doing for a black person what I would automatically do for a white person, for instance - the only way for me to avoid cognitive dissonance is if the reason for my actions (or inactions) is to blame those actions on the actions of the black person. 'Did you bring your resume? Well, I can't employ you without a resume' is an example of this used here, but basically, it is all about finding ways to blame the other person for your behaviour.
Except, I kept thinking about how hard this would be for the person on the receiving end, and how easily it would be to be perceived as 'whining' if you point it out - you know, the problem is that nine times out of ten you might really even believe you had stuffed up in some way. How would you not? The person discriminating against you is trying to cover their cognitive dissonance and might not even 'know' they are discriminating against you, so they are hardly going to be 'blatant' in their discrimination - in fact, they are likely to be quite the opposite and really believe what they are saying. They are likely to be subconsciously trying to shift the blame for their behaviour to you - but this can only work if they make this blame shifting as believable as possible - to themselves as well as you. No one would be human if they didn't 'fall' for this trick most of the time it is played. "Why is it always RACISM when YOU stuff up?"
This is a powerful and painful book to read, but no less important for that.
At nearly the start of this I had one of those sinking feelings. The author began talking about a woman going for a job interview - then started another similar story. I know, I'm far too anally retentive or something, but I couldn't help thinking, job interviews aren't really 'everyday'. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely see that they are highly consequential, I also get that they are important sites of racial prejudice - it is just that this isn't what it said on the box that this book was going to be about. I wanted to see 'everyday', not 'highly significant and consequential'. Not because I think 'highly significant and consequential' doesn't matter - but rather because I think everyday matters more in the sense that it makes 'highly significant and consequential' more likely.
But this book quickly started to live up to its promise - well, and beyond that promise in many ways. This is not a comfortable book to read - the older I get the harder I find it to look into mirrors. But this is an important mirror to gaze into, an important book to read.
I was talking to a friend at work yesterday about art - about how art is taught at school and how it is seen as sort of like 'sport' - you know, a bit of a break from the 'real' subjects. There are so many things I can see in art, but don't really have the language that would allow me to talk about it. That is what this book is particularly useful for - providing the language that helps to clarify things that make you grimace, but also that make you stumble when you need to explain why.
The book reports on research on black middle class and highly educated women and their experiences of racism in both the Netherlands and the US. What is really interesting is the differences between these two nations and the experiences of racism you might find in them. America is a racist country, at least in the sense that people are likely to judge you on the basis of your race and feel justified in doing so in America in ways they are less likely to in a European nation. That sounds much worse than I mean it to. And it sounds like I'm putting the US down and praising Europe - that is certainly not my intention. The point is that the US has a long history of defining people on the basis of their race and so of applying racial stereotypes which is seen as unproblematic, a kind of, 'Well, she's black, what can you expect?' attitude. Europe - or the Netherlands, at least - is here described as much less comfortable with direct racial discrimination of this kind. In fact, the Dutch are very likely to get very upset if they are accused of racism. They do not see themselves as discriminating against black people on the basis of their skin colour, or what that skin colour is supposed to imply (lower IQ, dysfunctional social relations, sexual potency and availability, lack of civilisation, blah, blah, blah). Rather, they are more than happy to accept anyone as 'equal' - it is just that everyone has to completely adopt Dutch ways of behaviour. Why? Well, obviously these are innately superior in all ways to other cultures and so any difference between 'your' culture and Dutch culture is to be overcome. In the US blacks are discriminated against racially, in The Netherlands they are discriminated against culturally. Clearly, these are not simple distinctions and clearly too it is more than easy to find counter examples from both cultures - however, I still do think this is an interesting perspective and one that shows something profound about how the game can be played in different ways and yet still end with the same result. That is, ending with the effect of white privilege that is not seen as anything other than 'common sense' by those who benefit from it, and often also seen as common sense by those who are disadvantaged by it.
So, lots of this book is about black women being confronted by racism, but then being unable to name it for what it is because, well, the Dutch aren't racist. There is a squirmingly awful encounter where - irony of ironies - a group of white and a black woman are at a bar to discuss racism when a waiter comes and asks all the white people if they would like something to drink, but completely ignores the black woman. The waiter leaves - they discuss the incident - all agree it was racist - but no one then calls the waiter on it when he returns - it is left to the black woman to deal with the situation. This is particularly interesting as it highlights the question of responsibility for racism. You know, the people who belong to the highly esteemed majority group in this situation are the people with the most power - leaving it to the person in the weakest position (female AND black AND who has just been racially assaulted) to clear away this mess is actually a racist act in itself.
There is also an interesting discussion on how verbal racist abuse is systematically undervalued for the impact this has on those it is directed against. This is something that someone also said in a lecture I attended recently that has really stuck with me. There is this thing that Australians do that is really odd. It is the idea that 'sorry' absolves you of all responsibility and that if you say sorry and the other person is still upset it suddenly becomes THEIR problem, and no longer yours. The conversation goes a bit like this. "I can understand you might be a bit upset that I killed your family and set fire to your pet dog, but look, I'm sorry." "You...you bastard!" "Hey, get over it, I said sorry, didn't I!"
The point being that with racism you don't have to say sorry, you just have to say, "Look, that's not what I meant, YOU'VE taken it wrong." This is a bit like men saying to their partners - 'I was only joking'. Intention is supposed to trump upset. And so the next line, after saying 'I didn't mean it' and when that doesn't prove to be enough to make the hurt and pain go away is to then blame the victim for THEM making YOU feel like a racist.
I found this idea repeated throughout the book, with the victims of racist situations having to walk on eggshells so as not to name something as racist for fear of hurting the feelings of those who created the racist situation. But if you are never allowed to name something as racist, then how do you address discriminatory practices?
I've used the word 'situation' because racism is a complex thing. One of the complexities is that it is really easy to define it as an individual matter. And this is because it is generally realised in an interaction between individuals - and so, it seems fairly obvious that to 'fix' it, you just need to fix individual's and their behaviour. The problem is that what is clearly discussed in this book is that although there are differences between the US and The Netherlands, none of the racist encounters found in one country were unheard of in the other. You might get more of one kind of racism, and less of another, but no one says, "Wow, really - they do THAT in Holland! Jesus!" The problem isn't just individuals, but a society's way of understanding itself and how that understanding might disadvantage some people while advantaging others on grounds that are essentially arbitrary. Such socially sanctioned prejudices are much harder to overcome, because they are taken by society at large as common sense. We just don't behave like that here ... And this cultural assumption places the person with the dysfunctional culture in the position of always being about to be blamed - particularly since any mistake they make will be defined as them being from a dysfunctional culture, while any racist mistake someone from the dominant culture makes will be an 'individual mistake'.
And here is the problem with 'tolerance' - a word that sounds so nice, while being anything but. What is interesting about 'tolerance' is pointed out in a lovely example here of a woman complaining about racism and those around her 'tolerating' her right to go "on and on about this shit - I mean, why is it always her that talks about 'racism'? She's obviously hyper-sensitive." Tolerance is often an excuse for not listening.
This also comes with the twin problem - that because I am not 'racist' (god forbid, the very suggestion...) when I act in a way that is clearly discriminatory - not doing for a black person what I would automatically do for a white person, for instance - the only way for me to avoid cognitive dissonance is if the reason for my actions (or inactions) is to blame those actions on the actions of the black person. 'Did you bring your resume? Well, I can't employ you without a resume' is an example of this used here, but basically, it is all about finding ways to blame the other person for your behaviour.
Except, I kept thinking about how hard this would be for the person on the receiving end, and how easily it would be to be perceived as 'whining' if you point it out - you know, the problem is that nine times out of ten you might really even believe you had stuffed up in some way. How would you not? The person discriminating against you is trying to cover their cognitive dissonance and might not even 'know' they are discriminating against you, so they are hardly going to be 'blatant' in their discrimination - in fact, they are likely to be quite the opposite and really believe what they are saying. They are likely to be subconsciously trying to shift the blame for their behaviour to you - but this can only work if they make this blame shifting as believable as possible - to themselves as well as you. No one would be human if they didn't 'fall' for this trick most of the time it is played. "Why is it always RACISM when YOU stuff up?"
This is a powerful and painful book to read, but no less important for that.
Want to read
August 11, 2025Migration
November 13, 2024
Dank je wellll. Voici la preuve du racisme quotidien et de ses effets sur la santé. So we see labour and housing market discrimination
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews