Blackface traditions controversy

[Monique]

I am wondering what people's opinion is about traditions that include blackface. There is a large discussion going on in the Netherlands whether Black Pete should change. Actually, it is not a discussion. The situation is that the majority of the country is furious that there is a group of people who say that Black Pete is a racial caricature and that the tradition needs to change.

Who is Black Pete? It is the helper of Saint Nicholas. There are hundreds of Black Petes and their role is to be playful, athletic, acrobatic, clumsy, not too bright, a child's friend. They hand out candy and they are the ones delivering presents through the chimney. Below is the character, black face, red lips, a wig with black curly hair. Used to wear creole earrings and speak with a foreign accent.

The majority of the country says it is not a racial caricature, the character looks like this because of going through the chimney. Uhhuh.

It's upsetting how close-minded people are, with many of my friends not wanting to see that there is something wrong with the image. In fact, 22 have signed a petition that the tradition cannot change. Only 3 have signed the counter petition that asserts the figure is a racial caricature (one of whom is not Dutch).

It's cognitive dissonance, they love the character and have an inability to see anything wrong with it. How have the US handled blackface traditions? I think there is no law against it, but it is frowned upon? How did it disappear from society?

Are people right when saying "it's our tradition and we mean no harm by it, you're overreacting"? The discussion is polarizing, with 90 arrests made during the parade. I don't see people coming closer, but rather becoming more extreme in their views and standing more strongly to their opinion. What is needed for change? Does there need to be change?

"Black Pete is welcome here"

 

[Doug Huffman]

We cannot fix what we cannot speak, and hypersensitive political correctness stifles discussion.

I lived in the American South as an adult for thirty years and found a better balance of race relations there than in the progressive North. I was reared in a California multi-cultural community and learned to appreciate the interfaces, the churches, restaurants, neighbors, buisnesses, et cetera. There were no Africans in that community.

 

[russ_watters]

It's upsetting how close-minded people are, with many of my friends not wanting to see that there is something wrong with the image. In fact, 22 have signed a petition that the tradition cannot change. Only 3 have signed the counter petition that asserts the figure is a racial caricature (one of whom is not Dutch).

It's cognitive dissonance, they love the character and have an inability to see anything wrong with it.

I have some opinions on the issue, but first could you explain what, exactly, you see that is wrong with it?

 

[Bystander]

(snip) ... not too bright ... (snip)
View attachment 75524
"Black Pete is welcome here"

If what I've highlighted is a commonly attributed characteristic within the tradition (equivalent to hillbilly dental health in the U.S., for instance), I can see the offense some might take even were the character(s) it(them)selves derived from Xmas traditions that preceded the slave trade. If the tradition is older than the slave trade, and some people embrace it in all innocence of any attempt to offend, it's an unfortunate situation. Same conflicts arise regarding lawyer, dumb blonde, Texas Aggie, and other "ethnic" jokes --- what is humor, and what is "insensitive?"

 

[Tobias Funke]

It's pretty clearly a racist caricature. But please, cite scientific sources supporting this and explain in detail why it's bad so I can tell you that it isn't because someone somewhere else has real problems.

 

[Monique]

It's pretty clearly a racist caricature. But please, cite scientific sources supporting this and explain in detail why it's bad so I can tell you that it isn't because someone somewhere else has real problems.

I'll respond later (to others as well), but can you point me to a place where I can get the scientific resources to investigate this subject?

 

[Tobias Funke]

I'll respond later (to others as well), but can you point me to a place where I can get the scientific resources to investigate this subject?

I was mostly being sarcastic, making fun of the type of dismissive responses you often see in reply to pointing out things like this; when they point you to a dictionary definition of racism, you know you're dealing with a superior mind and should immediately retreat! Not anyone specific here necessarily, although I was confused that you were asked why you think Black Pete is wrong when you already explained that it's an offensive racial caricature (wikipedia says created around 1850...quite a suspicious time, even if this isn't American in origin). Isn't that enough?

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of sources about the origin and history of blackface. In don't really know any, although Michelle Alexander briefly mentions it in The New Jim Crow, but it's not her main topic. Maybe wikipedia cites some decent sources?

 

[russ_watters]

...I was confused that you were asked why you think Black Pete is wrong when you already explained that it's an offensive racial caricature (wikipedia says created around 1850...quite a suspicious time, even if this isn't American in origin). Isn't that enough?

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of sources about the origin and history of blackface. In don't really know any, although Michelle Alexander briefly mentions it in The New Jim Crow, but it's not her main topic. Maybe wikipedia cites some decent sources?

That is exactly why I asked my question: you are assuming an origin. I'd like to know it. I agree that if it is significantly related to the American blackface history that would make it racist, but I'm not so sure that it is.

Also, your tone is insulting, not to mention hypocritical. You used dismissiveness to pre-empt dismissive arguments that haven't occurred!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It is the helper of Saint Nicholas. There are hundreds of Black Petes and their role is to be playful, athletic, acrobatic, clumsy, not too bright, a child's friend.

This tradition was born in slavery times right? I think it is insensitive for these modern times. Sends the typical message to black kids that all they can be is a buffoon to a white boss. I always try to get perspective and flip the scenario. I think to myself, if I'm in an area where I am the minority and I see a tradition where a boss is black and helping him is a dumb white clown, yeah, I may have a problem with that. It won't be laughing and feeling good.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Some trace Zwarte Piet to Huginn and Muginn, the ravens that rode with Wotan on the Wild Hunt, that also inspired Harlequin/Hellequin, all vastly predating the classical African-Caribbean slavery story (slavery is integral with humanity).

I live in a largest Icelandic community in the US, which Scandinavian traditions are quite evident, particularly at the turning of the year.

 

[Monique]

We cannot fix what we cannot speak, and hypersensitive political correctness stifles discussion.

I don't know this expression, are you saying the discussion should be open in order to fix it? The prime minister actually stated that we should all enjoy the holiday and not spoil it by protesting against it, that's essentially closing the discussion.

I have some opinions on the issue, but first could you explain what, exactly, you see that is wrong with it? [..] That is exactly why I asked my question: you are assuming an origin. I'd like to know it. I agree that if it is significantly related to the American blackface history that would make it racist, but I'm not so sure that it is.

I wonder whether the origin is important? An argument that is often used is "it is not meant to be offensive". Most often bullies don't realize they are doing harm and think they are being playful. I'd rather consider whether something is acceptable by current standards. I can give many examples that were normal practices historically, but which are frowned upon today.

To answer your question: the celebration dates from the Middle Ages, where the Saint would secretly come to bring presents. During the reformation the Christian celebration was oppressed by the Protestants and had to be celebrated indoors. The Saint became a person one should be afraid of. In the late 18th century the image of the Saint started to change back to a more friendly figure that was there to educate children. In 1850 the first image of the servant Black Pete appeared:

There are old songs that refer to the character as chained, the character is described to be black as coal (note: black as, not black from). This is an old song:

Pete Servant is coming
Pete Servant the Negro
observe: what a Moor
"looks like a chimney sweeper
can I wash you, Pete Servant
it doesn't help, guys, the black is real

Then the song continues that Pete takes care of St Nicholas, etc.

The figure evolved into a scary one that would punish children with birch and transport them by boat to Spain, in recent years the characters became more friendly. In my youth the character spoke with a Surinam accent and didn't fully master the Dutch language.

What I see wrong with it? As an adolescent I didn't see anything wrong with it, my explanation was that the Dutch are a tolerant nation and that's why it wasn't a problem to dress up as another race and act dumb. As a young adult I started to realize how ridiculous it looks, adults having to transform themselves to another race in order to act dumb. I had trouble understanding that people couldn't see anything wrong with that. The character is supposed to be black from the chimney, so my opinion is to transform the appearance to match that assertion.

If what I've highlighted is a commonly attributed characteristic within the tradition [..], I can see the offense some might take even were the character(s) it(them)selves derived from Xmas traditions that preceded the slave trade. If the tradition is older than the slave trade, and some people embrace it in all innocence of any attempt to offend, it's an unfortunate situation. Same conflicts arise regarding lawyer, dumb blonde, Texas Aggie, and other "ethnic" jokes --- what is humor, and what is "insensitive?"

Very clearly the figure is dumb, during this years parade Black Pete drilled a hole in the boat outer wall to hang a painting. This of course created a leak. In blind panic they all jumped into the water, leaving the old and wise St Nicholas and a single bright Pete on the boat. Ironically this story line was created to allow for the creation of an army of newly trained Petes, of which a minority were of different color (they haven't passed through the chimney enough times). Even the "wise" Black Pete that trained the White Petes was quite dumb, I'll spare the details.

I was mostly being sarcastic, making fun of the type of dismissive responses you often see in reply to pointing out things like this; when they point you to a dictionary definition of racism, you know you're dealing with a superior mind and should immediately retreat! Not anyone specific here necessarily, although I was confused that you were asked why you think Black Pete is wrong when you already explained that it's an offensive racial caricature (wikipedia says created around 1850...quite a suspicious time, even if this isn't American in origin). Isn't that enough?

Haha, ouch. Yes so that's what the discussion is to me, the character is so obviously dubious in nature. The least that people can do is acknowledge that fact and think about what can be done to remove that questionable nature. The solution is easy, but "traditions cannot be changed".

This tradition was born in slavery times right? I think it is insensitive for these modern times. Sends the typical message to black kids that all they can be is a buffoon to a white boss. I always try to get perspective and flip the scenario. I think to myself, if I'm in an area where I am the minority and I see a tradition where a boss is black and helping him is a dumb white clown, yeah, I may have a problem with that. It won't be laughing and feeling good.

Yes, the tradition was born at the end of slavery and the character was referred to as a servant. What is most shocking is how fiercely the Dutch society is reacting to this issue. As said 85–90% are against any change, this issue is bringing to light an immense intolerance and a shocking amount of racist remarks.

Insert a lot of strong language and swear words in the following remarks, to get a sense of what is being said:
"If you don't like the tradition, go to your own country" (the most common remark)
"Go back to the banana field"
"Slaves, behead that population"
"Unemployed apes living off our money"
"If you don't agree, then the Netherlands is not for you"

That makes my blood boil, it is assumed that only people with African heritage can be against the tradition, it is assumed that everyone with an African heritage is non-Dutch, people with African decent are assumed to be unemployed leeches of society and are equated with apes.

To illustrate the blatant public display of racism, here another example. Some players of the National soccer team made a selfie and posted it on Facebook. The reactions:
"Club of St Nicholas?"
"All Black Petes"
" "Dutch" team"
"Where is the man with the Miter?"
"Football Club Monkey"
"Don't you have to be at the parade?"
"Helper Petes?"
"Almost 5th December and they emerge everywhere"
"Nine Black Petes"
"Broken loose from the chains and then you get this"
"Don't they have to be at the parade"
"Are those Soccer Petes?"
"Banana shake"

So, should we follow the Prime Minister: enjoy the holiday and don't complain? Or should the Prime Minister speak out that such remarks are not tolerated.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So, should we follow the Prime Minister: enjoy the holiday and don't complain? Or should the Prime Minister speak out that such remarks are not tolerated.

It's pretty shocking! I know there is a large amount of racism in Europe as in the US. Everyone should be outspoken against racism.

 

[Tobias Funke]

That is exactly why I asked my question: you are assuming an origin. I'd like to know it. I agree that if it is significantly related to the American blackface history that would make it racist, but I'm not so sure that it is.

I don't think we need to know the precise details. It's blackface and that doesn't occur in a vacuum; it's inseparable from ugly racist views that are still around. What possible origin could that image have besides that? I can't think of any, and even if I could, it takes literally less than a minute to figure out its basic history. It's also a big clue that people have to resort to ridiculous "explanations" for it; does soot make your lips big and red?

Also, your tone is insulting, not to mention hypocritical. You used dismissiveness to pre-empt dismissive arguments that haven't occurred!

I don't see how it's hypocritical. Mildly insulting, yes, but then again, is it not common to say that this isn't a "real" problem and that people are overreacting? That's also insulting and it would have been said sooner or later anway. Might as well preemptively dismiss it, I figure.

 

[Monique]

It's pretty shocking! I know there is a large amount of racism in Europe as in the US. Everyone should be outspoken against racism.

On a related xenophobia note, I just see the news: 80% of Dutch have barely any contact with Muslims, only 5% are open for an encounter. More than 60% feel threatened, 20% personally. That what you do not know you can not judge.

I've lived in a Muslim-rich neighborhood (great food!), at least 9 of my friends are Muslim (great food!), part of my family is Muslim (great food!), my driving instructor was Muslim (great stories!), why wouldn't people want to interact with them? It's beyond me.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

why wouldn't people want to interact with them?

Maybe that story about the dutch cartoonist jaded some people?

 

[Monique]

Maybe that story about the dutch cartoonist jaded some people?

That was the Danish cartoonist ;)

Last Sunday I had a conversation with a famous music producer, whose opinion it was that Muslims shouldn't call their children Muhammad: it sends the signal that they're not integrating (he was pro-black pete and didn't want to "buckle" for "those people"). It is my opinion that everyone should be free to name their children, it's society that excludes people from integration. Sure the parent should consider what's going on in society and it might not be smart, but ultimately the problem is society and not the name.

 

[ZVdP]

It's pretty shocking! I know there is a large amount of racism in Europe as in the US. Everyone should be outspoken against racism.

Agreed, but I don't see the connection with racism. Racism has a specific meaning and is quite a strong claim in my opinion. Causing offense is not necessarily racism. Neither participating parents, nor people portraying Sinterklaas, nor the Zwarte Pieten themselves have any intention of degrading black people. Nor do children view Zwarte Piet or black people in general as a lesser people. And I don't see the element of discrimination required for racism. Do people discriminate dwarfs more because they are Santa's helpers?

I know that this tradition offends some people. And I agree that racism is still an issue in Europe.
The racism I see is of a more latent variant. I have never encountered an adult who has a real issue with a black person. Untill they have to evaluate a job solliciation and then suddenly they still feel more comfortable with the white candidate. That's something that needs to be resolved.
But are we going to accomplish this by putting people inside a glass box and telling the rest 'you can't touch them, make jokes or use caricatures'? To me, that just seems to isolate them more. Which is just the thing that enables discrimination.
Perhaps I'm being overly idealist, but in my opinion racial caricatures shouldn't be an issue, because to me it just shows that people are more at ease with different races. Disallowing things we can make fun of (not in an insulting or degrading way of course), just shows that we are uncomfortable with it. Then we are pushing it back to a latent problem, something we don't talk about, but still have an issue with.

Many children like Zwarte Piet. And to my knowledge, in Belgium at least, it's one of the only black characters thet exist. So what if it is a caricature, all children's characters are caricatures. I think children understand the concept and don't see their black playmates as any different.

On a related xenophobia note, I just see the news: 80% of Dutch have barely any contact with Muslims, only 5% are open for an encounter. More than 60% feel threatened, 20% personally. That what you do not know you can not judge.

Could this be more of an issue with religion than foreign origin? Wouldn't you get the same results with the question 'Are you open for an encounter with fundamentalist Christians'? I know fundamentalism represents only a small minority in the diverse Muslim community, but I think that's perhaps what the people are more afraid of. Perhaps due to the fact that when Muslims are in western news, the're usually not the moderate ones.
Identifying them by their religion doesn't really help I think. We talk about Dutch people, British, American, French,... and Muslims. That endorses the idea of that fundamental religion. A stupid comparison, but religion to me, and to almost all the people I know (including my grandparents) is just as important to identify yourself as you favourite board game. If someone were to introduce himself as 'Hi, I'm a Monopolist', I would find that weird and I sort of have the same feeling with religion, because it is a weird concept to me.
I think, or at least I hope, you would get a more positive result if the question was rephrased as 'Would you be open for an encounter with a Turkish person?' for example.

 

[RonL]

On a related xenophobia note, I just see the news: 80% of Dutch have barely any contact with Muslims, only 5% are open for an encounter. More than 60% feel threatened, 20% personally. That what you do not know you can not judge.

I've lived in a Muslim-rich neighborhood (great food!), at least 9 of my friends are Muslim (great food!), part of my family is Muslim (great food!), my driving instructor was Muslim (great stories!), why wouldn't people want to interact with them? It's beyond me.

Monique, I would just mess my words up, trying to say what I feel, so I'll keep it simple and say...I'm proud of you for making yourself known in this matter:) the thread topic.

 

[lisab]

What I see wrong with it? As an adolescent I didn't see anything wrong with it, my explanation was that the Dutch are a tolerant nation and that's why it wasn't a problem to dress up as another race and act dumb. As a young adult I started to realize how ridiculous it looks, adults having to transform themselves to another race in order to act dumb. I had trouble understanding that people couldn't see anything wrong with that. The character is supposed to be black from the chimney, so my opinion is to transform the appearance to match that assertion.

To examine one's own culture analytically has to be one of the most difficult tasks. Thank you for explaining this so well!

I think you've made a great point. Do you think Black Pete could be re-cast as "Ashy Pete" or "Sooty Pete"?

The personality attributes of Pete will change with time, as they already have. He doesn't have to stay "dumb".

Whoever believes "Traditions can't be changed" knows nothing of history!

 

[Monique]

Agreed, but I don't see the connection with racism. Racism has a specific meaning and is quite a strong claim in my opinion. Causing offense is not necessarily racism. Neither participating parents, nor people portraying Sinterklaas, nor the Zwarte Pieten themselves have any intention of degrading black people. Nor do children view Zwarte Piet or black people in general as a lesser people. And I don't see the element of discrimination required for racism.

There is a clear display of racism, when people say to their fellow citizens "go back to your own banana country", there is a feeling of superiority in there (especially since they are already in their own country). Nowhere in this thread was the claim made that Black Pete is racism, the claim is made that it is a racial caricature that doesn't fit in a modern society.

I know that this tradition offends some people. And I agree that racism is still an issue in Europe.
The racism I see is of a more latent variant. I have never encountered an adult who has a real issue with a black person. Untill they have to evaluate a job solliciation and then suddenly they still feel more comfortable with the white candidate. That's something that needs to be resolved.

The latency is a big problem, both with racism and sexism. It is not only with job applications, it's everywhere. Usually you don't find out, until an employer will accidentally send the e-mail "unsuitable for the job, first of all: he's a -n-word-, second: limited experience" or a house owner tells you that the real estate broker described the tenant as "nice, but colored", etc. I view the Black Pete as the same latency: people view it as normal, but it is not.

But are we going to accomplish this by putting people inside a glass box and telling the rest 'you can't touch them, make jokes or use caricatures'? To me, that just seems to isolate them more. Which is just the thing that enables discrimination.

That's what's happening: people are speaking up about their feelings and are shoved aside. Exactly what shouldn't happen. None should be placed in a glass box. People should realize themselves what kind of an impression they make, would they dress up like orthodox Jewish people and act like clowns for a whole month like the custom is now? They might get away with dressing like Native American Indians, I don't think there are many European American Indians, but clearly the Victoria Secret runway show drew quite some criticism.

Perhaps I'm being overly idealist, but in my opinion racial caricatures shouldn't be an issue, because to me it just shows that people are more at ease with different races. Disallowing things we can make fun of (not in an insulting or degrading way of course), just shows that we are uncomfortable with it. Then we are pushing it back to a latent problem, something we don't talk about, but still have an issue with.

Exactly not, the custom dates back to a time where the character was not well-represented in society: an exotic oddity that could be portrayed like a caricature. The fact that there is so little empathy and so little openness for discussion shows that people are not at ease. Actually I get the impression that people feel overruled and are afraid to give in, exactly because they are uncomfortable with people that look different from them.

Could this be more of an issue with religion than foreign origin? Wouldn't you get the same results with the question 'Are you open for an encounter with fundamentalist Christians'? I know fundamentalism represents only a small minority in the diverse Muslim community, but I think that's perhaps what the people are more afraid of.

Yes, the fundamentalism is what people are afraid of. It's a prejudice to think that everyone with a Muslim belief must be fundamentalist, oppress his wife and is a danger to society. I don't see the people I know as Muslim, I see them as people with a certain origin: Dutch, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Turkish, Dutch-Turkish, Moroccan. They have the same values as me, other than that they believe in a God (like other friends) and I don't.

Monique, I would just mess my words up, trying to say what I feel, so I'll keep it simple and say...I'm proud of you for making yourself known in this matter:) the thread topic.

Ah well, surely some friends and colleagues are annoyed that I don't stand up for the "primeval Dutch tradition". I'm annoyed with them for saying "if you do not agree, Netherlands is not for you". In the end they are opinions, at least it is bringing attention to the latent racism that is coming to the surface.

To examine one's own culture analytically has to be one of the most difficult tasks. Thank you for explaining this so well!

I think you've made a great point. Do you think Black Pete could be re-cast as "Ashy Pete" or "Sooty Pete"?

The personality attributes of Pete will change with time, as they already have. He doesn't have to stay "dumb".

Whoever believes "Traditions can't be changed" knows nothing of history!

Thanks Lisa, if enough people start referring to the character as Sooty Pete I think it will change eventually. Children grow up, traditions change, no matter how rigid the firm believers are :)

 

[zoki85]

Hmm...

 

[StatGuy2000]

On a related xenophobia note, I just see the news: 80% of Dutch have barely any contact with Muslims, only 5% are open for an encounter. More than 60% feel threatened, 20% personally. That what you do not know you can not judge.

I've lived in a Muslim-rich neighborhood (great food!), at least 9 of my friends are Muslim (great food!), part of my family is Muslim (great food!), my driving instructor was Muslim (great stories!), why wouldn't people want to interact with them? It's beyond me.

I'm curious if the opinions expressed in the Netherlands regarding Muslims may be in part influenced by the fact that many Muslims tend to live in neighbourhoods where few "native" Dutch would interact with (somewhat akin to the banlieus in France), as well as by news of terrorist acts committed by those with ties to jihadist or extremist groups, both in the Netherlands and elsewhere. For example, the murder of director Theo van Gogh.

 

[StatGuy2000]

BTW Monique, more specifically on the blackface traditions controversy, historically in the US, blackface had been used by entertainers to portray African-Americans in a stereotypical (and often quite derogatory) manner during the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century. Because of this history of racist caricatures, blackface has been looked upon in North America in an especially negative light.

Now from what I've read about Zwarte Piet (Black Pete), the tradition dates back to the Middle Ages and most likely did not have an especially negative or racist connotation. However, given the history of the slave trade in the Dutch colonies, such as New Amsterdam and Suriname, and given that over the years Zwarte Piet took on characteristics of an especially stereotypical appearance of slaves (you yourself noted that Zwarte Piet was portrayed with a Surinamese accent), I think it would be fair to say that the use of blackface for Zwarte Piet has become rather problematic. This is further highlighted by the reaction of some within the Dutch public that you've highlighted on Twitter.

I'm curious as to what the reaction of the Surinamese community in the Netherlands is to the tradition of Zwarte Piet.

 

[Monique]

I'm curious if the opinions expressed in the Netherlands regarding Muslims may be in part influenced by the fact that many Muslims tend to live in neighbourhoods where few "native" Dutch would interact with (somewhat akin to the banlieus in France), as well as by news of terrorist acts committed by those with ties to jihadist or extremist groups, both in the Netherlands and elsewhere. For example, the murder of director Theo van Gogh or controversial firebrand politician Pim Fortuyn.

Fortuyn was killed by a man of Dutch decent and he didn't belong to an extremist group, unless you would consider the animal activist group that he founded.

Every generation has its scape goat. It used to be the Turkish people, then the Moroccans, then the Polish. When people are excluded from society, they turn to criminality, which creates a vicious cycle. Surely there can be problems with certain groups, but that's not what should define them.

Now from what I've read about Zwarte Piet (Black Pete), the tradition dates back to the Middle Ages and most likely did not have an especially negative or racist connotation.

Note that Black Pete originates from 1850! Around 1200 St Nicholas was accompanied with a devil that he conquered. Around 1800 he acted alone in punishing naughty children.

I'm curious as to what the reaction of the Surinamese community in the Netherlands is to the tradition of Zwarte Piet.

There is data on that. Only 26% of Dutch think that the figure can be perceived as discriminatory, of the Surinamese 77% feel that way.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Fortuyn was killed by a man of Dutch decent and he didn't belong to an extremist group, unless you would consider the animal activist group that he founded.

My apologies for the mistake regarding Fortuyn -- I edited my post to correct this.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)
Every generation has its scape goat. It used to be the Turkish people, then the Moroccans, then the Polish. When people are excluded from society, they turn to criminality, which creates a vicious cycle. Surely there can be problems with certain groups, but that's not what should define them.(snip)

"... the Turkish people, then the Moroccans, then the Polish ..." This would be in the Netherlands? Different groups and sequences elsewhere in the world?

"When people are excluded from society, they turn to criminality, which creates a vicious cycle." Cause and effect isn't really that clear cut for this situation --- which came first? Chicken? Or egg?

So, we have in the world groups and individuals who choose to be offensive to others, and groups and individuals who choose to be offended by the choices or born natures or thoughts, words, and deeds of others, and all the permutations and commutations of alienations and animosities among groups and individuals that result --- I agree, "Ain't it awful," and I'll go along with most of the other existential complaints that can be made regarding the situation.

However, "unconditional toleration of other viewpoints and natures" is offensive to quite a number of individuals and groups --- declarations that such individuals and groups are morally and ethically unacceptable in this world and will not be tolerated brings us full circle. Who's to be the arbiter?

 

[ZVdP]

There is a clear display of racism, when people say to their fellow citizens "go back to your own banana country", there is a feeling of superiority in there (especially since they are already in their own country). Nowhere in this thread was the claim made that Black Pete is racism, the claim is made that it is a racial caricature that doesn't fit in a modern society.

Sorry, I misread. I thought the quote was a reply to a different section.
I'm not a good judge in this, since this discussion is absolutely not happening at all in Belgium (yet), even though our Sinterklaas tradition is about 99% the same, but isn't this simply the usual (unfortunately) course of a heated debate? Where people just throw things at each other to insult and offend? Yes, these are racist statements, but if you get in a mudfight where race is a factor, you almost automatically get racist statements. Even if the participants themselves are not particularly racist.
It's possible that underlying racism is the cause of these deplorable statements, but it doesn't necessarily have to be I think, or rather hope.

That's what's happening: people are speaking up about their feelings and are shoved aside. Exactly what shouldn't happen.

Isn't this what we always do? How is it different from all the things that offend someone somewhere? People are allowed to voice their opinion, learn about the views of the opposite side, but why does the issue still stand when you learn the other party means no offence?
To be honest I actually have never understood the entire notion of 'being offended'. Perhaps it's easy for me as a white European male, but I simply never fully understood how people are agitated by something that isn't meant to be agitating.

but clearly the Victoria Secret runway show drew quite some criticism.

Never heard of it until now, but for me this is one of the examples of our seemingly hypersensitive era.

There is a Jewish organisation in Belgium that always shouts 'anti-semitism' when a certain comedian makes a joke about the holocaust or Jews. Even though five minutes later, he is laughing with Muslims, five minutes after that with Christians and after that with dentists. They even filed a complaint, very humorously, when a tv-show made a funny, satirical sketch that the particular organisation (with a clear emphasis on the organisation, not Jews in general) can't laugh with anything and are mad at everyone.
I think that for every problem, be it racism, sexism, antisemitism,... there is a group which overreacts and floods the news. And when a real issue pops up, people are tired of the same old thing. Similar to holding fire drills every week, until a real fire breaks out.

OK, given the fact that this discussion lingers on much longer than I would have thought, it's a bit late to classify this as a fire drill.
You said that 77% of the polled Surinamese think that the figure can be perceived as discriminatory. How many also have a real issue with it, that it really matters to them? I always assumed it wouldn't be that much, but I may have to adjust my assumptions.

The fact that there is so little empathy and so little openness for discussion shows that people are not at ease.
Actually I get the impression that people feel overruled and are afraid to give in, exactly because they are uncomfortable with people that look different from them.

I get an entirely opposite impression :) For me the lack of opennness in the debate seems to come from the fact that the general population doesn't see an issue at all with race and by extension a caracature thereof. At least openly, not talking about latent feelings which are probably mostly unconscious. People feel attacked because in their view they are forced to change something they like with which they see no problem. Or am I underestimating the amount of open racism there is?
It may create a feeling that exceptions are made or that a group gets special treatment. I think it will only increase racism and polarisation, certainly in the group that already has the idea that immigrants receive too much government support.
At any rate, I think it's a symptomatic cure at best. Less people will feel discriminated or offended, but I don't see how it would reduce (latent) racism. The issue still remains. If racism could be reduced, then wouldn't less people feel the need to be offended or threatened by it to begin with?

Yes, the fundamentalism is what people are afraid of. It's a prejudice to think that everyone with a Muslim belief must be fundamentalist, oppress his wife and is a danger to society.

I think for European standards, identifying yourself with a religion is already quite fundamentalist for many. And it gives the impression that it dominates their everyday life. But I agree, entirely prejudice.

Thanks Lisa, if enough people start referring to the character as Sooty Pete I think it will change eventually. Children grow up, traditions change, no matter how rigid the firm believers are :)

That would be a nice compromise, but how would we translate that into Dutch? 'Asse Piet'? Not sure if it sound so catchy :)

 

[Monique]

My apologies for the mistake regarding Fortuyn -- I edited my post to correct this.

At the time everyone was expecting the culprit to be Muslim, but was hoping it wasn't. Your error is not that strange, but shows it's important to realize assumptions are easily (subconsciously) made.

"... the Turkish people, then the Moroccans, then the Polish ..." This would be in the Netherlands? Different groups and sequences elsewhere in the world?

The Netherlands, roughly speaking (haven't looked up the exact numbers).

"When people are excluded from society, they turn to criminality, which creates a vicious cycle." Cause and effect isn't really that clear cut for this situation --- which came first? Chicken? Or egg?

It's a complex sociological problem, surely.

To be honest I actually have never understood the entire notion of 'being offended'. Perhaps it's easy for me as a white European male, but I simply never fully understood how people are agitated by something that isn't meant to be agitating.

When the real estate broker tells the house owner the tenant is "nice, but colored", he surely doesn't mean to be agitating. Rather he means to be helpful (warn the house owner). When an employer says "I'm only interested in males, you don't need to send your application", he also don't mean to be agitating. Rather he means to be helpful (save time for the applicant). I've often felt offended by well-meant comments and wanted to shake people up by saying "do you know how hurtful that is".

You said that 77% of the polled Surinamese think that the figure can be perceived as discriminatory. How many also have a real issue with it, that it really matters to them? I always assumed it wouldn't be that much, but I may have to adjust my assumptions.

1% of Dutch and 27% of Surinamese feel personally discriminated by the display of Black Pete.

I get an entirely opposite impression :) For me the lack of opennness in the debate seems to come from the fact that the general population doesn't see an issue at all with race and by extension a caracature thereof. At least openly, not talking about latent feelings which are probably mostly unconscious. People feel attacked because in their view they are forced to change something they like with which they see no problem. Or am I underestimating the amount of open racism there is?

The people I've talked to have expressed the opposite opinion, saying they don't want to make a "knieval" (genuflection) for "those people", saying "those people" first need to change (integrate, be less abrasive). I'm hoping it's generally not like that, but haven't seen evidence from the other side (except from people who advocate change).

It may create a feeling that exceptions are made or that a group gets special treatment. I think it will only increase racism and polarisation, certainly in the group that already has the idea that immigrants receive too much government support.

On some level you are right, but I think it should be common sense. I appreciate your thoughts.

That would be a nice compromise, but how would we translate that into Dutch? 'Asse Piet'? Not sure if it sound so catchy :)

Roet Piet :D

 

[Tobias Funke]

On some level you are right, but I think it should be common sense. I appreciate your thoughts.

Emphasis mine. I agree, and I don't think there's any reason to make this needlessly complicated. Literally nobody has ever said or suggested that getting less people to wear blackface will somehow solve racism in Europe, so I don't know why that's being brought up. If we were actually in a post-racial world, maybe it would be more believable that they don't mean any offense. Most probably even don't, but the extremely defensive reactions and outright racism in response to valid criticism shows that blackface still can't be separated from its original intent.

"Should I put in effort to dress like an offensive stereotype or not?"

That's about the extent of it.

 

[Formagella]

in my country the guy that walks around with St. Nicolaus is called Schmutzli.

He walks around with a sack and a birch branch, he hits naughty children and takes them away in his sack.

He has a black face because he goes down the chmineys.

Read more:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/schmutzli--the-swiss-santa-s-sinister-sidekick/7082046

It's related to the Austrian Krampus and the German Knecht Ruprecht, but Krampus looks like an actual demon.

These legends were not invented in 1850. There were pagan rites before St. Niklaus already. This is the usual way of the church to end paganism without having to actively stop people from having their festivities.
Although one article I read says that they tried to ban these demons in 1660 or so.
It also said that Zwarte Piet was in fact the same kind of thing, he took bad children away in his sack, but changed later to a good servant figure.

Since generally it's agreed that St. Niklaus's counterpart is either a demon or someone who goes down chimneys and punishes children, a good compromise would be to stop the blackface and just use the black powder.
Fact is, the origins of it are probably not anti-black racism.
The blackface outside of the anglo world doesn't have the same meaning, so it's mostly anglo-saxons who are shocked by this tradition anyway. Or maybe it's casual racism, who knows, it's a matter of perception. I'm not a black american/brit, I don't know how it makes them feel.

 

[Husaaved]

I think it's really important to contextualize before accusations of hypersensitivity are levied and remarks to the effect of "I actually have never understood the entire notion of 'being offended'" are made.

The Netherlands, although certainly not as "guilty" as the United States for its reliance on slave labor, is nevertheless a country with a long legacy of colonialism in Africa, involvement in the slave trade, and active civilian white supremacist organizations. And although Zwarte Piet may very well be a tradition whose origins have nothing to do with white supremacy and anti-black racism (I doubt it), its resemblance to similar caricatures used to instill notions of black incivility is striking and should be taken into consideration. Nothing exists in a vacuum in this day and age, and we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we're offering critical analysis by saying "The Netherlands doesn't have the same racial politics as the US".

Earlier in this thread someone demanded scientific sources explaining why Zwarte Piet is bad -- and I found this to be the perfect illustration of the difference between how white folks conceptualize racism and how the people who actually experience racism conceptualize it. Racism is not a purely objective experience which can be quantified and qualified. For those who experience it, racism is personal, degrading, and even traumatic. It is important to remember that there are people alive today who have lived in countries where segregation and discriminatory practices were not only legal, but codified into law. There are people alive today who have lost friends or family members to hate crimes. And there are people alive today who, whenever they turn on the TV or watch a movie, find that most of the characters which resemble them or their parents and friends and loved ones are caricatures -- criminals, buffoons, or worse. Being surrounded by these depictions for year after year takes a toll, and makes one "sensitive".

Because white folks usually have the privilege of never having to think about or notice race, they are understandably shocked when they see people reacting to something apparently inoccuous and inoffensive. To be clear, I am a white male, but I've learned that in general it's a good practice to trust people when they say that their feelings are hurt, to listen to them, and to realize that I can never understand their experience because I have not been in their shoes.

 

[Husaaved]

To be clear though, I really do appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the fact that people are listening to each other and giving each other the benefit of the doubt rather than resorting to rudeness.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Earlier in this thread someone demanded scientific sources explaining why Zwarte Piet is bad -- and I found this to be the perfect illustration of the difference between how white folks conceptualize racism and how the people who actually experience racism conceptualize it.

If you're referring to me, I was mocking the people who say things like that. I'm just not very good at internet satire (or I'm too good, if you want to look at it that way...).

 

[Husaaved]

Ah, I'm sorry for that. I didn't realize.