It’s not about “takes offense.” That’s a devaluation of the understanding of racism. Racism is the systemic use of symbols and oppression that make a people into a less-privileged other. Does Piet do that? I don’t know. But it’s a different symbol when you have 99.9% of Dutch as white and born there and 20% who are of color (born there or not).
Explain how the term allochtoon isn’t used racially, as described here, and we can talk more.
I’m Canadian, and I certainly don’t remember anything along these lines. (I won’t deny that there are a lot of racist sentiments revolving around Natives/First Nations, however.) We’re not super-big on Thanksgiving in Canada, but my understanding is that the US holiday largely celebrates the positive aspects of the relationship between the Pilgrims and “Indians.” There’s certainly an element of historical whitewashing involved, but I don’t think anyone is denying that Thanksgiving involves portrayals of actual American Indians or that racial issues with respect to American Indians actually exists (both of which I seem to be seeing in this thread when it comes to Zwarte Piet).
There is a much more serious debate revolving around the depiction of American Indians in the US right now, and that has to do with the names of sports teams and the depiction of their mascots. Right now the hot topic is the Washington Redskins, and a growing number of reporters are refusing to use the word “Redskins” when they report on the team, either calling it the “Washington football team,” simply “Washington,” or using made-up team names like the “Washington national embarrassments.”
Yeah let’s change those old traditions just because some pc anglo-americans got it in the wrong pipe. Get rid of the whole Sinterklaas and St. Martin nonsense and finally start celebrating proper holidays like Thanksgiving or Halloween, dammit!
Of course I was being ironic about Thanksgiving. I was just illustrating how easy it is to turn a celebration into something ugly. Thanksgiving as anti-native American, or Santa as anti-christian as christian did a century ago.
As some black people have donned the Zwarte Piet outfit.
There are some problems. He speaks of “origin stories that deal with slavery.” There are none, only speculation and apocrypha as to Piet’s origins. Then he conflates the Belgian colonialism (let’s not open that can of worms) as portraid in Tin Tin, which has nothing to do with the Dutch with slavery. Besides, the usual suspects come out in a case like this: bored former provo’s and [may 68][2] sellouts who lack causes.
[2]: May 68 - Wikipedia[quote=“GlennF, post:40, topic:14760”]
There’s a difference between a demonising negative portrayal and a positive one. Also there would a problem if a modern playwright would create such a character but we’re not going to stop performing Shakespeare for example because a character like Shylock is placed in the proper historical context.
Most of whom enjoy the festival. If anything the biggest objection among the, predominantly muslim, immigrants is the cross on the miter. This was the big manufactured “controversy” a couple of years ago.
Ofcourse not, but there is no good reason to change this tradition. It is perfectly fine as it is, for its intended audience.
Oh boy. First off understand that immigration is a recent phenomenon in the low countries (post WW2) and that in just 3 generations there’s been a massive influx of people, now comprising 20% of the population as you point out. As you can imagine this has created some friction as well as problems relating to the disappearance of traditional low-skill industry where these people have mostly been employed. To speak about problems relating to un- and underemployment, crime, under education, etc. among this group the catch-all allochtoon was created. Strictly speaking this has nothing to do with color as it also comprises the “first wave” immigrants who were mostly of Italian or Spanish descent. So it’s a sociological term sometimes also (ab)used as a “codeword”, similar to “urban youth”, to talk about muslim immigrants.
Second the word has no official standing as the author states (“people of “non-western” descent are labeled “allochtoon”, not only by the white society, but also by law.”) Certainly not in Belgium and I highly doubt it would be the case in The Netherlands. In fact in Belgium the term has been scrapped by the federal government in favour of cumbersome americanisms like Turkish-Belgians and Moroccan-Belgians.
These are highly local discussions on the nuance and subtext of language that loose all meaning when looked at from the outside.
Whether it would be easy to change is besides the point. There is no good reason to change this tradition. It is perfectly fine as it is, for its intended audience.
If your point was that there’s no good reason to change, then I fail to see why you suggested that changing the tradition would rob children of “a celebration that brings the biggest smiles on young faces.” I mean, if that is your objection, then the ease of changing the tradition without changing the festive nature would seem to allay your objection.
I suppose that minstrel shows were appropriate to their audiences, too, especially is offending a minority of the population does not count as a good reason to change a tradition. If it’s possible to change a tradition in a way that the intended audience (remember, you wrote that “[i]t’s for the children”) won’t even notice, and to remove the offense it causes to some people within the Netherlands at the same time, then it seems pretty reasonable to think about changing the tradition: it costs the audience nothing and helps those offended.
Slavery in the Netherlands ended in fact in 1863, so it was still in full effect in 1850.
This is a very nice example of why the whole debate about Zwarte Piet gets so emotional… Slavery is given very little attention in history lessons and I’ve noticed that most Dutch people have very little concept of things like blackface and minstrel shows.
To most Dutch people (this used to include me until I started doing the research) ZP really is a phenomeon that’s unconnected to these things, simply because they don’t know that blackface existed or what it was.
The problem is though: a symbol doesn’t become less hurtful to those affected by it simply because you didn’t mean any harm by using it.
For example: a thumbs-up is usually a positive thing, but in some places it can be an insulting gesture… So say I give someone a thumbs-up, and to them that’s incredibly rude… the first time it can be excused, since I didn’t mean offense. But if they explain it and I insist on still giving them a thumbs-up, saying they should simply get over it… then in my opinion that makes me the rude one.
There are many suggestions as to how the tradition should change, some more drastically than others. Subtly changes could be made without disrupting the enjoyment of its intended audience. But this is irrelevant, because the tradition is fine for its intended audience.
[quote=“NightWhistler, post:50, topic:14760”]For example: a thumbs-up is usually a positive thing, but in some places it can be an insulting gesture… So say I give someone a thumbs-up, and to them that’s incredibly rude… the first time it can be excused, since I didn’t mean offense. But if they explain it and I insist on still giving them a thumbs-up, saying they should simply get over it… then in my opinion that makes me the rude one.
[/quote]
So, suppose I take offense to changing the Sinterklaas tradition. Now we have people who are offended when things change, and people who are offended when things stay the same. Whose offense should take precedence? Is that even relevant if the offended party is not even part of the interaction that caused the offense in the first place?
Well I’m Belgian, the tradition exists throughout the low countries not just The Netherlands (a further complicating factor when discussing Sinterklaas.) I don’t think Belgium ever accepted slavery since its inception in 1830. Of course there were the terrible abuses in the Congo, which was the personal domain of the king and only became a Belgian colony proper in 1908.
OK this is the problem. You are using a foreign context, blackface and minstrel shows in the US, to look at a local context. It makes no sense. It’s the same kind of discredited cultural imperialism that used to say it’s OK to change foreign cultures to conform to our mores.
You meet in the middle, discuss the matter and find a compromise that works for everybody… isn’t that what we as Dutch people are most proud of doing?
This isn’t a matter of people taking personal offense for some petty reason, it’s national celebration that uses the same symbolism that was used to ridicule and belittle black people for hundreds of years.
Is it really so important to keep everything exactly as it has been that we can’t remove the offending elements and have a celebration for all Dutch people, instead of just part of us?
Very good point… there is a common ground though: both in slavery and colonialism black people were generally painted as savage, simple people… child-like and needing guidance. This was done very deliberately to justify the treatment of black people.
ZP still has many of those characteristics… he’s a joker-like figure, playful but also dumb and irresponsible.
Again, an alternative tradition would be fine for its “intended audience,” which is presumably Dutch children. And if the intended audience is Dutch children, who are you to speak on their behalf and say what is fine for them? Do black Dutch children count? Do you think that most Dutch children would object to changing the tradition if they knew it caused some black Dutch children or their families offense?
Well, you seem to be expressing a lot of indignation about what other people are saying about the racist under-tones of Zwarte Piet. Why all the whining? You think you have some right not to be thought of as racist?
And by the way, I didn’t suggest that being offended gives black (or white) Dutch any rights: I was making the argument that if you could do something which costs yourself nothing but helps others, why wouldn’t you want to do that? That’s to do with basic good civics, and nothing to do with rights.
No, it doesn’t stem from racial stereotype but from theater: he’s often portrayed as a harlequin character. “The Harlequin character may have been based on or influenced by the Zanni archetype who, although a slow thinker, was acrobatic and nimble.”
People can say or think whatever they like about me. I’m stating a case to defend something from what I regard as unfair criticism. You can make up your own mind.
I hadn’t read about Zanni yet, so thank you for pointing it out to me.
Yes, ZP definitely has harlequin elements, but you’d have to agree that he shares more elements with the darkie image from minstrel shows… plus, a harlequin is primarly recognized by his motley garb, where-as a darkie is identified by his skin-colour.
This is kind of included in the dilemma I gave as an example. How would you compromise something that is in fact a black and white situation (is this an offensive pun?). A compromise would result in both sides being offended and that isn’t better in my book.
It is a matter of taking personal offense for some petty reason. People find offense in just about everything. It is not used to ridicule and belittle black people now. It is a celebration for children.
It’s for children. It will always be for only a part of all Dutch people. Besides, the offended parties calling loudest for change have never expressed any intentions of joining in on the festivities. They are calling for change for personal reasons, not the ‘good of the group’.
