…because Black face and it’s racist connotations was mainly a US-american phenomenon?!
Do you have other suggestions what we in Europe could change to satisfy your delicate prude anglo-saxon sensibilities? No more nudes in television? Converting to evangelical christianity? Start using torture and death penalty again? Should I start to call my neighbour from Ghana “african-american”?
There are several initiatives to compromise: the “piet met roetvegen” (make him look actually sooty), the coloured Piet… I disagree that it’s all or nothing.
It is for children, but organized and given shape by adults. I wouldn’t call being systematically depicted as inferior petty.
[quote=“Lasche, post:59, topic:14760”]
It’s for children.[/quote]
I’d say the children care about presents and about Sinterklaas being there with helpers… how the helpers look is their last concern.
[quote=“Lasche, post:59, topic:14760”]
It will always be for only a part of all Dutch people.[/quote]
That would be a rather sad state of affairs, excluding a group of people from a national celebration.
[quote=“Lasche, post:59, topic:14760”]
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’.[/quote]
I won’t comment on individuals motivation… but I can say that if a celebration centers around ridiculing you, it’s not very inviting to participate.
Is that really what we want? To have a supposedly national and uniquely Dutch celebration… but only if you’re white?
Fabian, I’d appreciate it if you could attack my arguments and not me personally.
Oh, and FYI: I’m Dutch, born and raised… what you just did was a combination of ad-hominem and a straw-man argument.
I’d appreciate it if you would adress my argument that you so neatly quoted above:
Well, as is often the case it’s a mixed bag containing a lot of elements… not a single thing.
My personal position in the ZP debate is to remove the most offending elements, so that ZP really becomes a pure harlequin / joker figure. It’s still fun for the children, but now it’s fun for all children.
Not true… look up a 50’s Sjors en Sjimmie comic to see a very clear example of blackface in Dutch culture. Sjimmie has gold earrings, huge red lips and speaks in crude pidgin sentences.
Agreed, my previous statement was too broad… ZP has no specific offensive qualities for Asian people (we have Ushi en van Dijk for that).
And yes, I am aware that not every black person finds ZP offensive… but plenty of them do.
See that’s the problem … even you don’t know what black-face is.
Just like with Santa Claus by the time children might have a political opinion about it, they know it isn’t real. But they have experienced the joy that it brings and generally see no reason to change it.
Dutch black children celebrate it just as the Dutch white children do. Why? Because they are innocent and unprejudiced.
People seem to argue that Zwarte Piet influences how others see black people. If that is the case, I will argue that Zwarte Piet paints a positive picture of black people.
Zwarte Piet is often more popular than old man Sinterklaas. He bring joy, candy and presents. Compare that to the view that teens will get about black people when they see music videos and the news.
I don’t think Zwarte Piet says anything about how Dutch people think about black people. That is why I see no point in trying to make this political.
The 50’s Sjors and Sjimmie, not the 80’s variant… the comic was changed.
And agreed, Sjimmie is a darkie stereotype, not blackface… blackface is a white person putting on black makeup to pretend to be a black character, generally combined with select set of behaviours.
My ‘all or nothing’ was about that the earlier argument that some people will be offended if the celebration changes in any way, and that other people will be offended if it stays the same. To change or not to change.
They aren’t systematically depicted as inferior. That’s a value judgement based on personal prejudice.
Why is it sad that adults are more or less excluded from a festivity for children?
The celebration does not center around ridiculing people. Again, this is a value judgement based on personal prejudice.
So people who are offended only have legitimate, socially-oriented complaints if they are willing to join the offensive traditions? But non-whites who are not offended and who do join the traditions are cited as evidence that the tradition isn’t offensive? That’s pretty neat: those who join the festivities are not offended, while those who do not join the festivities because they are offended have no right to complain about the social effects of the (offensive) festivities. Cool.
Dutch children must be pretty unique in the world if they are all innocent and incapable of either internalising or expressing any prejudice at an early age/until they are able to form political opinions. And they must be incredibly stupid if they are unable to pick on racial stereotypes at a young age (for example, when my 1st grade teacher asked me—and me alone—where I was born, I knew she was asking about the country of my birth, and not the city or province).
Dutch children must also be raised to be incredibly insensitive if they don’t care if their actions hurt other people: I think most children raised in North America would probably be willing to change their actions and behaviour if it meant they could avoid hurting others, especially if these changes could be made in such a way that they would be oblivious to the changes. So just imagine that the tradition of black Piets was removed, and they were now white characters. Given this, would children be less happy? Would white Piets bring any less joy? Would they see any reason to change it back to black-faced characters?
For all the emphasis you seem to place on this celebration being for kids, it seems pretty clear to me that it is really adult ideas of “tradition,” historical practice, nostalgia, and childhood memories that motivate arguments in favour of maintaining Zwarte Piet. Kids don’t care about history or traditional practice. If kids are innocent and unprejudiced, and have no political thought, why should they care if Piets are black or white? Why should a white Piet make the celebration less joyous to children?
It’s kind of the chicken and the egg with this. Do you care enough about the festivities to join in and suggest improvements along the way, or do you say: “Screw this, I’ll bash it from the sidelines and maybe consider participating when it is the way I want it”.
Exactly. This is why the discussion is pointless.
Why is it pointless?
If the kids don’t care if the Piets are white, and the kids also likely don’t want to offend anyone, then why is it pointless to consider eliminating blackface? What is the downside?
Seriously, I read this thread, and it makes me understand why the Netherlands has larger problems with some Muslims than a country like Canada does.
oh yes i agree
Fair enough. The discussion can be its own point.
The kids aren’t offending anyone.
Offending and being offended don’t necessarily coëxist in each situation. It is entirely possible for either one to exist without the other.
With the number of people on this planet it is entirely likely that anything I do will offend somebody somewhere. What should I do? Stop doing things altogether because I don’t really want to offend anyone? It has been touched on before, but intention does factor into this. Especially in situations where the interaction doesn’t really involve the offended party.
There are plenty of people who are offended by a cross. Should we stop displaying crosses? Give up the Red Cross? Give up churches? What about personal crucifixes, can we still carry those? At what point does it stop being my responsibility to not-offend others?
.
Exactly, thank you!
People in the majority so often get hung up on intent – “But but, I didn’t MEAN to be racist/sexist/heterosexist, so just shut up already!”
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was saying.
But seriously, why do expect blacks, Muslims, or whatever to join in practices that are offensive to them, and then tell them they have no cause to complain unless they join in? What do you think it says about your country that people who were born in the Netherlands and went to school there cannot speak the language? If you make people feel unwelcome, and told them their concerns are illegitimate and will not be addressed by white Dutch society, is it any surprise that some of them will rebel and consider your society illegitimate?
I didn’t say the kids were offending anyone. It is clearly the use of blackface that is offensive. The connection between blackface and kids is that your justification for the blackface is that it brings the kids joy. I’m saying that the celebration may bring kids joy, but kids also don’t want to offend anyone. As in, they wouldn’t want offensive things done in their name, and they don’t want people to be offended when they don’t have to be.
Intention may be required in order for some person to be racist, but it is not required in order for their actions to be racist. Some people use the term “no homo” without intending it to be homophobic or offensive. They may not be homophobic or offensive, but what they have said is nevertheless offensive and homophobic.
Your argument about inadvertently causing offense might work at the margins, but this is clearly not a case at the margins. The fact that this is an annual debate demonstrates that plenty of people are offended and that causing offense is likely and predictable. In legal terms, doing something so likely to cause injury is considered reckless, even if the harm is not strictly intentional. If I were to pull out a samurai sword and swing it around my head, this would be reckless, even if I don’t intend to kill anyone I would still be guilty of murder if I actually did kill someone. Why? Because injury and/or death is a highly foreseeable outcome from my actions. But if instead or pulling out a gun I pull out a balloon and swing it around my head, and by some fluke I happen to kill someone with my balloon, I’m not likely to be convicted of murder, because it would be too difficult to foresee that someone would die from my actions: I wasn’t being reckless.
Now there are a number of ways to look at your crucifix & church question. One would be to adopt the above approach, and say that harm and offense is not foreseeable from these things. Probably the more sensible approach would be to say that freedom of religion exists, and that every individual has the right to freely practice their religion so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others (and I don’t think you’re making the argument that black Piets are religious figures). Of course countries like France have adopted neither of these approaches, as they have affirmatively banned things like the burqa in public and headscarves in public schools.
You might also be interested to know that the neutral symbol for the Red Cross and Red Crescent is the Red Crystal.
[quote=“anon15383236, post:80, topic:14760”].
Exactly, thank you!
People in the majority so often get hung up on intent – “But but, I didn’t MEAN to be racist/sexist/heterosexist, so just shut up already!”
[/quote]
It’s not just about perception either, there has to be a factual basis otherwise people are just delusional. And intention definitely factors into that as well, especially when the offended party has no stake in matters other than ‘being offended’.
