“Factual basis”? So, intention would be a “factual basis”?
Anyway, a good example is racist team names, mascots, and logos.
“We only mean to HONOR Indians, I mean, Native Americans!” just doesn’t cut it. The “factual” effect is the perpetuation of racist stereotypes, an effect that has deleterious effects. No matter what the intentions of team owners, players, and fans are.
Most of them do join in and don’t complain. That’s something I’ve been trying to point out since the beginning here: the complainers are a minority. All of your arguments are based on a faulty assumption namely that there’s widespread outrage, there isn’t except from outsiders like you who judge the festival by your own cultural references.
The rest is pointless and this discussion has gone way off the rails which is why I had deleted my last (off topic) response.
I would agree with this statement if the perception is of the people within that culture. People looking in with out cultural context can take offense where there really is none.
Two examples I can think of, in South America there are some costumes for Christian events that look like KKK robes. Yolandi of Die Antwoord was in black face in one of her videos. The two things mean very different things in their native culture than they would in the US.
Except for the black children, I’ve heard from some that Zwarte Piet really did not make them happy. What should be ask is why those children are waiting? Why do they like this tradition so much?
It is because of the presents, not because of the looks of zwarte Piet. If you ask the children if they are anticipating vblack pete, they scream “yes!”, if you ask why, they scream “because presents!”. Changing zwarte Piet will only make more people enjoy this great tradition.
If you look at historic literature, Zwarte Piet was only introduced in the Netherlands in 1850 as a black man dreesed like a servant. The thing is that in those days, a black servant was probably a slave.
What the… ?
So what would be a good reason to change the looks of Piet if not for racism? If you agree the it is not the main source of the festivities, then why not change it to let more people enjoy this tradition?
And what is the intended audience? White Dutch children? If that is the answer, why are the black Dutch Children excluded from the party?
Have you even tried to listen to the opposition? the "I am offended by it"starts the rhethoric, after that it is followed by actual arguments. Being, amongst others:
It is true that being offended does not give you any rights, but only an asshole would dismiss someones claims because the other party is offended. Since the looks of Black Pete have no specific purpose in the celebrations, why not change it?
Then why are black people in the Nehterlands then so often referred to as Zwarte Piet?
For racism it does not really matter if it looks positive or negative. A singular image of all black people is still a singular image of all black people.
And it is great to see you unmask yourself by basically claiming that Alicia Keys and snoop dog are completely the same.
If the discussion is pointless, why are you not ok with changing Zwarte Piet? If the discussion does not matter, the looks of Zwarte Piet do not matter to you either.
If the complainers are a negligible minority, then why has this become an annual issue even within the Netherlands? Is it also valid to say that you evaluate the festival by your own white Dutch/Belgian cultural perspective, and not from the perspective of black/minority Dutch?
And does joining in automatically mean that the practice is a good one? During WWII my Japanese-Canadian grandfather helped the government organize the internment of his community, and virtually all Japanese participated willingly in the process. Does this mean that it was a good practice? I don’t think it’s uncommon for minority groups to willingly submit to unfair or harmful practices in the name of social harmony.
One extra point to make: I hear often, if you don’t join into the festivities, there is no reason for you to complain. This is a false statement, since there is no way to exclude yourself from this holiday when you are in the Netherlands at the time. All shops join in, most television channels join in and in the streets and schools there are Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piete.
Slavery existed only in the colonies by 1850. The slave trade had already been outlawed by the government in 1814, and in Holland itself slavery had never been widespread and had expressly been forbidden in the late 18th century. This happened in the wake of a discussion over the legal status of slaves from the West who were temporarily brought over to Holland by their masters, a practice which caused unease, as anyone living permanently on Dutch soil was considered a free person.
It hasn’t. There’s a small non-profit that stirs the shit when there’s a slow newsday.
Absolutely. Though, and I don’t mean to go the “my black friends” route, but I have friends of Congolese descent who don’t have any problem with it. But that’s just anecdotal.
Nope, it just means you are defending people who don’t need/want to be defended. Maybe they are wrong and you or the UN willl come liberate them. I just happen to think that’s not the case.
i’m not sure if you are being sarcastic.
but i’m curious how people feel about “black face” when someone of lighter skin dresses as a particular person with darker skin. eg white tall bald man dressing as michael jordan for halloween.
And yet you went ahead and went that route anyway.
It’s like saying, "I’m not a racist, but. . . "
IOW, it’s like starting a sentence that should never be completed.
Surely there were black slaves who agreed that it was a good idea for superior white people to take care of them by enslaving them. And surely there were black Americans during Jim Crow days who thought that separate-but-equal was a good idea. That doesn’t mean either was right.
what the other two repliers said. and in addition, in most communities in the US if someone DID have a celebration that was derogatory towards native americans, due to intent or not, they’d be lampooned as racist, and hopefully societal pressure would alter their traditions. i grew up in New England in the 80s and i don’t remember ever seeing anyone dressed as a native american for thanksgiving celebrations. mostly as turkeys and pilgrims. i also learned about the white washing of columbus and thanksgiving in my public school education early on.
I know. There’s no other way for me to counter that argument though. I already posted the pictures that show the audience is racially diverse. Other than saying come see for yourself there’s no there’s no way to convince someone that doesn’t want to believe it.
It is certainly inappropriate and shows poor judgement - but assuming he is just dressed as Jordan - not making fun of him - then I would have a hard time calling that person a racist. On the other hand there was a sheriff deputy who wore black face and a prison uniform. I’d consider that racist.
But my statement was targeted specifically at black face out side of the US, the topic of the post.
You are aware I am Dutch?
This certainly is not the first time that this has come up, For example in 1987: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZHJw8YAzIk# . Or in 1996 there was the action group ‘Zwarte Piet = Zwart Verdriet’. Or in 2011 when the police arrested demonstrators( who actually did nothing more than wear a T-shirt). This discussion has certainly become an annual event.
Here are some black people talking about Zwarte Piet: http://youtu.be/tnmT_pIyG74 They also mention being called zwarte Piet.
The fact that it fits well with harlequin ect. makes it only worse. Here we have a character, who certainly looks like a racial stereotype (as used in blackface, or as used in Tintin in Africa, or as used in Sjors and Sjimmie (the early versions)), and who is always clumsy. On top of that it is not an individual, but a whole group having these same characteristics.
If you are out of arguments, maybe you are wrong.
