And yet, despite increasing global attention, white Dutch society has yet to acknowledge the problems with, and then dump, that black-faced character. Hmmmmmmm…
To my understanding people worship Piet as a manifestation of trolling; which they experience to be the motor of their contemporary culture. Not being aware of history, and no longer capable of social consensus, that is all they have left.
Just have a look at this thread, Q.E.D.
It’s interesting data, but I think it’s difficult to draw too many conclusions from it.
For example, when comparing divorce rates it would probably be helpful to isolate confounding factors like socio-economic status or whether the husband or wife have been incarcerated, both of which are also likely to correlate to divorce rate.
There’s also the problem that it seems like different things are being measured in the US and in the Netherlands: the US measures inter-racial marriages by looking directly at race, while the Dutch measure by looking at country of birth. By this standard both my parents would be considered native Canadian (all my grandparents were born in Canada, as were my parents), even though they are of different races. And yet I have aunts and uncles who married withing their race that would be considered inter-racial by Dutch standards. And of course almost all black-white marriages in the US would be considered native-native marriages.
I was talking about perception. You are so eager to dismiss the ‘intention’ part of the discussion, I am calling bs on the perception part. Just because somebody says they’re perceiving something, doesn’t automatically make it true. Perception needs a factual basis, otherwise it might just be a delusion.
“Hey I saw little green Martians! Therefore they must exist!”. “Hey a log-like object in the water, must be the Loch Ness Monster.”
There is no good reason to change Zwarte Piet. The children don’t see a race. The vast majority of adults, of all colours, don’t see a race. It’s the small minded people who focus on racial differences instead of the things that makes us better humans. Things like bringing happiness to children.
Really? Did you just go there? Are you seriously accusing me of being racist by answering your own question for me?
Ah yes, you went there. You have already decided that I am a racist and now you are putting words in my mouth. Why don’t you go a step further and find a white supremacist picture of me?
Why, is there one out there to be found?
You’re back on the “acknowledging race is racist” track again. It’s not very flattering.
That is a fair objection. The authors of the 2006 study address this problem. They used data not only on the country of birth of the respondent and the partner, but also on that of the parents and the parents-in-law (p. 380). Note that large-scale immigration is only a recent phenomenon in the Netherlands, and there were relatively few second-generation immigrants in the period under study. The Surinamese respondents were split into different subgroups (Creole, Javanese, Hindustani - Creole’ meaning ‘Black’ in the Surinamese context) based on self-identification, not on the respondents’ or parents’ geographic origins (p. 381). The actual rate of intermarriage with a native partner for Black Surinamese men turns out to be 26,6% (table on p. 385), much higher than for Hindustani (10.1%). The authors note that ‘on the basis of arguments about skin color and racial boundaries, one would expect that the Creoles would be most endogamous’ (p. 387). Hence the results seemed to ‘support the arguments about the role of third parties and religion, and refute arguments about racial boundaries’ (p. 388).
So you’re saying that everyone who object to Zwarte Piet, both those in the Netherlands and those outside it, are small minded? And that eliminating blackface is incompatible with making us better human beings? And that eliminating blackface is incompatible with bringing happiness to children (who are not racist and don’t care if Piet is black or white)?
Don’t know how you can take umbrage at comments you construe as calling you a racist, when you have clearly called those who disagree with you “small minded.”
Racism doesn’t require intentionality, as I’ve said above. For example, does the subjective intent of the Dutch magazine editor who described Rhianna’s style as “Niggabitch” really matter? Does it matter is the words were said without malice? Intent might matter when it comes to whether a specific person is racist or not, but it’s pretty irrelevant when it comes to whether specific actions or words are racist.
And pain and offense are innately subjective experiences, based more on individual responses than they are on anything objectively “factual.” If you ask people to point to things that cause them pain, they can point to them. In this case, they can point to blackface. You seem to be saying not that they lack “facts,” but that their reactions to these facts are unreasonable.
2 Likes
[quote=“Elusis, post:128, topic:14760”]You’re back on the “acknowledging race is racist” track again. It’s not very flattering.
[/quote]
I will overlook the fact that you’re joining in on the ad hominem instead of bringing proper counterarguments, to say a little about ‘acknowledging race’.
The common use of the word ‘race’ when talking about humans is the grouping of humans based on common traits. It’s quite logical to do so, even though the groupings are often arbitrary. You know what the funny thing is with this practice? The common traits used to group people and to talk about that group of people are essentially becoming stereotypes.
Some people argue that stereotypes are inherently negative (ie. ‘racist’ ), and I argue that it isn’t.
Suppose I am wrong and that stereotypes are inherently negative, then wouldn’t acknowledging a race be racist? We would not be able to talk about skin colour without being racist. Based on your comment, I’d say that this notion is ridiculous and that I am therefore not wrong.
So then stereotypes only become negative when prejudice enters into it. This can be the intention of the of the user of the prejudice (e.g. stating that all muslims are terrorists), or the perception of the ‘receiver’ of the prejudice (e.g. he is wearing a white shirt, he must not like blacks), or both. It is in fact the prejudice, not the stereotype that determines whether something is racist or not.
Basically looking for racism where non is intended is a prejudice that can be considered racism.
Yes it does. This is a problem of language. That editor tried to use language he/she perceived as being “hiphop” (same way you would call someone a “raver” or something) because that’s a pop-culture thing here, not a race thing. Unfortunately that “hiphop” language has very strong negative connotations in its original context. The mistake here wasn’t racism, it was taking hiphop at face value as a culture and trying to use its language.
On another note, to see where this “political correctness gone mad” leads, take a look at this picture. Yes it is a brown person painted blue because otherwise he would be racist.
Then why were people within “hophop” culture, most notably Rhianna herself, extremely offended by what the editor wrote.
Also, can I be a rapist if I thought the girl wanted to have sex, when really she didn’t? Because I certainly didn’t have intent to rape her. Or, as I said in my other response to intentionality, what if I kill someone without meaning to? Am I then guilty of exactly nothing? No. In both cases I am responsible for not acting in a way that is reasonably likely to harm people. If I act even though I am aware there is a real risk my actions will hurt people, then it is I that am fault, and not the victim. So if I act recklessly, or even negligently, I am still responsible even if I didn’t have actual intent to rape or kill.
Similarly, if I use the n-word, then my use of that word is racist even if I subjectively think there’s nothing wrong with it. My subjective understanding is pretty irrelevant because I am aware that people are likely to be offended by the word, and by using the word even though I know it is likely to injure I am in the wrong. By now it’s pretty clear that some people are offended by the use of blackface, and yet many people continue to do this despite their knowledge that some people may be injured by this. And it’s not like they’re citing any great reason for continuing to behave in ways known to be offensive, other than saying “think of the children,” even while acknowledging that kids don’t even care if Piet is black or white.
And finally, don’t you perhaps think that the black person wearing blueface is registering their displeasure with the practice of blackface, yet supporting this child-oriented festival? Isn’t this possible? Or are you claiming you know the subjective intent that is in this man’s mind (even though you decry the reading of racist when it comes to other people wearing makeup)?
1 Like
You and Rihanna are aware because you are seeing it from another context. Remember that words like “bitch” and “nigger” come to us through pop culture divorced from context and with their meaning distorted. When kids grow up hearing rap stars calling people “my niggas” they don’t come to that term through 200 years of oppression, they just hear a word that in this context means “my friends” or “my clique.” E.g. “L.A. niggaz rule the world nigga, Y’all niggaz gotta recognise”, Dr. Dre addressing his audience as “niggaz”. Similarly when they hear “bitch” they don’t hear misogyny but they hear it as used in popular culture: “You better work bitch” (Britney Spears), “I’m a bitch” (Meriditch Brooks), “Science, bitch!” (Jessie Pinkman.) When words jump from one language to another, they don’t necessarily retain meaning. The “niggabitch” in my opinion was intended as a sort of dutch neologism with a positive connotation using words appropriated from English through hiphop pop culture. It is unfair to judge it by its meaning in English. Although it is of course completely justified to ask people not to use it, to spare them from embarrassment abroad if nothing else.
Are you seriously equating what amounts to a translation problem to physical violence ?
Possibly. Though the since the decision to do this was made by the local council (this is related in the original news story) it wasn’t his choice. It’s impossible to divine his opinion through just a picture. I was just pointing out the madness of the fact that leaving this person unpainted would be a bigger controversy than painting him blue.
Really? So what was meant by this neologism? What do Dutch kids associate with the N-word as they learn it from American pop culture? What do they associate with the word “bitch.” I’m pretty sure nobody there thinks that “n-word”=“black person” or “bitch”=“young woman”. But let’s look at the example at hand: what did the editor mean with the term “niggabitch”? Well, we kind of know what she meant because she also talked about Rhianna’s “street cred” and “ghetto ass,” both of which I’m sure have positive connotations in Dutch society and in no way reflect any sort of class stratification or stereotypes of black people as poor gangsters with big butts and a love of bling and dressing like hookers. But absolutely no racist overtones there, because she could have just as easily described Miley or Fergie as a “Niggabitch.”
Or, to quote a comment in the Jezebel post I linked to:
“The magazine knew what they were trying to say - that Rihanna is the ultimate violent black ghetto slutty bitch with a giant ass. In what way is that not totally offensive? Black ghetto violent bitch is a compliment in the Netherlands?”
And yes, having lived in Japan, I can tell you that Japan is hugely racist. TV shows with Black “talent” (“talent” as used by Japanese essentially means Paris-Hilton level celebrities) are 21st-century minstrel shows. Read the newspapers in Japan and you will see frequent and gratuitous references to the race of criminal suspects, especially if they are Korean or Chinese: based on such reporting most Japanese think that foreigners commit over half the crime in Japan, even though the number of non-immigration crimes committed by foreigners is proportional to the number of foreigners in Japan.
Are you seriously equating something that you know to be hurtful and offensive to some Dutch citizens (who are likely to have the least political power and ability to change the offensive tradition) as a translation problem?
And regardless of whether you think the magnitude of injury is comparable, some attempt to say why intentionality matters for one but not the other would be appreciated.
Your post contains exactly that translation problem. You assume an awful lot about Dutch culture and people, and can’t possibly imagine how these people would not think it is offensive.
There is always somebody somewhere that finds something you do offensive. Should you stop doing things altogether, just because somebody perceives an offense?
So being described as a poor, promiscuous gangster girl with a fat ass and a penchant for dressing like a hooker is not offensive in (white) Dutch culture, even when the word used to describe such a person is only applied to black people? Gotcha. Holland is even more delightful than I remember.
You keep dodging the point, and I keep raising it: this is not some unreasonable, unforeseeable offense. You know that a growing number of people, Dutch included, consider blackface offensive. You know that there is virtually no downside to curtailing the practice, yet you continue to engage in it. Is your point that you have the right to be an asshole? Sure you do. I grew up in a place where “Jew” was a synonym for being cheap, an “Indian giver” was someone who would go back on his word to give you something, and “Dutch courage” was for those who would use alcohol to give themselves strength. Most people who used those terms did not use them maliciously, but these terms really aren’t acceptable any more because we recognize that they are hurtful and encourage racist stereotypes. Sure, people still have the right to be assholes and use these terms, but those who are interested in “mak[ing] us better humans” have chosen not to use these terms any more, regardless of the chances of anyone anywhere being actually offended at any specific time we use one of the phrases.
1 Like
I give up. You are incapable of stepping outside of your culture or even language. This is like trying to explain to grandpa why “bad” means “good.”
I can’t wait for you guys to discover Driekoningen in januari. Or Germany’s Sternsinger.
This is what I keep finding amazing about the people who defend the depictions of ZP.
“Oh no, he’s just black because he’s sooty from the chimney.”
“Oh, well of course he’s also a black servant, but we dress him like that because he’s exotic, not because he’s a slave, oh no.”
You can’t even keep the story straight one sentence to the next.
You can argue that it’s just a terrible caricature of a black man, but then drop the argument that he’s black because of soot.
And a racist caricature of a black man is racist whether or not the person is supposed to be a slave. You can drop the American projection argument. Or are you suggesting that Europe as not been historically racist against black people?
And finally, the argument that people “just want to take away the smiles from children” is pathetic. Will the children smile less if the helpers are not racist caricatures? If so, that’s a real problem.
2 Likes
It’s basically a fairytale for children. There is no logic, no one or the other.
Circular reasoning, racism is racist. That’s no insight. The elements which supposedly make it racist are easily otherwise explained as I have done above. What it does is make people who grew up with things that look similar and actually were racist uneasy. People who are not from our countries.
I’ve never used that argument. However when you go change tradition, top-down style like some sort of mullah or communist dictator there had better be a good reason. Otherwise it’s best to leave things alone and let it evolve on its own.
No, it’s just that people who are not from your countries are less defensive and able to see things with clearer eyes.
A caricature of a black man – complete with coal-black skin, big nappy hair, big red lips and “exotic” clothes (as you said) – who is regularly depicted as stupid, lazy and clumsy (more modern depictions are a little more sensitive and at least show ZP as being athletic…).
You don’t need to be aware of the history of blackface and mistral shows in the US to understand that such a caricature is problematic. Or do you think that Americans are the only ones to come up with the idea of making fun of blacks by caricaturing them?
You can’t pretend that white Europe hasn’t always had a fairly widespread problem of casual racism. Racism is certainly not just a US phenomenon. (I’m from Italy, and have certainly witnessed pretty widespread casual racism (not always even acknowledged as such) across the Mediterranean and the Northern European countries.)
What if the helper had a large hooked nose and a Kippah and was depicted as money-grubbing and sinister? Would you see any problem with that?
Since it’s the cities that organize and pay for the most prominent ZP examples, the tradition is already being maintained as much “top down” as it is bottom up. But I’m glad to see that things already are changing. Apparently the mayor of Amsterdam changed the most recent ZP depictions to remove the big African gold hoop earrings, and is considering changing them further.
Or maybe it’s like explaining to grandmother that “darkies” is not an appropriate term for black people, and why the name of a mountain formerly known as “Chinaman’s peak” has been changed, because these are both conversations I’ve had. It’s also interesting that you are willing to defend the magazine editor in general terms but are not willing to address the implications of what she actually said: that Rhianna’s a "Niggabitch,"which means she has street cred, a ghetto ass, is a good girl gone bad, and is someone who dresses like a porn star and takes all her clothes off. Because I’m sure that in Dutch culture those are all good things and not stereotypical at all.
And honestly, it looks like you are having a much more difficult time stepping out of your own culture and language (and, for the record, the Canadian history with slavery is similar to the Dutch experience). Apparently the culture and feelings of a growing percentage of the Flemish population is irrelevant, and the only culture that matters is traditional Dutch culture. Immigrants and progressives can go stuff themselves.
Right. That Aesop, I wish he could bring some logic into his children’s stories. Because we all know that those who create stories for kids are incapable of creating logical stories or even consistently describing their characters, let alone conveying actual messages with their stories.
Black man in the 19th century: obviously he’s a “servant” to a white guy, because what else could he be? Especially since he came back with Sinterklaas from Turkey, where every historian knows most of the natives are black. Well, maybe he’s Moorish… except Moors aren’t coal black, either. And of course he was a bumbling fool, because… why exactly, again?
Oh, it’s OK because he has changed and he’s no longer a fool but a pretty clever, amusing fellow with great athletic skills. But that’s OK because this change has been organic and not top down. Of course this doesn’t actually explain why there was this need for the depiction of blackfaced Piet to change, especially since we’ve been assured there is nothing at all racist about the tradition and that given Holland’s history and culture there is no way that racist sentiments ever could have been read into the tradition. But hey, it’s a children’s story and there’s no logic to it, so let’s ignore this change and why it might have happened.
Apparently evolution can only happen without public debate and grievance. As in, everyone should just shut up and hope things change on their own, because if you try to agitate for change by using your democratic right to speak then you are no better than a mullah (and I’m sure that a Mullah is a neutrally-chosen example without any baggage, and that you are just as likely to have chosen a Pope or a Bishop as an example) or communist dictator. And nothing is more organic and grassroots than a celebration where the city of Amsterdam hires 600 actors to dress in blackface; nothing top-down about that.
3 Likes
