They are not hired actors. If you are able to read Dutch, you can see at Organisatie - Sint in Amsterdam that the celebration is organized by a private-sector entity called “Stichting Sinterklaas Intocht Amsterdam” with the help of around 1200 volunteers and a large number of sponsors. The municipality of Amsterdam is merely one of these sponsors. A list of contributors can be found on that site under “Hofleveranciers”.
According to the same site, prospective Zwarte Pieten can sign up from September onward. A handwritten letter is required.
However, there is also a difference. Whereas ‘Chinaman’ is an explicit reference to an ethnicity, as is ‘darkies’ when it is used in connection with African American people, the ability to read a stereotype is culturally acquired. As it is, in the present-day Netherlands many people do not see the Zwarte Pieten with their coal-black faces, narrow red lips and Renaissance-style Spanish costumes as depictions of Black Africans.
Why are you now adding conditions to what offenses must be stopped? If you know everything you do will be perceived as offensive, then by definition it is foreseeable. And who determines what is reasonable? Is it the person doing the offending, or the person perceiving the offense? Third party?
Fair enough. But any way you look at it, the black-faced Piets operate with state support (as sponsors) and with state sanction (through the licensing requirements, which is apparently how the hoop earrings have been removed from the costumes this year). On the other hand, how much state or corporate support have the anti-Piet protestors received? Do they have sponsors? What makes state-supported Piets more grassroots than the protestors?
I suppose the question remains what they do read them as, then. What do gold hoop earrings signify? Do the lips really look that thin to you? Their blackness has no literal meaning, and is not interpreted as signifying race by anyone, least of all the little kids at whom they are aimed?
And my grandmother lived her life in Canada and the UK. She had no personal experience with African Americans outside of very brief travels to the American South. “Darkies” was a generic term used for black people. Both of these terms carry emotional baggage for the audience, even if they didn’t have discriminatory meaning to my grandmother. I’m not sure that “darkies” is any more explicit a reference to a specific ethno-racial group than, say, actually painting your face black and wearing gold hoops, and the argument in favour of “[Chinaman’s peak][1]” is that the name was originally intended to honour the first person to climb the mountain, who was Chinese.
[1]: Ha Ling Peak - Wikipedia[quote=“Lasche, post:145, topic:14760”]
Why are you now adding conditions to what offenses must be stopped? If you know everything you do will be perceived as offensive, then by definition it is foreseeable. And who determines what is reasonable? Is it the person doing the offending, or the person perceiving the offense? Third party?
[/quote]
I’m not adding conditions to what must be stopped. I’ve simply said that I think this tradition should be rethought, and you are the one who brought up this “slippery slope” argument. What I’m doing is showing how your fears of sensitivity creep will, in practice, be limited.
You might not like this “reasonably foreseeable” approach, but we use it every day and it’s the standard the law (in common law jurisdictions, at least) has largely adopted. Who determines what is reasonable? That would be the reasonably prudent man. Which is to say your average man on the street. Is your average man in the Dutch street aware that blackface is likely to be hurtful to some people? Quite possibly. Is the average Dutch man in the street aware that saying “Hello” to someone is likely to be hurtful? No, and I doubt you can even come up with a realistic explanation of how it could be hurtful, and who it would be injurious to.
Of course what I’m suggesting has nothing to do with law, and more to do with civics. But I think the above principles inform many aspects of our everyday life: we typically refrain from doing things we know would be hurtful to others, even if we have the right to do them and we don’t think they’re particularly wrong. I don’t talk on the phone in places where people are trying to read, even if it’s in a public space where talking is appropriate and I wouldn’t be intentionally trying to offend them if I did talk on the phone. To me this is basic consideration.
So basically you are saying that it is the person doing the offending that determines what is reasonable. More importantly you seem to say that in everyday life you occassionally offend people, even if you’re not “intentionally trying to offend them”. Basic consideration, as you say.
Maybe the vast majority of Dutch people have made this basic consideration, and concluded that it is reasonable to continue the tradition as is, because they are not “intentionally trying to offend” anyone?
I’m saying the standard for whether offense is reasonably foreseeable is that of the average man. The person acting may not be the average man, but he is held to the standard of the average man.
And I’m not saying that the average man gets to decide if something is reasonable. I’m saying the average man has to decide if injury is reasonably foreseeable. Here I think that injury is reasonably foreseeable. And as I’ve discussed multiple times above, intentionality is irrelevant. If I run you over with my car, I’m liable even if I didn’t intend to. If I libel you, I am liable even if I didn’t mean for the libel to become public. In the specific example you quote, I’m saying that basic consideration dictates that I not speak on my phone when someone is reading, even if I have no intent to offend them by speaking in their presence: my lack of intent to injure is irrelevant because I know that they may be offended and that is something I wish to avoid.
And yes, I’m sure there are times when I offend people unintentionally. This doesn’t mean that I think this is a good thing, or that I should not attempt to avoid doing so. It especially doesn’t mean I should knowingly do things that I know will hurt people.
Wishing to avoid offending someone is an intention. If intention is really irrelevant, then why do you continue to make such considerations? You know you can’t avoid offending anyone, so why then does the way you do it matter?
[quote=“Lasche, post:149, topic:14760, full:true”]
Wishing to avoid offending someone is an intention. If intention is really irrelevant, then why do you continue to make such considerations?[/quote]
You’re right, wishing to avoid hurting someone is a subjective desire that I thought we might share. It’s largely what drives civic behaviour. But even if we do not share the subjective desire to avoid injuring, it doesn’t matter. As a general rule, people do not have the right to hurt other people, and they have a duty to not injure. As a general rule, they have this duty even when they are not acting with the intent to hurt others. So while their intent to not hurt others might explain their subjective motivation for not hurting others, they nevertheless have the duty not to hurt others even if they lack this civic-minded motivation. Which is to say that it’s just as illegal for psychopaths to murder people as it is for moral individuals to murder people: their subjective desire not to hurt people—or lack thereof—does not change their duty towards others.
So, if I’m willing to tell someone to fuck off, I might as well drive over them with a truck while I’m at it, since the way I hurt them doesn’t matter?
Whenever I am talking about offending someone, you keep talking about ‘hurt’ or ‘hurting’ or ‘injuring’. I have noticed that in this thread you’ve pretty much equated dressing up as Zwarte Piet to swinging a samurai sword in public, rape, killing someone, running someone over with a car, libel and murder.
If this is truly how you perceive the impact of Zwarte Piet, then I understand why you seem to feel so strongly about this issue. I agree that it’s civil behaviour to avoid swinging a samurai sword in public, rape, killing someone, running someone over with a car, libel and murder.
In my book however there is a enormous difference between taking offense at something, or getting physically, emotionally and/or economically damaged.
I use the words like “hurt” and “injure” because I want to underscore the very real damage that words and actions can do even if they don’t cause physical injury. You use “offend” because you want to minimize the impact of words and suggest that it is only because the victims are unreasonably sensitive that they are offended/hurt.
I used examples involving physical acts because they are familiar points of reference where we all agree that intent is irrelevant. If you want me to refrain from using examples involving physical acts, I could again cite libel, and include things like bullying or sexual harassment (where intent is also irrelevant). In all of these things we could argue that the “victims” should simply toughen up, and not take offense at the words and actions of others. But that would discount the very real injury that these victims incur. Are sexual harassment laws wrong when they outlaw funny jokes, compliments, and other innuendo not intended to be offensive?
Also, I’m not sure why you don’t think that people who are “offended” by black-face aren’t also emotionally damaged by it. Certainly some of them are at least as damaged as some victims of sexual harassment.
No, I use ‘offend’ because that is what I am talking about. There is no need to over- or understate the subjective effect of being offended, because it differs from person to person.
Not only don’t “we all agree” that intent is irrelevant in the examples, it is even extremely important when talking about murder for instance. Besides that, your examples completely miss the mark.
As for your new examples, I am going to humour you and draw the parallels between dressing up as Zwarte Piet and sexual harassment using funny jokes:
A man tells a joke to a woman, who then laughs and asks him to tell another. A third person overhears this, thinks this is offensive and complains about sexual harassment.
For clarification: the man is Zwarte Piet, the woman represents the children and the third person represents the people taking offense at the interaction.
I am not certain about the sexual harassment laws in your country, but I am pretty sure the third person doesn’t have a case in court.
Of course the third person does, if the man is creating a culture of lewd jokes and disrespect in the workplace. It doesn’t matter that one person laughs – that doesn’t suddenly make sexist or racist jokes in the workplace ok.
Especially, in your metaphor, if the person who laughs are “the children,” who have no reason to understand the history of hundreds of years of racism against Africans (perpetuated by stereotypes such as these), and will generally find most things funny. If I regularly told my kids racist jokes and took them to blackface shows, they would probably laugh as well. It doesn’t suddenly make it right.
We can continue to argue about whether or not it is a racist stereotype, but the fact that the children laugh has got nothing whatsoever to do with the argument.
Nope, the third person doesn’t, not even with the extra suppositions you added (“if the man is creating…” “in the workplace”). And ofcourse it matters if one person laughs, because there are two opposing views: that it is not ok and that it is ok.
Being hurt also differs from person to person. The difference is that using the word “hurt” embraces the injury that the victim has been subjected to while “offended” does not. It would be like running over someone with a car an talking about those who have been affected by my actions. as opposed to those who have been injured by them.
If you disagree with this, why didn’t you raise your objection in the numerous times I raised this subject? In most common law jurisdictions strict intent to kill is not required for murder: recklessness can suffice.
And is the simple statement that my examples completely miss the mark considered an adequate rebuttal? OK, your “it’s for the children” argument completely misses the mark. As does your “well, somebody somewhere could be offended by anything I do so therefore it doesn’t mater what I say or do so long as I don’t have malicious intent.” Not to mention your ridiculous “why do you want to rob the children of joy?” argument.
Edit: My late friend Terry used to claim that if you can’t tell the difference between Asterix the Gaul and blackface minstrelsy you must really feel that African features are so extremely disgusting and offensive that you just can’t stand to see them portrayed.
Stupid lazy and clumsy ? Where do you get this stuff. Check the dutch wikipedia they have footage of Zwarte Piet going back to the 50’s showing him as an acrobat, or more properly as I pointed out above an “Arlecchino” figure. Hardly “modern” (and it probably dates back even earlier), this is back when there was still segregation in the US.
The clothes are not “exotic”, they are courtier’s clothes. It’s what you might imagine someone who lives at court might wear in a children’s story.
I posit just the opposite. You can’t expect a country like the US that still has so many issues some people didn’t believe the president was from their country because of his race to look at this with “clear eyes.” Most of the criticism comes from a US centric view on race and history.
Yes. Because that clearly defames a race, so it is racist. Zwarte Piet is always portrayed in a positive light with “negative” actions caused by character and plot as necessitated by the story not because of his race.
Nope, there can be debate. Banning is not debate. Also I believe that the opposition is still quite small. It exists, it’s just in no way a reflection of popular opinion.
Stories which are written will generally go with one explanation or the other, but the tradition is a mishmash. I’m sure before Aesop wrote down his fables there were many variations, as there are of other fairytales, it’s just that none of those reached us through history. Remember this is not high culture we are talking about here, but rather a collection of traditions by poor people from all other the Benelux which have coalesced (more or less) into what we know now as Sinterklaas.
Sometimes, other times not. Because it’s an archetype.
I’m all for debate, that’s why I am here representing the other side. What I don’t agree with is what some people are calling for namely banning by the authorities and other such nonsense.
That may be. But it’s also true that it is usually very difficult for minority groups to gain popular support for issues that only affect them. Because most of the Dutch population is white, and it has been that way for a long, long time, it is difficult for issues primarily affecting minorities to gain broad understanding and support. In North America this phenomenon well recognized, and the very point of things like the US Constitution and the XIV Amendment is to provide protection of minorities against the will of the majority. Constitutions are, by their nature, counter-majoritarian, and are intended to protect all citizens against the worst impulses of a democracy. I suspect this is a fundamental difference between the North American and traditional European systems: we see protection of minorities against majorities as a core role for the government and courts.
But aren’t greedy Jews and hard-working Asians also archetypes? Does the fact that the time-frame for this bumbling Piet archetype coincides with that of the [Sambo][1] archetype have any possible significance? And if the answer is simply that it is an innocent archetype, why has this non-racial archetype died out in recent years?
[1]: Stereotypes of African Americans - Wikipedia[quote=“Forkboy, post:158, topic:14760”]
bwv812 said:
“Apparently evolution can only happen without public debate and grievance. As in, everyone should just shut up and hope things change on their own”
I’m all for debate, that’s why I am here representing the other side. What I don’t agree with is what some people are calling for namely banning by the authorities and other such nonsense.
[/quote]
The authorities don’t have to ban it, but they also don’t have to sponsor such festivities or give them licenses, either. They certainly don’t have to arrest people who are simply wearing T-shirts saying that it is racist.
I’m certainly not saying the practice should be banned. If people want to act this way in a completely private manner, they can. But I do think they should be cognizant that their actions may be causing some of their fellow citizens real anguish and pain. And instead of simply rejecting that pain as somehow inconsistent with traditional Dutch culture, I think you (in the general sense, not you in particular) have got to recognize that Dutch culture is changing, that minorities are also Dutch citizens, and they deserve as much respect and consideration as any other Dutch citizen. If you are uncomfortable extending protections to minorities and issues that affect them in particular, perhaps you should have refrained from colonizing tens of millions of people and encouraging “guest worker” immigration to boost your economy.
Minorities don’t need protecting, they just need the same rights as everyone else. Special privilege is just another form of apartheid. Also forgive me if I don’t sympathise with your view on my country as being white bread, I live in a community where 48% is of immigrant descent and my daughter is one of 4 white kids in a class of 18. All of whom are very happy to sing Sinterklaas songs by the way.
No they’re stereotypes. “In literary terms, an archetype has to do with the function or role that a character plays; whereas, a stereotype is an evaluation of that character’s depth and originality.”
Not if that’s all they do. Unfortunately some of those come to jeer and disrupt a children’s party, they can be told to move on.
That sort of defeats the purpose of a festival. Imagine banning santa from public life.
True and they get consideration. We have mosques, Hindu temples, etc. People protest the slaughter, in the most brutal way, of non-tranquilized animals by muslims on the Feast of the Sacrifice to satisfy the rules set by their imaginary friend. That offends people’s sensibilities but it’s still allowed. Because being offended is meaningless. And not being offended has nothing to do with respect.
So your community is reflective of your country as a whole? 80% of the Netherlands is white, and your local demographics aren’t going to change that basic fact. If even every single minority in the Netherlands wanted to change government policy or laws, they would lack the democratic power to do so. But congratulations on living in a community with a lot of minorities, which if nothing else suggests some level of societal segregation. Arguments in favor of formal equality may sound appealing on their face, but a wealth of social science evidence demonstrates that formal equality simply perpetuates established power dynamics and institutional obstacles.
The disparate impact of formal equality has been long recognized, as Anatole France wrote in 1894:
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
Is restricting free speech only to those who make more than €100,000 per year OK? How about minimum IQ or income requirements for procreation? How about minimum education or language requirements for voting? How about minimum income requirements to live in certain communities? All of these are laws that apply to everyone equally. Is effective political representation only for those who are part of the majority race/culture OK?
Maybe it’s just me, but I find the text you’ve quoted to be rather inscrutable. If you want to differentiate archetypes from stereotypes based on the depth of characterization, as the full definition at the link you provide does, then I’m not sure that your Piet-as-bumbling-fool survives this test. There’s nothing complex or humanizing about him or his story and I’m not sure he transcends the sterotypical bumbling-black-Sambo trope. And if the archetype that the black-faced Piet plays is the bumbling fool, then the archetype that Jewish/semitic characters often play is the greedy businessman.
Why? Free speech in public spaces is prohibited? Was the man arrested actually jeering and disrupting the party? Why is this kids party allowed to interfere with free speech, and why aren’t the party goers told to move on? Is this the sort of formal equality you were talking about earlier? A system where the festival receives state support and opponents receive state censure?
I’m not sure that Santa receives state subsidies in North America. Christmas certainly receives a lot of private support, and that’s not a problem.
It’s interesting how Allah is dismissed as an imaginary friend, yet I don’t think you are as willing to dismiss the Piets as imaginary friends.
The actors’ lips are not artificially enlarged to suggest a ‘negroid’ physiognomy, and there is no particular reason to associate the red lips with Black Africans if you are not familiar with the blackface tradition. The black colour of the skin is caused by the accumulation of soot from the chimneys, the curly hair (not frizzy hair) is not in need of a special explanation, since this trait is also quite common in European people, and the earrings are sometimes connected to a former life as a Barbary pirate.
The protesters are given ample opportunity to express their opinion in the press and on national television. I am not aware of any sponsoring by the government. There are several organisations aimed at combating racial discrimination that do receive government funding. This particular group of protesters’ objections against the public celebration in Amsterdam, however, were deemed invalid by the municipality on 30 October and later by the court on 8 November.
As far as I know, no pressure was applied by the Mayor in order to have the earrings removed. In his letter of 30 October he stated that the celebration itself in its present form cannot be considered racist and rather promotes social cohesion, pointing out that it is attended by 300,000 to 400,000 people (B/W) each year in Amsterdam. Any changes that have been introduced have resulted from an open debate between the Mayor, Gario and the parties involved in the celebration.
