Byakuya769
Member
Trap card activated!
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Zwarte Piet 2012 |OT|
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
Trap card activated!
If he just had a black/soot-covered face, I'd be inclined to agree. But seriously - black face, bright red lips and afro hair? Come on, that is no coincidence and feigning ignorance gets us nowhere.
Half and half
Member
Santa Claus sets a horrible example for American kids. It tells them it's okay to get fat and diabetic eating tasteless American chocolate and drinking flavored corn-syrup drinks. Horrible tradition.
Devolution
Member
You know if Santa climbs down chimneys how come he's not dirty.
how does santa even get his arse in?
he wiggles his nose and he teleports to the cookies and milk
Always-honest
Banned
that's not what we are discussing here. I couldn't care less if he was purple, but it's also irrelevant to this discussion.
Bed time for me. If you're as dutch as me, i suggest yo do the same
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
Is Santa Claus based on sinter class? Look same sund same name.
Devolution
Member
I got presents in an apartment without a fireplace so the smart ass that I am the first question I asked was, "how do I get presents if there is no chimney for Santa to come down?"
It all went downhill from there and I figured it out.
I don't think anybody is arguing that the roots aren't racist (on some level).
It just that the character has transformed since its inception hundreds of years ago.
Like I previously said, its a concept and its just like words, they have a container (the actual word, letters) and a meaning.
Although the container has its root in racism, the meaning, what the character actually represents has changed so much since then that it doesn't have anything to do with black people and Dutch people view it is a character on its own. So you have a great discrepancy between people who do know and experience the modern meaning and judge Zwarte Pieten by that and people who only see blackface and judge it by what they see.
freenudemacusers
Member
Is part of zwarte piet making terrible analogies in defense of a (historically racist) tradition?
Always-honest
Banned
As an open minded dutchy, i'm in for just a slightly bigger transformation. pieten from all ethnic backgrounds with a bit of charcoal/ roet/ soot on their face and clothes. I see no harm that and it wold send out a nice signal to the rest of the world.
I think he is American and making a joke...
Half and half
Member
Oh that wasn't Zwarte Piet defense. I was just remembering how terrible the food and customs are here when compared to the rest of the world.
It's not on some level it was flat out racist on every level based on its history. Taking historical context into account, even though Pete is no longer inwardly racist,(And I think almost everyone here understands that) it is still outwardly racist caricature due to its appearance not changing along with its source material. I think that is the one thing that many of the Dutch people still do not understand.
They don't understand because they don't perceive Zwarte Piet as a caricature of a black man but as its own entity with only positive traits.
While outsiders see a caricature of black man, we see Zwarte Piet. Ehich to us isn't a caricature of a black man...
Funny enough I think the person who made that comparison brought up the same argument, that the group in the OP represents a small "minority" and shouldn't be taken seriously vs the majority of the country(s) in support of Zwarte Pieten. The problem when you use the words small minority in order to say their opinions shouldn't matter vs the majority of the country is that many of the posters in this thread are part of or relate to smaller minority groups within their countries. Now those minority groups aren't nearly as small as the group of people in that video (based on what you and others have stated), but I think all of us can relate to trying to be heard/point out a problem to a larger group of people who don't want to change.
Now of course many of the groups I'm referring to were/are fighting for issues in their countries that are much much much more important than a children's holiday character, so no 1:1 comparisons here either. But I think we can all agree that it's not a good idea to ignore the opinions of the people in the OP video if you're only reason for doing so is because they are a small group/don't have enough people on their side to be taken seriously. At the very least, we should look at their complaints and discuss why the majority is right and they are wrong for being offended on an even playing field.
Of course! But they aren't ignored/being taken serious because they are a small group, they are ignored/not taken serious because what they say just isn't what all other people experience.
To you, but the fact is that it's still an outwardly racist caricature. You can't run away from its origins, especially when a fundamental element(its appearance) is completely unchanged. No ones saying you guys are racists for liking Zwerte Pete, it's just really annoying when you try and say that it has no racial connotations whatsoever just because most Dutch citizens gloss over it. It's like the MLB/NFL and the Redskins/chiefs. A very outwardly racist mascot, but most of the American people tolerate it and dont see it that way anymore. That doesn't mean that it isn't an outwardly racist caricature of the native people, because it is. If someone were to get up in arms about it I wouldn't get mad and try tirelessly to defend the mascot, because its pointless as the mascot is what it is whether you want to admit it or not you can't hide from historical context. Defending it by saying that it has no racial connections whatsoever is just being disingenuous and equivalent to just putting your head in the sand because you're too afraid to admit something that is cherished can also have racial connotations no matter if it's no longer intended to be like that now.
What you want, a cookie?
Santa is based off loads of things like Saint Nicholas, Old Man Winter, The Ghost of Christmas Present and this dutch guy.
I'm not sure if you're getting what I was trying to say. What I meant was that the name of a piece of food was changed because it was deemed too racist, but I've never heard anything regarding Zwarte Piet which you would think is more racist. Just a bit odd.
Love me some negerzoenen, though.
Supermanisdead
Member
If you don't see it as the racist caricature which it was created as (and remains to this day), you need to look at it again. There is no denying the fact that it's a blatantly racist caricature. Whether Dutch people want to do something about it or continue to keep their heads in the sand is up to the Dutch. Everyone else will just point out how racist it is.
GroteSmurf
Member
Half and half
Member
Off topic but I'll say this. 6 years in The Netherlands, ain't no cop ever pull us over just to get a closer look. No shop keeper ever followed me around to make sure I wasn't stealing anything. Our neighbors never flipped out seeing black folks driving through the neighborhood.
All things that have happened a lot to us in the U.S.
All things that have happened a lot to us in the U.S.
GroteSmurf
Member
I'm not sure if you're getting what I was trying to say. What I meant was that the name of a piece of food was changed because it was deemed too racist, but I've never heard anything regarding Zwarte Piet which you would think is more racist. Just a bit odd.
Love me some negerzoenen, though.
Marketing stunt Here
Well, that explains that. Always thought it was a bit silly.
Arjen
Member
I'm sorry, i'm the first to admit i can't have an objective discussion about this.
I'm a guy who has been calling people out about racism al the time, even people who are very dear to me which didn't end well. And if that is been linked to something i have so many great childhood memories about i just snap. It's really the only thing online i can get really mad about.
We have a lot of problems with racism in this country, which are burried deep down, and no-one likes to admit, but i honestly feel Sinterklaas isn't one of them.
Have you ever seen the show South Park? There is an episode called Chef Goes Nanners that reminds me somewhat of what you're saying/what's being discussed in this thread.
Why does that matter? Regardless of the label, it's still a racial caricature, regardless of whether people are familiar with its history.
Many aspects of the holiday are nothing like what they were originally, the holiday has changed over the years, including many aspects of Zwarte Piet. Why couldn't his appearance change? Why is change a problem this time?
Best topic every year. We all go around in circles, after 5 December it all stops and in November the next year it starts all over again.
So in short it does matter since people who aren't familiar with something and aren't educated about it won't ever understand the different viewpoint. It is all about a frame of reference.
As long as the frame of reference is different things won't be understoodby either parties. This is all about the people and their contextual setting.
Actually and you should know about it but a few years ago they tried rainbow piets. Don't know what happened with them afterwards but their were quite the discussion point that year.
So in short it does matter since people who aren't familiar with something and aren't educated about it won't ever understand the different viewpoint. It is all about a frame of reference.
As long as the frame of reference is different things won't be understoodby either parties. This is all about the people and their contextual setting.
Actually and you should know about it but a few years ago they tried rainbow piets. Don't know what happened with them afterwards but their were quite the discussion point that year.
ShinHayase
Member
If I would be an old white male with a long white beard, during Sinteklaas, maybe many young children would think I am an old catholic bishop who likes children.
I would be offended because we all know the image catholic leaders have when involved with young children. This one even has slaves! All old white men with long white beards should be offended! Why can't his appearance change? Why is change a problem this time?
And yes, this seems cynical but all naysayers, please answer.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
there is nothing racist about blackface. Or dressing up as a black person.
Only in the historical context of america might it be seen as racist.
Only in the historical context of america might it be seen as racist.
Kiraly
Member
Thanks man, we'll enjoy it!
Fuck off with horrendous comparisons like that, I find them highly offensive. Cunt.
Always-honest
Banned
Exactly and exactly.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Do not understand? Dude we've had this tradition for decades and we were involved with slavery in the VOC (DEC in English) years and we had many coloured people colonies. It's not about not understanding, it's about not caring. Yes Piet has black skin and bright red lips, and yes that resembles blackface, but blackface itself is a caricature. The look of a Piet is iconic to us Dutch and none of us relate that to how black people were once portrayed.
Edit: By the way, the definition of racist is to 'think that one race is superior to the other'. Zwarte Piet gets lots of respect from his 'white boss', also in the countless tv-shows here.
ShinHayase
Member
So without context this is not a racist image?
Explain to me why, without context, this is a racist image.
edit: grammar
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
it depends on how its done.
But blackface in it self or dressing up as a black person is not racist.
swarte piet is not racist.
But blackface in it self or dressing up as a black person is not racist.
swarte piet is not racist.
It is a caricature of a minority group. It is clear, even without context, that the actor is not the race he portrays. See for instance the exaggerated lips.
Why are his lips depicted as red?
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
And how does that make him racist? You cannot tell from the image if he doesn't like black people/ thinks whites are superior.
The image portrayed is racist because it depicts a caricature of a minority group. Regardless of what the actors thoughts and feelings are. He is a cartoon version of another human being, this is considered very offensive and degrading to minorities.
ShinHayase
Member
Minority group? Actor? Race?
Why don't you try again WITHOUT CONTEXT?
I'll help you a little: try to look it like a little kid would.
Yeah we can continue for hours, but that isn't this.
And there is apparently no way I am going to convince you of this because you can't seem to let go of your American viewpoint.
Boozeroony
Member
We might as well ban a white christmas.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
clearly not in Netherlands.
And dressing up as an charicture does not make it racist either.
I think that maybe a problem is that Americans seem to think everything that has anything to do with race is racism and that we have a different definition of racism and only consider it racism when there's a negative (meaning). Just hypothesizing though..
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Do you even know what racist means? Offensive and racist are not the same. There are many things that can he offenive but not racist. That image is not racist by definition.
Might be.. sure looks that way.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Did anyone manage to provide a legitimate argument for why the Zwarte Piet could not have different coloured faces like in that image someone posted? Why is having a black face integral to the 'tradition'? I don't get it.
- Status