Support NeoGAF

[Log4Girlz]

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.

I did not specify who this actor was or what the purpose of the image was. It is easily deduced that this person is taking on the role of another race as per the make up. Let's say its actually a halloween costume, you have someone clearly acting as something they are not, which in this case is a minority group. He has all the hallmarks of a black caricature. The dark make-up is applied in such a manner where parts of his mouth surrounding his lips are not touch so as to give the illusion of larger lips.

Even without context that this is Al Jolson, it is a racist image. It is our job as adults to judge this imagery, I do not leave it to children.

 

[itsgreen]

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.

It's like making Santa Claus purple. We don't want to change it. It isn't racist so why should we?

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

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.

Well our kids are told that they climb down chimneys, therefor have black faces.

 

[Always-honest]

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.

They don't have to be different colours. It's supposed to be soot/ charcoal from chimney work. Just a couple of smudges of black on faces, hands, maybe clothes would do the trick.

 

[Log4Girlz]

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.

By your reasoning then the imagery of Gollywogs is not racist. By your reasoning the classic Aunt Jemima imagery is not racist. By your reasoning anything depicting a caricature of a minority is not racist.

These images to you are not inherently racist then:

 

[Sutton Dagger]

It's like making Santa Claus purple. We don't want to change it. It isn't racist so why should we?

Why would I care if Santa Claus was purple? So you have some weird hangup about change given your Santa Claus question? Some people find it offensive, why not just change it, it's not like the black face is integral to the tradition in any way?

 

[ShinHayase]

I did not specify who this actor was or what the purpose of the image was. It is easily deduced that this person is taking on the role of another race as per the make up. Let's say its actually a halloween costume, you have someone clearly acting as something they are not, which in this case is a minority group. He has all the hallmarks of a black caricature. The dark make-up is applied in such a manner where parts of his mouth surrounding his lips are not touch so as to give the illusion of larger lips.

Even without context that this is Al Jolson, it is a racist image. It is our job as adults to judge this imagery, I do not leave it to children.

You seem to avoid my question or don't seem to understand the concept of 'context'.

Let's take the children out of the debate for now and replace them with an adult who has always lived in a near-perfect world without racism. Who doen not understand the concept of minorities or of people feeling inferior or superior because of skincolor.

Could that image be offensive to them?

 

[midonnay]

If you ask an american to change images of Jesus because he's actually a middle eastern person?

would they ask you to GTFO?

How about Japanese and hunting whales?

 

[itsgreen]

Why would I care if Santa Claus was purple? So you have some weird hangup about change given your Santa Claus question? Some people find it offensive, why not just change it, it's not like the black face is integral to the tradition in any way?

I am sure most Americans would care.

We don't do change because people take offense. We'll judge complaints on their merits and this time we think they are wrong. Because Zwarte Piet, despite its roots, isn't racist. It isn't depicting a black man anymore. It has become a whole other thing.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

They don't have to be different colours. It's supposed to be soot/ charcoal from chimney work. Just a couple of smudges of black on faces, hands, maybe clothes would do the trick.

Or that. I'm just not understanding why the blackface, coupled with red lips and an afro is so important to the tradition? As you said, some apparent soot markings would be more appropriate given the story about their connection to chimneys. Why does changing the current depiction in any way detract from the broader tradition?

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

By your reasoning then the imagery of Gollywogs is not racist. By your reasoning the classic Aunt Jemima imagery is not racist. By your reasoning anything depicting a caricature of a minority is not racist.

These images to you are not inherently racist then:

I dont know what the text says but, Again, offensive does not equal racist.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You seem to avoid my question or don't seem to understand the concept of 'context'.

Let's take the children out of the debate for now and replace them with an adult who has always lived in a near-perfect world without racism. Who doen not understand the concept of minorities or of people feeling inferior or superior because of skincolor.

Could that image be offensive to them?

If they still have access to our world's history, then I would imagine any reasonable adult would find the images of Gollywogs, White men in black face, Mammy characters offensive. If you eliminate all history, then there is no reason to find anything offensive. Much like myself as a child, who had no knowledge of racism, Mammy characters were not offensive. If you showed me a Gollywog, I probably would love it. That does not mean the doll is not racist in nature. It is offensive because it is racist in its nature.

 

[Always-honest]

Or that. I'm just not understanding why the blackface, coupled with red lips and an afro is so important to the tradition? As you said, some apparent soot markings would be more appropriate given the story about their connection to chimneys. Why does changing the current depiction in any way detract from the broader tradition?

It's not important to the tradition at all. People just don't like changes. Kids wouldn't give a fuck though. It's stubborn older people who seem to care the most.
People and their backwards traditions.....

 

[itsgreen]

Or that. I'm just not understanding why the blackface, coupled with red lips and an afro is so important to the tradition? As you said, some apparent soot markings would be more appropriate given the story about their connection to chimneys. Why does changing the current depiction in any way detract from the broader tradition?

Because Zwarte Pieten are black. It's kind of in the name, 'Black Petes'.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I dont know what the text says but, Again, offensive does not equal racist.

The giant balloon like red lips are not racist? Are you labeling the images I linked as merely offensive and not racist?

 

[itsgreen]

If they still have access to our world's history, then I would imagine any reasonable adult would find the images of Gollywogs, White men in black face, Mammy characters offensive. If you eliminate all history, then there is no reason to find anything offensive. Much like myself as a child, who had no knowledge of racism, Mammy characters were not offensive. If you showed me a Gollywog, I probably would love it. That does not mean the doll is not racist in nature. It is offensive because it is racist in its nature.

And Zwarte Piet has transcended above its original nature and now only has positive connotations.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I am sure most Americans would care.

We don't do change because people take offense. We'll judge complaints on their merits and this time we think they are wrong. Because Zwarte Piet, despite its roots, isn't racist. It isn't depicting a black man anymore. It has become a whole other thing.

You might not think it's racist, but you understand that some people do though right? Again why can't it be changed to make everyone happy? What do you lose if they change the blackface to something that resembles soot (on the face/body/clothes)? Is it a matter of pride, or maybe you think if it's changed then it's by extension an admission of its racist connotations, which you don't accept?

 

[Always-honest]

Because Zwarte Pieten are black. It's kind of in the name, 'Black Petes'.

That wouldn't change. They could even change it to just "pieten"... But since soot is involved, they can still be black petes.

 

[Log4Girlz]

And Zwarte Piet has transcended above its original nature and now only has positive connotations.

And what was his original nature?

 

[itsgreen]

You might not think it's racist, but you understand that some people do though right? Again why can't it be changed to make everyone happy? What do you lose if they change the blackface to something that resembles soot (on the face/body/clothes)? Is it a matter of pride, or maybe you think if it's changed then it's by extension an admission of its racist connotations, which you don't accept?

I can understand why outsiders do think its racist. For me personally I am not going to help with the 'vertrutting' of our society. Vertrutting means something like making everything PC, catering to every person who feels offended, oh you feel offended by this, let scrape that, oh you feel offended by that word let's no use that anymore. Being offended is not my problem.

 

[soepje]

To be honest, i don't see much black people out there with natural shiny red lips, so who says it's a black thing? maybe the piets are going for a christina aguilera look .

lol, i can't take this topic serious, it's just going around in circles.

 

[Always-honest]

And what was his original nature?

A servant. Then they decided one servant wasn't enough.
Not that bright and not speaking well.

I believe canadians once wanted to surprise the kids after ww2 and decided there would be a massive amount of pieten.

In Dutch tradition they went from servant to happy assistant. Some bright, some not so bright, all with different specialities.
With one main Piet. Santas right hand

Wikipedia says that Sinterklaas didn't have a servant untill 1850.

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

The giant balloon like red lips are not racist? Are you labeling the images I linked as merely offensive and not racist?

Without context, yes. Again, to be racist is to beleive that a race is superior to the other. You can't tell that from an image alone.

 

[itsgreen]

And what was his original nature?

I have already said it tenfold, the roots are racist. But the roots are irrelevant to the Dutch because in practice the whole thing isn't racist and hasn't been for a long long time.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Without context, yes. Again, to be racist is to beleive that a race is superior to the other. You can't tell that from an image alone.

So the depiction of a black person as a caricature with gigantic red lips, a depiction of a human being with their most distinguishing features exaggerated to grotesque proportions has no racist connotation because there is no direct instruction to view the creature inferior by the observer? So if the individual had a monkey tail as well, is it still not racist?

I have already said it tenfold, the roots are racist. But the roots are irrelevant to the Dutch because in practice the whole thing isn't racist and hasn't been for a long long time.

The roots are racist? Can I tell by looking at the original depiction of Zwarte Piet that it was intended as a racist caricature?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I can understand why outsiders do think its racist. For me personally I am not going to help with the 'vertrutting' of our society. Vertrutting means something like making everything PC, catering to every person who feels offended, oh you feel offended by this, let scrape that, oh you feel offended by that word let's no use that anymore. Being offended is not my problem.

What are you scraping though? The only thing that would be changed would be the use of fake soot instead of a black face. I really don't understand why this is a big deal, it's not 'making everything PC', it's adapting a tradition so that it's more inclusive? Shrug...

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Without context, yes. Again, to be racist is to beleive that a race is superior to the other. You can't tell that from an image alone.

I wonder how parents from the Dutch Antilles or Suriname feel when they hop around the livingroom entertaining their children. I doubt they feel the same.

And for the people saying it does not have racial undertones. There are still people playing Zwarte Piet using a stereotypical Suriname accent. The connection is still there. It's so ingrained in society that many don't care.

 

[itsgreen]

The roots are racist? Can I tell by looking at the original depiction of Zwarte Piet that it was intended as a racist caricature?

Yeah. I am not playing the picture game. That wasn't me.

But no, but it's save to assume it was racist.

 

[Scipius]

I have already said it tenfold, the roots are racist. But the roots are irrelevant to the Dutch because in practice the whole thing isn't racist and hasn't been for a long long time.

Zwarte Piet as a concept is not racist in origin; it is only the current depiction of him, which was acquired in the 19th century, that can be interpreted as racist.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Yeah. I am not playing the picture game. That wasn't me.

But no, but it's save to assume it was racist.

So you are saying that just by looking at the earliest depictions of Zwarte Piet I would not be able to ascertain its racist foundations?

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

So the depiction of a black person as a caricature with gigantic red lips, a depiction of a human being with their most distinguishing features exaggerated to grotesque proportions has no racist connotation because there is no direct instruction to view the creature inferior by the observer? So if the individual had a monkey tail as well, is it still not racist?

Well a tail is something from the animal kingdom and can insinuate an inferiority. That fits the definition of rasicm, which you should take a peek at because what you're constantly describing isn't racist without context, but offensive.

www.thefreedictionary.com/racist

 

[itsgreen]

So you are saying that just by looking at the earliest depictions of Zwarte Piet I would not be able to ascertain its racist foundations?

Not without context no. But I am not playing that game, because that game is unwinnable if the other side can't let go of, or understand, context. Go play it with HollovVpo1nt...

 

[Dina]

I was over this thread three years ago.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Well a tail is something from the animal kingdom and can insinuate an inferiority. That fits the definition of rasicm, which you should take a peek at because what you're constantly describing isn't racist without context, but offensive.

www.thefreedictionary.com/racist

From the link you provided:

"racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks""

So the images I linked show no intolerance in their grossly exaggerated caricatures of minorities? How are they tolerant of the minorities depicted?

The specific characteristics portrayed stem from intolerance of minority groups. Exaggeration of facial features, cultural dress, skin color are common methods of marginalizing and belittling minority groups. Whether it be blacks, asians, jews, latinos.

Not without context no. But I am not playing that game, because that game is unwinnable if the other side can't let go of, or understand, context. Go play it with HollovVpo1nt...

By your reasoning I would not be able to ascertain whether Gollywogs have racist roots by looking at them.

Edit: Or let me put it this way. "Zwarte Piet has racist roots? Well no shit I can tell by looking at him".

 

[itsgreen]

By your reasoning I would not be able to ascertain whether Gollywogs have racist roots by looking at them.

Exactly.

 

[2San]

Ah the yearly Zwarte Piet thread. I can only offer my point view. I'm South-Asian born in the Netherlands with most of my friends being other minorities(I do have a few white friends ). Zwarte Piet does have a racist background, but don't act like the people are racist for liking it. There's nothing inherently wrong with dressing up as a character from another race. Americans act like it's the most terrible thing ever. So I can dress as another character wear his clothes act like him, but change my skin color? Fuck no!? You also have to understand being black isn't really a disadvantage over here. Most of the racism is sadly caught by those of Moroccan/Turkish decent. Comedians acting out other caricatures of other races is pretty standard practice. This includes Black comedians acting out Hindustanen(those Surinamic decent but orginally from South-Asia).

Honestly from my point of view having black celebrity calling themselves nigger, but when someone else calls him that, shit hits the fan. Is pretty stupid. I guess every place has it quirks.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Exactly.

I can tell Gollywogs have racist origins just by looking at them. Why do you think I am wrong? What about Gollywogs am I misinterpreting? Where am I stepping over the boundaries of rationality when I assume their creation was rooted in racism?

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

From the link you provided:

"racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks""

So the images I linked show no intolerance in their grossly exaggerated caricatures of minorities? How are they tolerant of the minorities depicted?

The specific characteristics portrayed stem from intolerance of minority groups. Exaggeration of facial features, cultural dress, skin color are common methods of marginalizing and belittling minority groups. Whether it be blacks, asians, jews, latinos.



By your reasoning I would not be able to ascertain whether Gollywogs have racist roots by looking at them.

The line you quoted is a related to the definition, not the definition itself (see the legend). I had to google what gollywogs are, buy without context none of these caricatures are racist. If you show that doll to someone who has zero knowledge of slavery, history and anything related to the history of blackface, there would be no reason to beleive it's racist, because it lacks context.

 

[itsgreen]

I can tell Gollywogs have racist origins just by looking at them. Why do you think I am wrong? What about Gollywogs am I misinterpreting? Where am I stepping over the boundaries of rationality when I assume their creation was rooted in racism?

Not without context. But you don't seem to understand how broad context/culture is. And aren't able to let it go.

Unless you think that a caricature is racism by default, and then we just disagree I guess.

What I understand from the Gollywogs wiki, by glancing through it, it wasn't sold anymore because of its roots, but because it Gollywogs was used as a racial slur. But I am not familiar with them so I don't know.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The line you quoted is a related to the definition, not the definition itself (see the legend). I had to google what gollywogs are, buy without context none of these caricatures are racist. If you show that doll to someone who has zero knowledge of slavery, history and anything related to the history of blackface, there would be no reason to beleive it's racist, because it lacks context.

You are going beyond removing the context of the image and removing the observer from the equation as well. As humans living on Earth, there is a history of antagonism between various races. Imagery of grossly exaggerated caricatures of racial minorities is inherently racist. A black face with gigantic lips is racist. Pretending we will be showing this image to a human raised in a lab who has never met another human being or has been spoken to its entire life and therefore has no knowledge of anything is ridiculous.

 

[itsgreen]

You are going beyond removing the context of the image and removing the observer from the equation as well. As humans living on Earth, there is a history of antagonism between various races. Imagery of grossly exaggerated caricatures of racial minorities is inherently racist. A black face with gigantic lips is racist. Pretending we will be showing this image to a human raised in a lab who has never met another human being or has been spoken to its entire life and therefore has no knowledge of anything is ridiculous.

That is what context/culture is. It's how you perceive the world.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Not without context. But you don't seem to understand how broad context/culture is. And aren't able to let it go.

I disagree. Gollywogs are inherently racist. As would be images of Gollywogs hanging from trees. As would any grossly exaggerated caricature of a minority group would be.

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

Yeah I'm done here. No point in argueing with someone who has a selective definition of context and no definition of racist.

 

[itsgreen]

I disagree. Gollywogs are inherently racist. As would be images of Gollywogs hanging from trees. As would any grossly exaggerated caricature of a minority group would be.

Gollywogs and a Gollywog hanging from a tree aren't really the same though aren't they.

A bunny and a bunny hanging from a tree represent quite different things...

But even that needs context to understand.

Yeah I'm done here. No point in argueing with someone who has a selective definition of context and no definition of racist.

Yup.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Yeah I'm done here. No point in argueing with someone who has a selective definition of context and no definition of racist.

Eh, the term racist can be used as an adjective, which is posted from the site you linked to

"Adj. 1. racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
""

Again, the images I linked to show a grotesque depiction of a black minority. These kinds of depictions were quite common in the past and were based on racial intolerance.

Zwarte Piet's image orginated from racial intolerance. Even without the actual history, the specific details of its origination, in other words the context of the image itself, it is still self evident. There is no reason to extend the "no context" caveat to the observer. We are all adults here with some understanding of history. Of course if given to a person who has never known racism and has no knowledge of its history, the image is nonsensical. If this person was white, they would not understand the concept of different races. But given to an average, educated person a picture of Zwarte Piet or a Gollywog, or a lawn jockey with shining cherry lips, with no description or historical context to the picture, and asked whether any of these images have racist backgrounds would say yes.

 

[Ikael]

As far as I see it:

- The Dutch uses black face-painted guy as a Christmas icon since decades
- Back in the US, American racists uses black face-painted guys as a means to denigrate blacks
- Regular Americans dennounce the Dutch Zwarte Piet because it reminds them to their own homegrown racists since it seem that American racist insults / parodies are now somehow a universally spoken language

Yep, totally reasonable and understanding of different cultures, no projection of your own phobias and complexes at all. It reminds me of the whole "chinese eyes" during the stupid scandal with the world cup basketball championship.

 

[Kreed]

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.

You haven't been trying to convince me of anything. All you've done in responding to me so far is convince me that the group of people in the OP are a small minority within your country, and that you are from the country of origin for the Zwarte Pieten and I am not. That doesn't mean that the issues the small minority are bringing up ISN'T a problem. In the US for example, the majority of US citizens believe that evolution isn't real and that global warming wasn't happening until recent events with the weather (percentages have gone up now). But obviously the majority isn't right in this situation.

We should all be discussing the issues brought up in the OP and whether they are fact or not, and not writing off the issues because the majority of the people in this thread who want to discuss the issue are from other countries outside of your own where the issue is occurring.

It is REALLY irritating to see so many of you not only ignore the complaints by people in the OP, but write off everyone else who disagrees with you in this thread with "don't push your beliefs on us, you're not from our country". If someone sees something as wrong and there is value in it, it will go beyond country of origin, as shown by the movement in the OP and the article I reposted earlier. If you want to convince me why these things are wrong, then do so with facts/information that proves the people in the OP are false in their claims of the Zwarte Pieten character, but if all you're going to do is regulate my opinion as a "typical US person", then you're right, we have nothing more to discuss.

It's too bad more of you can't at least be reasonable like this guy:

I don't really care what zwarte pieten look like. If they change the black make-up to other colors - fine with that. I'm pretty sure kids don't give a flying fuck either as long as they still get their candy, jokes and acrobatics.

But if I was under the impression the changes were made because non-Dutch were butthurt about it I'd be annoyed.

 

[Metrotab]

Eh, the term racist can be used as an adjective, which is posted from the site you linked to

"Adj. 1. racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
""

Again, the images I linked to show a grotesque depiction of a black minority. These kinds of depictions were quite common in the past and were based on racial intolerance.

Zwarte Piet's image orginated from racial intolerance. Even without the actual history, the specific details of its origination, in other words the context of the image itself, it is still self evident. There is no reason to extend the "no context" caveat to the observer. We are all adults here with some understanding of history. Of course if given to a person who has never known racism and has no knowledge of its history, the image is nonsensical. If this person was white, they would not understand the concept of different races. But given to an average, educated person a picture of Zwarte Piet or a Gollywog, or a lawn jockey with shining cherry lips, with no description or historical context to the picture, and asked whether any of these images have racist backgrounds would say yes.

From our point of view, we have divorced the racist background from the current tradition.

 

[itsgreen]

You haven't been trying to convince me of anything. All you've done in responding to me so far is convince me that the group of people in the OP are a small minority within your country, and that you are from the country of origin for the Zwarte Pieten and I am not. That doesn't mean that the issues the small minority are bringing up ISN'T a problem. In the US for example, the majority of US citizens believe that evolution isn't real and that global warming wasn't happening until recent events with the weather (percentages have gone up now). But obviously the majority isn't right in this situation.

We should all be discussing the issues brought up in the OP and whether they are fact or not, and not writing off the issues because the majority of the people in this thread who want to discuss the issue are from other countries outside of your own where the issue is occurring.

It is REALLY irritating to see so many of you not only ignore the complaints by people in the OP, but write off everyone else who disagrees with you in this thread with "don't push your beliefs on us, you're not from our country". If someone sees something as wrong and there is value in it, it will go beyond country of origin, as shown by the movement in the OP and the article I reposted earlier. If you want to convince me why these things are wrong, then do so with facts/information that proves the people in the OP are false in their claims of the Zwarte Pieten character, but if all you're going to do is regulate my opinion as a "typical US person", then you're right, we have nothing more to discuss.

It's too bad more of you can't at least be reasonable like this guy:

It is not that we dismiss them because they are a minority. And we aren't right because we are the majority. We dismiss them because they are flat out wrong and we are right. And the only way to truly know that if you experienced Sinterklaas. And that's that. You don't and we do so that's that.

You only see imagery and say that's racist. Sinterklaas goes beyond that and the actual meaning is different. You don't know what Sinterklaas is and how it's experienced. You don't seem to accept that it doesn't have a negative or racist meaning. And that's fine, but that doesn't make you right or Zwarte Piet racist. It just means you haven't experienced it or seen it so your viewpoint is invalid because all you see is racist imagery without its cultural context that isn't racist at all anymore.

 

[Kreed]

It is not that we dismiss them because they are a minority. And we aren't right because we are the majority. We dismiss them because they are flat out wrong and we are right. And the only way to truly know that if you experienced Sinterklaas. And that's that. You don't so and we do that's that.

So all the people in the OP/in the article never experienced Sinterklaas?

You're right that I've never experienced Sinterklaas/never seen a Zwarte Pieten. The only thing in my country that we have that's similar that I can relate is Santa's helpers the elves and his reindeer. In our country no one would say elves/reindeer are offensive, and if a group did most people in our country would ridicule them for saying that. That's mostly what I've seen you and others try to express, that Zwarte Pieten is a good character like the elves/reindeer in our traditions and most people don't see anything "bad" in him and his tradition. Is there something else I and the group in the OP is missing? Because otherwise, none of this "invalidates" the issues the group in the OP are complaining about.

You only see imagery and say that's racist. Sinterklaas goes beyond that and the actual meaning is different. You don't know what Sinterklaas is and how it experienced. You don't seem to accept that it doesn't have a negative or racist meaning. And that's fine, but that doesn't make you right or Zwarte Piet racist. It just means you haven't experienced it or seen it so your viewpoint is invalid because all you see is racist imagery without its cultural context that isn't racist at all anymore.

As I mentioned earlier, I've participated/read through at least three Zwart Piet threads on GAF. What I've learned from those threads is that Zwart Piet originally had more racist context (demon, Moor, slave, etc...) and that your country changed his origin for the better. That's good, I don't think I or anyone in that op video has an issue with the new origin stories many of you have shared in this thread.

The problem now is how Zwarte Pieten looks and why that hasn't changed like his origin story. You and many others claim that his looks aren't negative, but in the article that was posted earlier, many of the black people that are part of the protest claim to have been called Zwarte Pieten at least once by random children. I think we can agree that children shouldn't be confusing an entire ethnic group with this character if the character's image isn't supposed to be a portrayal of said ethnic group. This alone is enough reason to give these people's protests merit and not "invalid".