• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Zwarte Piet 2012 |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.

akira28

Member
Is there a historical area of racist blackface activity in the Netherlands and Belgium?

Or is the controversy due to American cultural hegemony being as widespread as it is, so that this activity can't be helped but viewed through the lens of historical American racism?

I'm still not buying that bs about him being an elf covered in chimney soot.

I'd say rather, it's racist actions commited, without the perspective of historical American racism. So you don't immediately see the black person and think slave, you think 'elf'. But then you think, what a fucking minute, that dude didn't have any elves, but he might have had a...er...foreign labor force.

I can't defend the Dire Straights song, Money for Nothing. Can't do it. They don't even play it on the radio anymore.
 

Viewt

Member
Can you tell me the elements that make Zwarte Piet racist, from your perspective? So I can understand how you approach it.

From the American perspective, when you look at Black Peter, you're seeing a cartoonish oaf made up to look like a caricature of black people who serves his white master. The imagery of someone with charcoal-black skin, large ruby-red lips and a subservient demeanor is incredibly offensive in North America (and the UK as well, from what I understand). It harkens back to the times of the minstrel shows:

Sich_a_Getting_Up_Stairs%2C_T._D._Rice.jpg

So you can understand why someone from North America, or the UK or somewhere else might look at Black Peter and instantly conclude that he's a figure of racism.

EDIT: That being said, I understand and accept that Dutch and Belgian people don't see it the same way, as they don't share the same history that I do. My confusion stems from the stern opposition to just not have Black Peter show up in blackface. Would it be so horrible if he just wore the get-up, pranced around and was a guy without the make-up? Clearly there are people in your country who are offended and hurt by his current look, so what's the harm in altering a story that's already been tweaked to begin with?
 

Onemic

Member
Can you tell me the elements that make Zwarte Piet racist, from your perspective? So I can understand how you approach it.

If this is true then its racist as fuck.

Piet was originally a demon that was enslaved by sinter klaas and would do his bidding. Piet was originally the character that would punish kids for being bad either by flogging/whipping them and/or kidnapping them and taking them away to another country. (pieten still carry the weapon but dutch people pretend its for something else now)

Over the years mostly with the mass introduction of surinamers 30ish years ago the tradtion has changed.

Even with the mix of tradtions that ended up with the dutch version.... Most if not all of the origins portray Pieten in a bad light
 

Nemo

Will Eat Your Children
It's racist, but I wouldn't stop my kids from partaking and having fun on that day or watch them on TV
 

Metrotab

Banned
From the American perspective, when you look at Black Peter, you're seeing a cartoonish oaf made up to look like a caricature of black people who serves his white master. The imagery of someone with charcoal-black skin, large ruby-red lips and a subservient demeanor is incredibly offensive in North America (and the UK as well, from what I understand). It harkens back to the times of the minstrel shows:

So you can understand why someone from North America, or the UK or somewhere else might look at Black Peter and instantly conclude that he's a figure of racism.

Right. But the modern-day Zwarte Piet neither serves Sinterklaas (he assists him), or shows subservient demeanour. Head Piet had to correct Sinterklaas at his main speech today, when he misread his book.

If this is true then its racist as fuck.

It's true (or is one of the viable origin stories). But this historical story is completely forgotten in the modern Sinterklaas festivities.
 
Right. But the modern-day Zwarte Piet neither serves Sinterklaas (he assists them), or shows subservient demeanour. Head Piet had to correct Sinterklaas at his main speech today, when he misread his book.
Ok, so once again, the costume serves no purpose. Why not be rid of it?
 

Metrotab

Banned
Ok, so once again, the costume serves no purpose. Why not be rid of it?

Because there is no understanding of the costume as offensive, and hence there is no political motivation to change the folklore, since this would be considered 'flagrant political correctness'. The motivation to keep the costume (shared cultural experience of growing up across the generations) is stronger in that regard.
 

Viewt

Member
Right. But the modern-day Zwarte Piet neither serves Sinterklaas (he assists him), or shows subservient demeanour. Head Piet had to correct Sinterklaas at his main speech today, when he misread his book.



It's true (or is one of the viable origin stories). But this historical story is completely forgotten in the modern Sinterklaas festivities.

I'm sure that's true. But from an outside perspective (which is what I was aiming to provide there), it's hard to see that distinction. Especially with videos like this one, posted earlier this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2H6SXaWxuo
 

Kiraly

Member
lucky that isn't the point.

And an endless discussion about whether it is racist or not is?

All such threads just boil down to Americans unable to transcend the narrowly defined confines of US racial sensitivities clashing with Dutch users who cherish a children's tradition while unaware of the origins of some of its imagery. Neither side is likely to budge one way or the other, because either position is based more on emotion than reason.

I'm sure that's true. But from an outside perspective (which is what I was aiming to provide there), it's hard to see that distinction. Especially with videos like this one, posted earlier this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2H6SXaWxuo

I'd assume the laughting track and the man dressed as a woman would give away that this is just something out of a satire. If you'd understand Dutch it would be even more clear (it is just like something out of a teleshopping channel).
 

Metrotab

Banned
I'm sure that's true. But from an outside perspective (which is what I was aiming to provide there), it's hard to see that distinction. Especially with videos like this one, posted earlier this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2H6SXaWxuo

That video makes fun of Zwarte Piet in a satirical fashion.

EDIT: And teleshopping at the same time.

EDIT2: It's noteworthy to say that Dutch humour flirts with the line of offensiveness much more than relatively 'safe' American humour.
 

itsgreen

Member
If this is true then its racist as fuck.

I am not sure it's incorrect, it probably is correct, but that is hundreds of years ago.

So if you ask me if Zwarte Piet was racist in 1700, I would agree...

But those origins have hardly anything to do with the modern tradition. It has transcended its origins and I wouldn't regard Sinterklaas nowadays as not racist.

I get the feeling that outsiders judge it based on it's perceived look and its origins but how it is practiced nowadays hasn't got anything to do it with...
 

soepje

Member
If this is true then its racist as fuck.
There is another story where Sinterklaas actually freed an Ethiopian (?) slave, and as a thank you Piet decided to stay with Sinterklaas, to help him out.

Blame the Canadians for the masses of Piets we have now. They came up with it, deciding it would be more fun to have loads of Piets, instead of just one.
 
Because there is no understanding of the costume as offensive, and hence there is no political motivation to change the folklore, since this would be considered 'flagrant political correctness'. The motivation to keep the costume (shared cultural experience of growing up across the generations) is stronger in that regard.
So you're telling me that no one in that country realizes that dressing as a caricature of a black man might possibly be seen as racist or offensive? Big bright red lips, nappy Afro and all? No understanding of that at all?
 

itsgreen

Member
That video makes fun of Zwarte Piet in a satirical fashion.

EDIT: And teleshopping at the same time.

EDIT2: It's noteworthy to say that Dutch humour flirts with the line of offensiveness much more than relatively 'safe' American humour.

Not just flirts, I mean look at Hans Teeuwen and Theo Maassen. But us being ridiculous hard in our jokes has nothing to do with Zwarte Piet.
 

itsgreen

Member
So you're telling me that no one in that country realizes that dressing as a caricature of a black man might possibly be seen as racist or offensive? Big bright red lips, nappy Afro and all? No understanding of that at all?

Nope, although sure there are a small minority, but in general no. Because that caricature is so much from reality that it's irrelevant. We don't share the same racial tensions as you have until today in your country.
 

akira28

Member
1. it's racist origins, no one really cared about them and they don't matter today. They weren't really considered racist or racial, african slave, elf-slave, whatever. It's just a story.
2. the kids love it.
3. it's not hurting anyone

so, why bother changing it or even discussing it?

have I gotten it all straight?
 

itsgreen

Member
1. it's racist origins, no one really cared about them and they don't matter today.
2. the kids love it.
3. it's not hurting anyone

so, why bother changing it or even discussing it?

have I gotten it all straight?

At least a part of it, also that the modern tradition doesn't have any of the racist behaviour attached to it...

It's Folklore/tradition, and people like it, old and young, black and white accross the entire nation...
 
1. it's racist origins, no one really cared about them and they don't matter today. They weren't really considered racist or racial, african slave, elf-slave, whatever. It's just a story.
2. the kids love it.
3. it's not hurting anyone

so, why bother changing it or even discussing it?

have I gotten it all straight?

Pretty much. It's such an ingrained custom, and I think it would hurt more people (children) if it was changed all of a sudden, just so that a small oversensitive group doesn't have to feel offended.
 

Metrotab

Banned
So you're telling me that no one in that country realizes that dressing as a caricature of a black man might possibly be seen as racist or offensive? Big bright red lips, nappy Afro and all? No understanding of that at all?

This American understanding of blackface is indeed not shared by Flemish/Dutch people, when it concerns Zwarte Piet. He is not a caricature of a black man (in his modern form), he is simply Zwarte Piet. I think most people here who know of the American minstrel shows, will agree those were offensive. But modern Zwarte Piet is different from those minstrel shows from our cultural perspective.

And hence the lack of political momentum to change it.
 

RSP

Member
Childen don't see Zwarte Piet as a black man, but rather as the guy who gives you candy and presents on behalf of Sinterklaas.
 

akira28

Member
ah, the old stereotypes from WW2. :> 'Europeans and their reluctance to do anything that has to do with change, unless there's a war or a famine forcing them to do it.'

They chose to try the multiculturalism route. They should learn from the example of the Americans and understand that the "dickishness" or the "nationalism pushback" is the bad path to take.
 

Arjen

Member
Oh great, the yearly thread were i'm labelled as racist and people shit over my childhood
This discussion has been done to death over the last years, and neither side will ever budge.
So i'm going to grab a bag of kruidnoten while blasting this
I'm celebrating with my parents and sister like every year, and on a seperate night with friends. I serioulsy love this holiday.
 

TheOddOne

Member
The defense that it is for the children doesn’t make much sense. Would kids really mind that Zwarte Piet doesn’t wear blackface? No, they won’t. Why not use other colors or no color at all? The whole principle of the holiday would not get lost if it were changed.
 

Metrotab

Banned
ah, the old stereotypes from WW2. :> 'Europeans and their reluctance to do anything that has to do with change, unless there's a war or a famine forcing them to do it.'

They chose to try the multiculturalism route. They should learn from the example of the Americans and understand that the "dickishness" or the "nationalism pushback" is the bad path to take.

Multiculturalism is unpopular enough that it doesn't need a 'War on Zwarte Piet'. It would only be considered another sign of overbearing political correctness by the left-wing.

The defense that it is for the children doesn’t make much sense. Would kids really mind that Zwarte Piet doesn’t wear blackface? No, they won’t. Why not use other colors or no color at all? The whole principle of the holiday would not get lost if it were changed.

There is no shared undercurrent that the blackface in this specific instance is offensive. And the motivation to preserve Zwarte Piet is stronger because of it being a shared cultural experience growing up.
 

Alx

Member
Would kids really mind that Zwarte Piet doesn’t wear blackface? No, they won’t. Why not use other colors or no color at all?

"Zwarte Piet" = "Black Peter". It would be hard for him not to be black when it's in his name...
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
This American understanding of blackface is indeed not shared by Flemish/Dutch people, when it concerns Zwarte Piet. He is not a caricature of a black man (in his modern form), he is simply Zwarte Piet. I think most people here who know of the American minstrel shows, will agree those were offensive. But modern Zwarte Piet is different from those minstrel shows from our cultural perspective.

And hence the lack of political momentum to change it.

what exactly changed to make him NOT a caricature of a black man? Specifically, what?
 

Metrotab

Banned
what exactly changed to make him NOT a caricature of a black man? Specifically, what?

The erosion of the historic origin in its active incarnation.

Dinner, so it'll take a while before I'm back. I hope I'm doing a good job in this thread.
 
Regardless of whether Europe never had blackface minstrel shows, this shit is still racist. He's a devil slave. Wtf. Why change everything about him except the glaring blackface shit?
 

akira28

Member
your childhood makes you an evil bastard. I used to shoot at indians and commies, and smear 'queers' as a kid. Obviously I should be able to do that as an adult, because it was all harmless.
 
Come on guys thats not true lol

Piet was originally a demon that was enslaved by sinter klaas and would do his bidding. Piet was originally the character that would punish kids for being bad either by flogging/whipping them and/or kidnapping them and taking them away to another country. (pieten still carry the weapon but dutch people pretend its for something else now)

Over the years mostly with the mass introduction of surinamers 30ish years ago the tradtion has changed.

Even with the mix of tradtions that ended up with the dutch version.... Most if not all of the origins portray Pieten in a bad light
Ah, the truth finally appears.

Let me be the next to say how utterly unsurprised I am by the truth.

Sorry your parents and forefathers planted racist shit in your childhood and told you it was innocent.

We had our Looney Toons here doing the same thing. I loved those cartoons as a child. As a grown-ass man, I certainly won't defend them now, nor will my children be exposed to them. Good luck in the decisions you all have to make in your own futures.
 
Come on guys thats not true lol

Piet was originally a demon that was enslaved by sinter klaas and would do his bidding. Piet was originally the character that would punish kids for being bad either by flogging/whipping them and/or kidnapping them and taking them away to another country. (pieten still carry the weapon but dutch people pretend its for something else now)

Over the years mostly with the mass introduction of surinamers 30ish years ago the tradtion has changed.

Even with the mix of tradtions that ended up with the dutch version.... Most if not all of the origins portray Pieten in a bad light

People denying it's racism should really look at what ideas, standards and culture they are perpetuating.
 

Goldrusher

Member
Why shouldn't the Dutch be allowed to dress up as a black person?
Because of historical events?

You think "white Europeans" were (and are!) never used as slaves?
You think Spartacus was someone who worked on the cotton fields in Mississippi?

People denying it's racism should really look at what ideas, standards and culture they are perpetuating.
Zwarte Piet is simply a wacky assistant of Sinterklaas.
He's having a blast and kids love him too. They don't ask if it's a white guy with soot, a white guy with makeup, or a real black person. They don't care.
And yes, it's cartoony, but it's for kids. Everything for kids is cartoony.

People of all ages, of all colors, of all cultures, religions and even nationalities are having a blast when Sinterklaas is around.
Towns, schools, hospitals, shops, theme parks, etc. all organize events where Sinterklaas shows up.
 

Alx

Member
Why change everything about him except the glaring blackface shit?

"glaring blackface" has no meaning outside the US (or at least it has none in most of Europe).
And the character being black is what defines him. Even if the origins are politically incorrect, there are things you can't change without destroying the character. That's the reason why some people tried to change the story and explanations, to remove the "incorrect" part, but in the end Black Peter needs to be black.
 

Viewt

Member
Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding that video! I'll own up to taking it at face value (since I don't speak Dutch). Mea culpa.

I think, for Americans and others who look at Black Peter unkindly, it boils down to viewing the "Black Peter's not about racism anymore, so it's fine that he's in blackface" as equivalent to "Calling someone gay as a pejorative is fine because I'm implying that they're dumb, not homosexual."

Lots of posters have been trying to make it clear that Black Peter is not actually a black person, but rather a white person covered in soot, yes? I'm sure that's the truth, so can one of you clarify the significance of his moor-like clothing, red lips and hair? Other than simply being holdovers from his previous, acknowledged-as-racist origins, I haven't seen any explanations.

But let me make it clear - I'm not trying to sit in judgement of anyone. I'm just trying to understand. Instead of the constant "You are racist for perpetuating this awful thing" and "It's not racist - stop pushing your Americanism on me," we should be trying to clarify why we feel so strongly one way or the other. Otherwise people are just going to stay set in their ways and this is just going to deteriorate further.
 
"glaring blackface" has no meaning outside the US (or at least it has none in most of Europe).
And the character being black is what defines him. Even if the origins are politically incorrect, there are things you can't change without destroying the character. That's the reason why some people tried to change the story and explanations, to remove the "incorrect" part, but in the end Black Peter needs to be black.

Nah, impersonating another race to the point of caricature is perfectly fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom