It's racist as fuck, and the fact that it's tradition doesn't make it any less so.
*sigh* Not America, other culture.
I agree that it can be perceived as racist, that doesn't make it racist.
It's racist as fuck, and the fact that it's tradition doesn't make it any less so.
Not America, other culture.
Sinterklaas arrived in Antwerp today btw.
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/mediatheek/nieuws/binnenland/1.1483530
He gave a speech at the balcony of city hall. lol.
His right hand piet correcting him.
This really is how I'm feeling, but I'm trying to understand the viewpoint of how it's not racist and why it can't or shouldn't be changed.It's racist as fuck, and the fact that it's tradition doesn't make it any less so.
*sigh* Not America, other culture.
I agree that it can be perceived as racist, that doesn't make it racist.
It's racist as fuck, and the fact that it's tradition doesn't make it any less so.
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?
Can you tell me the elements that make Zwarte Piet racist, from your perspective? So I can understand how you approach it.
Luckily, no one in the Netherlands cares Americans and others perceive it to be racist.
Can you tell me the elements that make Zwarte Piet racist, from your perspective? So I can understand how you approach it.
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
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.
If this is true then its racist as fuck.
Ok, so once again, the costume serves no purpose. Why not be rid of it?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?
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.
lucky that isn't the point.
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'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'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
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.If this is true then its racist as fuck.
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?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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
Only the racist imagery....At least a part of it, also that the modern tradition doesn't have any of the racist behaviour attached to it...
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?
Only the racist imagery....
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.
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.
Would kids really mind that Zwarte Piet doesnt wear blackface? No, they wont. Why not use other colors or no color 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.
what exactly changed to make him NOT a caricature of a black man? Specifically, what?
Ah, the truth finally appears.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
This is what I'm not understanding.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?
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
Zwarte Piet is simply a wacky assistant of Sinterklaas.People denying it's racism should really look at what ideas, standards and culture they are perpetuating.
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.