The Netherlands and Belgium are two countries that pride themselves on progressive laws and open societies, but critics say they are stuck in the dark ages when it comes to depictions of Santa Claus and his helpers.
You are right, it is hard to explain. However, I for one think that this is a bit over the top (I am dutch as you may know, so this is a different perspective than most of you have). I will do my best to explain why I think that it is fine as is. Zwarte Pieten are part of the celebration of Sinterklaas and are the reason that Sinterklaas is capable of delivering all those presents. Zwarte Pieten are the ones who make it possible. Much like the elves of Santa. They also do all the work, except for the delivery of the presents, which Santa Claus does himself if I am not mistaken. You cannot say that Santa Claus is racist because his helpers are all elves. Maybe the trolls also want to help, who knows? My point is, the Zwarte Pieten are the elves of Sinterklaas. They help him to complete the monstrous task ahead of them. Dutch children see Zwarte Piet as American children see the elves of Santa. As the helpers who make everything possible. And even if it is a reference to black people, I do not see how it is a problem. They deliver presents, are nice to all people and make people happy. I don't see the negative association to be completely honest. This is pretty much what I have to say about Sinterklaas en Zwarte Piet. Now I will place it in context with a rant about political correctness and racism. We have a tendency in the Netherlands (and the rest of the western world) to remove everything which could be remotely interpreted as racism. Everything has to be politically correct. For example, Angel Kisses, formerly known as Negro Kisses in English. In the Netherlands, we called them "Negerzoenen" until 2005. In 2005 they decided that "Zoenen" was a better name, because it was more politically correct. However, we still have "Jodenkoeken" (Jewish cookie) and "Blanke Vla" (White Custard). Those aren't politically incorrect for some reason. I think that it is because those have nothing to do with black people. Jews? No problem, they don't complain. Whites? Ah, they are the majority. They can take it. What I see is that black people (and jewish people to some extend) are treated differently. And here I am, thinking that treating someone differently because of race is racism. What we are supposed to do is leave race out of the equation entirely. It is like men and women. You have to leave gender out of the equation entirely if you want true gender equality. It is a lot like gender equality actually. You cannot make people equal by forcing a quotum of "non-whites" or females on a company or public body. It just does not work. All it does is make people more aware of the differences between people instead of less. EDIT: After reading the article again, I saw that they actually linked to GeenStijl. Let me clarify: GeenStijl is a blog which makes money with Schadenfreude and satire. It cannot be taken seriously, just like you cannot take 4chan seriously.
It's an interesting problem: I think all cultures are blind to racism when that racism is deeply rooted in tradition. I suspect one reason we tolerate more racism and inappropriate behavior from the elderly is that they are walking examples of tradition. Part of the problem, I think, is that you see "Elves" where the rest of us see "negative stereotype of black people that we've gone out of our way to shame and abolish since the '60s. " And while there is no shame in having black "elves" to help with the presents and whatnot, from my casual eye it seems that there has been no conscious effort to not make Black Pete a negative stereotype. I mean, a "moor" in "page clothes" doesn't have to mean this: It could easily mean this: There's a difference, I think, between gender or racial equality and gender or racial respect. Any race is allowed to poke fun at their own stereotypes, but when you start poking fun at another race's stereotypes the hackles go up. Call it the Hollywood test - would Morgan Freeman play Zwarte Piet? Would Chris Rock? I think you'll find that "roles" that are not internally offensive are usually played straight, while those with an element of offense are usually played across racial lines. Who played Mr. Miyaki? Pat Morita. Who played Master Chiun in Remo Williams? Joel Grey.
I think this might be true. Traditions are generally not questioned and as such, things like racism are left for what they are. I don't really get why I should not be allowed to make fun of stereotypes of other "races". I mean, everybody is free to make fun of my stereotypes, why shouldn't I have the same freedom? About the Hollywood test: I can't ask actual black people since I don't know any. Most of those live in the west, not the south. I might try asking some passersby tomorrow to get a more complete view. I am now really curious as to what the opinion of non-native Dutch is.It's an interesting problem: I think all cultures are blind to racism when that racism is deeply rooted in tradition. I suspect one reason we tolerate more racism and inappropriate behavior from the elderly is that they are walking examples of tradition.
>I don't really get why I should not be allowed to make fun of stereotypes of other "races". By saying this I presume that you are ethnically caucasian. You are also male. Your stereotype, then, is "default." Had you a race or gender other than "default" you might have a better understanding of it. I grew up white in a predominantly hispanic and native american region of New Mexico. There were restaurants I couldn't eat at, there were stores that wouldn't sell things to me (as in, you ask for help and they say "we're not going to help you, this place isn't for your kind"). I used to think that gave me a unique "white" perspective on racism. And while it certainly gives me an insight that a lot of white people lack, it doesn't go nearly far enough. I mixed a truly, spectacularly large talent show a couple years back (think X Factor or Pop Idol or The Voice Of Holland - it was that big). We had people on that show that had experienced hardship - oh, my mother died. Oh, momma was on Welfare. Oh, I struggled with alcohol abuse. Touching stuff, nothing untoward. Six months later I mixed a couple episodes of Sunday Best (It's not on my IMDb). For two solid days the 6-person sound crew were the only non-black people in West Angeles Church - no small feat. And we did the exact same interviews as you ever do. The level of hardship, on the other hand, was off the fucking hook - "God took my eyesight but I still believe." "My mother was shot last month but I believe." "I'm homeless but I believe." It was really striking to me how the level of shit the African American community took as baseline was so much more impoverished and strife-ridden than what the White American community took. There are serious problems with affirmative action and saying "some are more equal than others" but it really is a pain in the ass being a minority on so many levels. I don't think you understand that. And when you poke fun at other racial stereotypes, you remind people of that fact. It's a boundary, it really is. And since you've never been over that particular border, you aren't aware of the fence that keeps things civil.
You are right, I am ethnically caucasian and indeed, male. You just made me realize that I know next to nothing about other ethnicities and the world they live in (as in worldview and stuff they have to deal with). I know I am privileged, I mean, I live in a rich country, go to uni and everything, but I never realized that race was such an issue (at least, not here in the Netherlands). I thank you for this eye opener and I will try to understand more about where people are coming from when they are talking about racism. Maybe black petes with a soot stain across the face isn't that bad idea after all. By the way, I was thinking yesterday and it struck me that Zwarte Piet in the dutch language doesn't always have to mean the helper of Sinterklaas. I think that this explains it rather well...
I think this is a valid interpretation, however it isn't the only one. Consider that you dressed as Zwarte Pieten in a parade, and then afterwards went in costume for a drink in a bar with predominately black patrons. The problem with that situation points to the problem with other valid interpretations of Zwarte Pieten. If elves were real, there would probably be some issue taken with the American custom, and definitely with Keebler Cookies.My point is, the Zwarte Pieten are the elves of Sinterklaas. They help him to complete the monstrous task ahead of them. Dutch children see Zwarte Piet as American children see the elves of Santa. As the helpers who make everything possible.
I had this wonderful, well thought out reply with pictures, references and deep thinking points to consider. When I hit the reply button, I lost it to a bad gateway error. It is now lost. Unfortunately that reply used up most the the brain power allotment for today. I will try to re-create it later on today perhaps.
I try to alway remember to ctrl a, ctrl c my long, thought out responses before I submit. It's happened to me so many times on reddit or here, especially when I was on stolen wifi. Random timeouts would steal my soul so hard.
Thank you for the reply. I really haven't thought about Zwarte Piet in a bar setting (or any non-sinterklaas related setting), mostly because it doesn't happen as far as I know. It is not a good idea to walk around in costume if you don't want to play the part, since the kids will come to you asking for candy or to relay a message to Sinterklaas. And in case of a bar, a lounging Sinterklaas or Zwarte Piet is not part of the story. They have work to do. You are right tough, my interpretation isn't the only interpretation, but I would like to hear the other interpretations instead of "Look at what they do! This is racism!" without an explanation.
Similar explanation from a very interesting comics blog
I saw this yesterday or so. I found it pretty funny actually :-P
"Sinterklaas" is not Santa Claus. "De kerstman" (the christmas man) is Santa Claus. Santa Claus was derived from Sinterklaas, after which "de kerstman" was derived back into the Netherlands/Belgium as a separate tradition.
Would it make it any better if they actually used black people, rather than black face? Also: So, is having a white servant not the same? Where do the different skin colors of your servants place you on the "I'm a status symbol" totem?There's a theory that says that important people had a black servant, it was a status symbol.
I don't think we could get enough black people together in every city/town to play black Pete. Sinterklaas has many Petes and the Netherlands don't have as much blacks as you might think. As for the status symbol, I think might have to do with slavery. In the time that Black Pete was first introduced (1850), slavery and racism were still common. However, first there was only one Pete and he was a timid black boy, not the stereotype. In time this changed to what we see now. It was worse, because there used to be golden earrings and a wig with frizzy hair. We will never know why the author of the book introduced Black Pete, but the status symbol becomes quite apparent when you try too look at it with the ideas of that time.