Dutch Magazine's Shocking Racefail

aruna said:

As for Flicka -- I assumed he/she was named after the horse Flicka in one of my favourite books, My Friend Flicka!

Click to expand...

... Who was named Flicka because the stable hand Gus was Swedish. I loved that book as a kid, but it wasn't until I'd grown up that I realised that she was called 'Flicka' in English too!

But seriously, if anyone would be offended by my user name, I'd ask the administrators if they could possibly change it. It matters little to me so if it matters much to someone else, then I don't see what the problem is.

missesdash said:

do you think the historic significance answers my question?

Click to expand...

In part, yes. I did say that Piet is a respected and important part of the tradition. You say it's a mockery.

I'll add to my post and say that your perception of the seasonal holiday is flawed as far as it is incomplete. I once took my brother to see Klaas in Rotterdam; they had real black actors playing Piet. He didn't believe it was Sinterklaas because they weren't the real Piets.

I knew a lad whose parents had immigrated to the Netherlands from Suriname. His father enjoyed playing Piet every year, and even then put on the black theatre paint and lipstick -- the reason, because (young) children in Holland don't associate Piet with people of colour/ethnicity. In fact most children, as my brother (then 6) and his friends were happy to tell me, believe that Piet is black because he comes down the chimney. It's only as they enter into junior school or toward the end of infants that they note the 'similarity'.

missesdash said:

I was aware of this. Although I don't think it matters as far as the discussion about whether or not it's racist is concerned. I have trouble following your line of thought sometimes.

Click to expand...

Because you aren't considering whether it's racist or not -- you're considering if it should be seen as racist. These are 2 different ways to approach a situation. Racism in my view is a conscious act of discrimination, mockery or hate toward an individual or group of ethnic distinction (not necessarily minority). That said, there is still room to cause offence through sheer ignorance... but who's really to blame? Can you call a baby wilfully unhygienic because they poop in their nappy?

I've encountered all manner of ugliness and ignorance in my life, and one thing that I've learnt is that I can no more hate a person for their idiocy than I can hate myself for seeing it.

Yes, people should act upon racism and any other form of discrimination or prejudice -- but when does doing so also become a form of discrimination in itself?

kborsden said:

I was trying to illustrate how sometimes offence results from not knowing or having the context readily available. I don't think it's silly and I can fully understand -- and in the case of the confectionery, it's obvious what is meant with the word, but whether the intention is offensive is another matter..

Click to expand...

But in my example the context was fully clear for, for example, my sister's friend who was born in Ethiopia and the first boy I kissed whose father was from Nigeria. It was perfectly clear to them, and they were offended. So I'd use another word.

Everybody happy!

Flicka said:

But in my example the context was fully clear for, for example, my sister's friend who was born in Ethiopia and the first boy I kissed whose father was from Nigeria. It was perfectly clear to them, and they were offended.

Click to expand...

The context of the cake and its name. I agree that it may startle because it startled me when I first encountered it; I wasn't sure what to think! But whether that implies an intention to offend is another matter, as I said. Clinging to such terms is also pointless, as you say, especially when they don't add anything a more PC term wouldn't. The choco-kiss or chocolate ball is, in my view, even a better name as it puts us all on the same page. My point is not the name per se, but whether it ever intended offence.

Flicka said:

... Who was named Flicka because the stable hand Gus was Swedish. I loved that book as a kid, but it wasn't until I'd grown up that I realised that she was called 'Flicka' in English too!
.

Click to expand...

...and means "little girl" in Swedish. Just thinking about it brings tears to my eyes. Gorgeous book!

Off-topic>>>

aruna said:

...and means "little girl"

Click to expand...

Hmmm... if both languages share a root or common reference for this word, perhaps that's why it is applied as a derogatory term for homosexual males?

It's not that I don't understand. Obviously, I'm not stupid. Looking at something from a different angle does not automatically equate to a lack of comprehension. Perhaps balance is not necessary.

I concede, you're absolutely right. If something has no clear hateful intent, does not resemble a person of colour (in your words for having elements that are not true representations) and is not associated with a person of colour by those for whom it is intended, it must be racism, unintentional or otherwise.

Here's something that never fails to prove that very point. I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember this... In the 80s a German toymaker (may very well have been Zapf) franchised a new line of dolls aimed at the black market Enterprising and progressive, no? Hmm. They called her 'Coco'. I know. Rather than have the doll renamed, public outrage had her discontinued as a mockery and shameful display of discrimination.

kborsden said:

It's not that I don't understand. Obviously, I'm not stupid. Looking at something from a different angle does not automatically equate to a lack of comprehension. Perhaps balance is not necessary.

I concede, you're absolutely right. If something has no clear hateful intent, does not resemble a person of colour (in your words for having elements that are not true representations) and is not associated with a person of colour by those for whom it is intended, it must be racism, unintentional or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Not quite sure what your point is, but I think you need to re-read my posts from page 2.

thebloodfiend said:

I have to side with missesdash here. I saw something about this on tv when I was ten, living in Alabama. I'd recently watched Bamboozled. It was definitely a wtf moment for my mind.

In the end, I may be a foreigner looking in on another culture, but there's no denying that this:

looks like this:

And I find it deeply offensive that anyone would try to deny that they do look similar. Is it intentionally racist? Maybe it used to be. Is it intentionally racist now? Probably not. But is it racist, regardless of intent? To some. Do I, as a black person, find it offensive? Yes.

And, tbh, I don't have time to look up the history behind zwarte piet. I probably should. By my ignorance on the topic doesn't detract from the similarities between the two images. Minstrel shows and blackface are a very delicate topic. And I find it odd that a Christmas icon just so happens to look like someone in blackface, down to the curly hair.

Click to expand...

thebloodfiend said:

No. It's not the color. It's the color combined with everything else. If it were red, orange, green, yellow, blue, I wouldn't care. But the black with the lipstick and the hat/bandanna and the earrings and the wig? It's like a mammy doll brought to life.

Click to expand...

White Americans have a history of dehumanizing black Americans. That's what missesdash means. I've experienced this first hand in elementary school.

The newer representation of Piet is a blatantly obvious representation of various racist portrayals of black people. There is no other viewpoint on what he looks like. Now, you can discuss the intent behind Piet all you'd like. I don't really care. But you don't seem to understand what his appearance portrays and why it is insulting.

At the most basic level, it sends out the message that blacks aren't human.

Here's something that never fails to prove that very point. I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember this... In the 80s a German toymaker (may very well have been Zapf) franchised a new line of dolls aimed at the black market Enterprising and progressive, no? Hmm. They called her 'Coco'. I know. Rather than have the doll renamed, public outrage had her discontinued as a mockery and shameful display of discrimination.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what relevance this holds to Zwarte Piet. I'm unable to find images of this doll, or even references to it in relation to Zapf creations.

Piet's current image is a shameful mockery that continues old displays of discrimination.

I can add no more. Missesdash and Bloodfiend have stated the problem very well.

At least we've got that cleared up then.

Just out of curiosity, what makes this any less racist?



Maybe it's the added sexist overtones of men as women? Or, is it the stereotypical depiction of a white vacuous cheerleader as played by black guys in make-up, face paint and prosthetics?

No trolling intended -- I'll leave at that. I just wanted to approach this in the way a child might, because as I see it, no child is born a racist and the children inherit the world after us. If we can't see the world as they do and must add connotations to everything, aren't we only passing those on and not educating any of the simplicity in acceptance at all?

That's true, and I can't say I disagree at all -- my point is only that for that to happen, there does need to be (on both ends of the spectrum) enough room for as many shades of grey as is reasonably possible. I agree that if they wanted it to remain an authentic, if not respectable tradition, then black actors as Piets would be the best route -- but if Dutch children already don't associate Piet with race, then where does that shift happen and how without drawing attention to a possible racist ideal? I've said many times that racial diversity shouldn't be taboo but something we celebrate, as uniqueness and individuality, not necessarily under the microscope of what makes us different, but what we can say is what makes us all (regardless of colour) individuals.

In any case... I've a poem posted here on the question of power granted to words that children don't know, understand nor see a viable purpose for until they're taught, for anyone who is interested.

ETA: nothing I've commented or posted was done with the intention to trivialize or invalidate -- but to broaden the scope in the ways I've mentioned. As for 'White Chicks', agreed, there is no consistent pattern of black people portraying white people prominent in history, and a few occurrences do not outweigh several centuries of cruelty. However, women in general have been and still are in many places and manners victims of oppression. Yet no one sees or finds drag (not always a 'gay-thing' as some might suggest) which is equally a display of gross caricature, an openly offensive act worthy of as much discussion or debate as blackface... however unrelated or off-topic, this perplexes me no end.

Yes, that was great, Mac thanks for speaking for all of us. Well parried.

missesdash said:

I also don't think we should say "Dutch children don't associate Piet with race." pointing to people of color and calling them "Piet" means that they do make the association. Also,"Dutch" doesn't mean white. I read of a black Dutch child being made to feel very uncomfortable when Piet visited his school and the children commented on how much they look like.

Click to expand...

In building on my previous post where I mentioned that a small, somewhat unapparent, practice is emerging where Piet is being played by actual black members of their local community (I mentioned Rotterdam, but I'm also aware of this occurring in other large cities too such as Dordrecht. Note that both these cities have a large centralised black population for want of a better term) and pairing that with my general view that race should approached as an issue of personal individuality, not exclusion or definition, and especially in small children, then there's no reason why that more respectable tradition can't grow. In fact, if it is pointed out to a child at such a point, it may become something to be proud of (= that a person of colour is a national icon and prominent part of the annual festival in the run up to Christmas). Would you mind a comparison being drawn to someone who essentially amounts to a celebrity? There are many negatives to be highlighted in any society, the trick and the most simple way to relieve those is to make them positives. It's a perfect example (in the case of said cities) where people of colour make a racial reference their own and disarm any malice or offence which may or may not be attached to it (see my previous post here 2nd paragraph).

So what I'm saying is, if Piet's current image is a dehumanisation, make him human and dispel the connotation, but the let the kids lead the way with us (adults) as their guide. Such change is best grown from the inside out and not from the outside kicking its way in.

I also think we can both agree that this:

Since the last decade of the 20th century there have been several attempts to introduce a new kind of Zwarte Piet to the Dutch population, where the Zwarte Pieten replaced their traditional black make-up with all sorts of colours.[9] In 2006 the NPS (en: Dutch Programme Foundation) as an experiment replaced the black Pieten by rainbow-coloured Pieten,

Click to expand...

is also a workable idea, even if it was dropped a year later, possibly because it further removes Piet from human reference.

I have spoken with a friend on facebook with regards to why this was dropped. As a member of the Tilburg council, she informed me that this was only ever an option not an official policy. It was introduced into several boroughs after a public survey -- those chose for it had a greater proportionate multicultural populace than those that didn't. The option was dropped for the following year because the Tilburg council stated doing so would send out confused messages that conflicted with their Rainbow March.

Piet has accompanied Sinterklaas since 1850 (thanks to a teacher named Jan Schenkman), prior to this there were only occasional helpers of unknown, or rather, undefined origin. If you'd like to show your international solidarity with the Dutch who are opposed to the continued use/depiction of Piet as is, visit this page.