-
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.
A case for America to implement cultural sanctions and boycotts against Holland
- Thread starter Kabouter
- Start date
- Status
harSon said:
Yes, they're spreading bullshit when they see Brazil with the "one drop rule lens". There never was such thing like that here.
About the cast system, no, since slavery was abolished there never was such a thing like a cast system around here. There never were laws giving more rights to people of different "races". Oh wait, nowadays there are. An astoundingly 50% of the public universities vacancies are reserved for black people.
Actually, the reason why most of the black people is poor has almost nothing to do with racism, but with the way this country was built. Our independence from Portugal wasn't earned, we didn't fight for it, there wasn't a revolution. Simply when Portugal couldn't afford keeping the colony anymore, they signed some papers and declared that Brazil was an independent nation. This created a strange phenomenon: The Portuguese and their descendants could occupy pretty much every important public office in the newborn republic, since we didn't have a strong economy and all the money came basically from the government, you can see how this alienated a huge part of the society. Until this day such thing is present here, since there are just two countries in Africa that have worst wealthy distribution than us, yes, Brazil is the third worst country in the world when it comes to wealthy distribution, and 30 years ago it was much, much worst. I live in the north-east part of the country and pretty much everybody here who currently belongs to the middle class were poor or piss-fucking-poor 30 years ago, including my parents.
Of course, there were times when some racial theories were liked here in Brazil by some important persons, but not to the point to create institutional segregation. After our independence, the government launched an "advertising campaign" in Europe to bring white people here, since many believed that a whiter country would be a better country. It was a immensely successful campaign and migration was massive, mainly from Italy and Germany.
Many experienced Europeans "rural workers" (I'm not sure if this is the exact terminology) migrated, since the main point of the campaign of the Brazilian government was: "There is land and work for everybody, you'll get rich as soon as you set a foot in Brazil". This, of course, badly hurt the ex-slaves, because these Europeans took the jobs that would be theirs, but since the Europeans could provide better service, they were hired instead of the ex-slaves. But mind you, these Europeans were fooled, instead of land and richness, what they got was the kind of labor that even the slaves were tired of doing.
Well, it's a vast subject, but I believe it basically shows that there are other reasons than racism to show why black people are poorer here.
And I hope you aren't using the word "coloured" to talk about anything about Brazil, since we don't even have a direct translation for this word.
empty vessel said:
This article from this roadjunky website is not even worth discussing, look at this:
"You will see people of brown or black skin mixing in moneyed circles without anyone making a fuss, but there’s a good chance that they’ll be called negrinho (blackie),"
What? This is an outright lie, unless you're hanging out with neo-nazis. No one would call someone "negrinho", it's an offensive term, no discussion. There are other Brazilians here and they can confirm this.
About the Miami Heral article, I'll first point out the lies in this article, after I'll discuss what may be somewhat relevant.
First, this Paulo Paim guy is a Senator, and a blatantly racist. Some months ago he tried to pass a bill that would give priority to black people on public hospitals. "Are you white? Sorry, wait a little longer and hope you don't die, because black people have more right to live than you". You can imagine which kind of person would propose a bill like that.
About this white heroes bullshit, I'll tell you something kind of shockingly: We are a country with no national heroes. If you ask a Brazilian about a national hero you will get a akward silence as response. Brazil's history lacks wars, revolutions and other events that spawns national heroes. One of the biggest men Brazilians are proud of is Machado de Assis, who, by American standards, is black.
About Joaquim Barbosa being the first black in the Supreme Court, another huge bullshit spread by some of these leaders of "black movements". In 1907 a black man was appointed as a member of the Brazilian Supreme Court. Yes, back when black people couldn't even seat on buses in The USA. Talk about a racist country with a dominant elite that hates back people! Also, this guy, who's in the presidency of the Brazilian Supreme Court, is he white by your American standards?
http://blogdobrown.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ministro-gilmar-mendes.jpg
He was appointed in 1996, many like him and with darker skin were appointed before him . Actually, this case just shows this who this whole bullshit is made up. When people wants to show positive data about black people, they consider black people just the people with very dark skin, so they can point out how few black people are successful in Brazil. But when they want to start talking about how racist Brazil is, they immediately import the "one drop rule" from The USA and suddenly there are millions upon millions of black people in Brazil. Intellectual dishonesty at its best.
The rest I replied to HarSon.
quadriplegicjon said:
You may have an American mindset.
MrHicks said:
Pretty much sums it up.
I've never ever thought about black pete as a slave, all I know is that I was happy when I saw Sinterklaas and Zwarte piet at school, couldn't care less what his colour was.
Stop projecting your history on ours, slavery and it's history is approached on a different way in Europe
The Orange
Member
It's ridiculous to think there's some kind of global moral code, to which we should all adhere. Different cultures exist for a reason, and I doubt the western world has reached the pinnacle of culture, something which all nations should aspire to. People in China or India might be offended by some shit in the USA or Europe, do you worry every day if some of your actions, which have no ill will behind them, are percieved negatively half way across the world because of someone's own history? Also, where's the line, what's the amount of people that need to be offended for it to become the "global standard"? Do you not eat with your left hand because it is considered a sin in many parts of the world?
There's a million examples. These seem like legitimate questions to me.
There's a million examples. These seem like legitimate questions to me.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Ignis Fatuus said:
Yes please, save those post of yours. Sometimes making a better world is in little details like that.
And I can only say how cool it is to insult people behind a wall of internet anonimity. Specially people who disagree with you.
Agent Ghost
aka MAJIKdR46oN
I feel so much safer knowing that America is the moral compass for the world.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Nobody doubts that kids think zwarte piet is a "good" guy. Obviously different cultures have totally different expectations when it comes to race relations but in this particular case, the character obviously had a very, very racist origin beyond any possible doubt.
Honestly, I think it is a bit useless actually to try and debate if the character in it's current incarnation is "racist" or if anybody should be offended by him still being part of their christmas mythology.
It is extremely fucking backwards though when some dutch people go and dress up with the whole blackface/afro part of the costume. You can't do that and not have some racist/backwards beliefs. It's like dressing up as Bruce Lee for Halloween and thinking that in addition to wearing a yellow jumpsuit, you should squint your eyes.
Honestly, I think it is a bit useless actually to try and debate if the character in it's current incarnation is "racist" or if anybody should be offended by him still being part of their christmas mythology.
It is extremely fucking backwards though when some dutch people go and dress up with the whole blackface/afro part of the costume. You can't do that and not have some racist/backwards beliefs. It's like dressing up as Bruce Lee for Halloween and thinking that in addition to wearing a yellow jumpsuit, you should squint your eyes.
Joe211 said:
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
You could argue that it's offensive, and that the origins of the Zwarte Piet character has racist elements.
However, the current festivities have NOTHING to do with racism. It's about family, fun, presents and candy. Zwarte Piet is loved and cherished and nowhere in the current tradition will you find derogatory subtexts about black people.
Offensive? Yes
Racist? No
If an image or a word by itself is racist, then all the rappers/hiphop artists who call eachother the N-word are racist too.
The Orange
Member
Al-ibn Kermit said:
That is fucking stupid. And you know it.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not Dutch, but that is just an ignorant comment. The vast, vast majority of the people that dress up in the costume do not have a single racist thought in their mind while doing it. What the fuck do you think the holiday is, a neo-nazi gathering or something? Jesus christ.
Yes you can. What people need to understand is that the link between blackface and black people that is so obvious to American people isn't so obvious for others.Al-ibn Kermit said:
Kids don't know blackface. Piet is just a character who happens to have a black face. He dresses different, he gives out candy, he only comes round once a year.
Piet is not a black man who helps sinterklaas. Piet is a fantasy-like character, not vested in reality who dresses in a certain way and has a black face.
(All this is about the CURRENT view and background of the festivities. Not about the fact that Piet originated from blackface which is racist)
Joe211 said:
Apart from a minority, I've never heard anyone complain about that tradition in the Benelux, an American comes here and it's like we're using black people as slaves.
I really think the subject is far more sensitive in the US than it is here.
I really don't see what's the problem in dressing up like Zwarte Piet, people are also dressing up like Sinterklaas that day, I really don't see the problem. I doubt there are much people who grew up with this see it as racism.
Also, schools aren't closed on Sinterklaas day, people chose to participate or not.
woeds said:
Sums it up.
The Orange
Member
Joe211 said:
If 10 people complain about celebrating Christmas, it's also a minority complaining. Are you going to cancel Christmas? You can see where this argument is going.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Joe211 said:
Different meanings of minority...
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
The Orange said:
I'm saying that for an adult to put on the make up part of the costume, not just the clothes by themselves obviously, is tasteless.woeds said:
It has cartoonishly sterotypical coal black make up with big red lips and it just happens to be topped off with an afro. That's not a coincidence. I just don't buy that an adult who grew up in the western hemisphere wouldn't see anything wrong with that. I'm sure that the majority of the dutch in that costume don't have any ill will towards black people but there's no good excuse for dressing up like that.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Joe211 said:
I think he means the number of people, not the etnic use of minority.
What strikes me as odd in this thread, is that people will jump at anything ("are you kidding me") without so much as even taking into account that English is not the native language of most gaffers (which includes every Dutch person) and that different languages come with different connotations, inherent meanings and cultural backgrounds, which can usually not be directly translated into another language.
How 'sensitive'...
Al-ibn Kermit said:
Who says it's a coincidence? The Zwarte Piet 'look' is based on blackface, it's stupid to deny that.
But what people are trying to explain here is that for this holiday, only the visual part of blackface was copied, everything else that is associated with blackface has never been a part of this holiday.
People are using terms like racism and offended way to loosely here.
Yes, because Zwarte Piet's look is based on blackface I can understand that people find it offensive.
No, because race, race relations, slavery, etc... would never pop into a Dutch persons mind during Sinterklaas and have nothing to do with the holiday, it's certainly not racist.
Like I said earlier, racism is about intent. When I call a black person the N-word in a derogatory way, it's racism. When one black person says 'my n-----' to another black person, it's not. Why? Because of the difference in intent.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Okay that's a good point. I don't think that the holiday is racist and I don't think the modernized pete is racist either. But the costume is obviously offensive and bluntly, shows a problem with "modern" dutch culture.woeds said:
So here's my story
I'm dutch, but I hated face paint so when I had to dress up like zwarte piet for Sinterklaas at school I never wanted black face paint. Nor blue face paint to look like a Smurf or even indian stripes for that matter...
Is my 4-8 year old self racist?
A) Yes, you didn't want to be black, what's wrong with you!
B) No, as always you were ahead of your time, even though you didn't realize it you showed that zwarte pieten shouldn't be black only and you were against a racial stereotype.
C) You be not racist, but a party pooper, who the hell wants to see a witte piet you crazy person!
I'm dutch, but I hated face paint so when I had to dress up like zwarte piet for Sinterklaas at school I never wanted black face paint. Nor blue face paint to look like a Smurf or even indian stripes for that matter...
Is my 4-8 year old self racist?
A) Yes, you didn't want to be black, what's wrong with you!
B) No, as always you were ahead of your time, even though you didn't realize it you showed that zwarte pieten shouldn't be black only and you were against a racial stereotype.
C) You be not racist, but a party pooper, who the hell wants to see a witte piet you crazy person!
Dilly said:
You pretend it didn't happen?
i_am_ben said:
The term "coloured" has a different meaning in South Africa, it's used to classify people who are mixed. It was created during the segregated times of South Africa to differentiate between White South Africans and Black South Africans, basically to create some form of an ethnic hierarchy. Different meaning but same intent as the term 'Colored', the term is in fact universally offensive. The overwhelming majority of the World is not White, it doesn't make sense to use a term that creates a White vs. Them mentality.
Question;cdyhybrid said:
Do you believe all racism transcends cultural and linguistic?
Is the word "nigger" racist because of anything fundamental to the letters and pronunciation, or because of the history of the word in America?
In England you cannot say the word "paki" without being hugely offensive to the Pakistani and Indian community because the word is laden with history. I'm told that the word is used without racist connotations in Australia, and of course [as it literally translates to "clean"] it is used freely in Pakistan itself. Should the English protest that the people of Pakistan do not see the racism that the English do?
There are some things that are universally racist - discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity for example. There are many other things that only become racist when seen through the lens of a specific culture.
Sir Fragula said:
It doesn't matter what the word itself is, it's the intent behind it. And as has been proven many times in this thread already, this tradition started with fairly shady intentions. Both of those words you mentioned are deemed offensive because they are said with the intent of offending or demeaning.
Fio said:
The caste system relies on a "one drop rule" like mentality, it requires their to be some form of a hierarchy, in this case, it was racially constructed. In Brazil, this hierarchy was based entirely on ethnicity, White (Portuguese) on top, mixed individuals in the middle, followed by Indigenous Brazilians and African slaves at the bottom.
And just because there's no form of institutionalized racism doesn't mean that it doesn't exist within the country. For example, the Black experience within the United States before the Black Codes/Jim Crow laws was pretty much the same as after they were passed, the only difference being that White Americans weren't "legally" in the right to segregate and treat Blacks like shit. Societal Racism can and does exist outside Government institutionalized Racism.
Also, the affirmative action is for Handicapped, Indigenous Brazilians, and Blacks. It's usage isn't just because of the socioeconomic gap between White Brazilians and the rest of the country but to help perpetuate the accepting of these demography of student, which up till now, the college board has failed to do on its own.
It's certainly not the only reason for the wealth gap within the country but it's certainly pretty significant. I'm not quite sure what to think of this statement, on one hand you deny the factor of racism for the socioeconomic gap and on the other hand, 90% of your post says that the country's post colonial situation was the result of White Brazilians economically excluding Blacks when independence was achieved.
From what I've seen, you've done the opposite, you provided some fairly interesting arguments, unfortunately for you, they're in direct contrast to the argument you're attempting to make.
Nope, wasn't aimed at you.
And? Alexander Lucius Twilight, a Black man in the United States, was elected as a Vermont legislature in 1836. P.B.S. Pinchback, a Biracial man within the United States, served as Governor of Louisiana for a short time in 1872. Joseph Rainey, a Black Woman within the United States, was elected congresswoman of South Carolina in 1870 for four terms. And this was during 19th Century :lol Exceptions to a rule doesn't change a rule in cases like this.
He's only been in the United States a few years. Would you have an American mindset if you moved to the United States but spent 90-95% of your life within another country? I doubt it.
Steppenwolf
Member
Cant believe this thread is still goin. All was said on the first 2-3 pages already.
Scipius said:
And? "But they do it too!" or "They did it worse!" is not a valid argument.
No shit.
For the most part, they're partially Black. I specifically referred to them as "mixed". Their ethnic makeup obviously differs from person to person. I said the term was constructed to create a hierarchy between Whites and Blacks (Whites on top, Coloureds above Blacks, and Blacks on the bottom).
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
gerg said:
Well, the very definition of iconic is "picture-like."
Anyone from any culture who has seen a horse before (in person or in a photograph) will see the resemblance of the above drawing to what they have already seen in real life and infer its meaning ("horse") just from observing the drawing's form.
gerg said:
I half-agree with the bolded part. Pictures range from very abstract to very realistic representations of objects as seen through human eyes. An inkblob can mean many different things to different people, but a photograph of a rock will invariably convey the meaning "rock" to anybody, as long as they've seen rocks before.
gerg said:
Yes.
gerg said:
No. The scientist from my thought experiment knows how the average black person looks like. She knows the average black person has darker skin than the average human and differently shaped lips. She knows, without any outside cultural knowledge, that the drawing is supposed to represent the average black person because the drawing includes two anatomical features that are characteristic of the average black person, even if many such features are omitted and if those included are exaggerated. The fact that the caricature conveys this message--"the average black person looks this way"--makes it dangerous because the drawing is simplified and distorted, and if the caricature is prevalent enough in society, people might choose to second guess their own empirical knowledge of how the average black person looks like and just accept the simplified and distorted view of black people instead.
gerg said:
No, the distorted and simplified pictures would embody a different stereotype. My argument only applies to imagery. It's designed specifically to show how the picture can be a racist caricature in itself. It doesn't extend to ideas or statements like "black people like money."
Goya said:
I think my point concerned more why images have to be iconic. I've discussed the matter a bit below. The question was probably poorly phrased in the first place.
"Invariably" and "as long as" are contradictory. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Either an image has inherent meaning in which case that meaning should be apparent to everyone regardless of circumstance, or it doesn't, in which case its meaning is contingent upon context.
Why? How?
I can't see any way in which this conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Why is it not possible that this woman could see a distorted image and simply see a distorted image, without referring to cultural statements such as "this image pertains to depict the average person of X nature"?
What I want to do is highlight the difference between the content of an image and that content's significance. As fair as I can tell you're incorrectly conflating the two.
A stereotype is not only an image. One operates over and above the other, and to think of the two as operating on the same level is a category mistake.
harSon said:
Dilly's comment was that slavery has an entirely different history in Europe. In the Americas, slaves and their descendants were a continuous part of society. Not so in Europe. Hence why the history of racism is different. That's not a denial. Thus my comment about being obtuse.
harSon said:
True, but I'm just pointing out that trying to apply American vernacular to a foreign situation may not always work. The term was part of apartheid, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily deemed offensive by people in that group today.
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
harSon said:
except coloured is a perfectly acceptable way of referring to them and their culture. Generally, the origins of the word are not relevant to the way it is used today in South Africa.
There is only one term with two different meanings and two different spellings due to British/American English. Generally, The term is offensive in America and, generally, the term isn't offensive in South Africa.
Attempting to categorise them as two distinct terms is illogical when even American sociologists/historians/political theorist will use the American spelling over the British spelling in journal articles/books.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
gerg said:
You are correct. I shouldn't have used invariably there. However, you seem to be attacking a straw man. Your argument is that the meaning of an image depends on the cultural knowledge of the viewer. My argument is that the viewer only needs to have seen a horse before in order to derive the meaning of the horse drawing from its form. If you think "having seen a horse before" is somehow equivalent to "cultural knowledge," then the term cultural is so watered down it doesn't mean anything.
gerg said:
The drawing possesses properties that the average person of X nature also exhibits. The scientist who sees the drawing will connect the dots, scan her memory to find what mental image most closely approximates what she sees, and she will deduce that due to the drawing's proximity to her mental image of the average person of X nature, that the drawing's meaning is "average person of X nature." She will not see that image and infer that the meaning of the image is "very special and unique person of X nature" because she has seen unique examples of people of X nature that don't exhibit the properties that the drawing has.
gerg said:
I'm not saying that the image's form is the same as the image's meaning. I'm saying they are closely related.
- Status