Dude Abides said:
Yes, and in the globalized, interconnected Western culture of 2009, which includes the Netherlands, a reasonably knowledgeable person should be familiar with this imagery enough to know that it has racial connotations.
In this globalized, interconnect multi-national culture of 2009, which includes America, a reasonably knowledgeable person should be familiar with this imagery enough to understand the context in which it doesn't have racial connotations.
It's more likely an issue that people like this tradition, and are willing to ignore or rationalize away the fact that it has elements that are offensive. In America, this was a problem in the 70s as sports teams movied away from using Native American mascots, and continues to do this day w/r/t Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians as well as the Washington Redskins.
It's not so much that people don't recognise that this imagery
can be offensive, but this fact alone doesn't matter. Everything can be offensive to someone or another.
How do you have any basis for knowing this?
Granted, my knowledge is limited, but I made that claim based on my understanding that the current, most widespread application of the character is that he's a helper who gives out presents to the good and punishes the naughty, one who just so happens to be dark skinned and has bright red lips. There doesn't seem to be an implied connection between this fact to the idea that
all black people look like that, and neither is there one between
that and the idea that all black people should be discriminated against because of their physical appearance.
In as much as Black Peter's skin colour is an important part of his cultural heritage, it is also appears to be one of his least significant aspects nowadays.
PhoenixDark said:
I'd argue it's racist inherently because it was created to stereotype blacks; that was the root. As I've said before, I don't think everyone who uses it means to belittle or offend black people, in fact often times they may not understand the imagery they're associating themselves with. I argued that in the "Jackson Jive" thread awhile back. Those Australians didn't do that to offend black people, and I doubt they could explain the historical use of the imagery.
So if the imagery was created simultaneously
without the intent of stereotyping people, it wouldn't be racist?
My only conclusion is that you're using "inherently" in the loosest sense of the word, such that it represents a casual relationship which is by no means necessary.
Of course, it may not be worthwhile trying to imagine imagery without context. Nevertheless, this leaves us in a relativist position whereby there is no right nor wrong.
But the imagery remains racially insensitive and yes, racist. The personal intent may not be to offend as I stated above, in fact I'd say it's not intended to offend in this celebration. I agree that most people in Holland probably don't look at this and laugh
I think they know exactly who is being stereotyped and made fun of; now do most of them do it to be hurtful to blacks, most likely not. I'm baffled how you can argue the image is not racist. It's a black caricature, based directly off blackface traditions imported from the United States. It's not some innocent game they came up with themselves
I'm arguing that it's not racist because images
aren't racist by their own right. This may be a poor analogy, but racism isn't a tool. Racism is a method, a
way of using a tool. As a result, changing the method will invariably change the racist nature (or lack thereof) of an image. An image's racism isn't determined by its content, but by the context of that content.
We're basically arguing epistomology, and unless we can reach an agreement on how meaning is determined, we may as well agree to disagree.
Goya said:
Large eyes does not make it obvious that what you have drawn is a black person. On the other hand, very black skin and bright, large lips do.
Why not?
Again, unless you don't want your argument to become circular, please don;t referencing cultural standards and norms.
You don't need any cultural or historical knowledge to know this. You just need to have seen a black person before to know they have darker skin and lips that might be shaped a bit differently.
Actually, I'd argue that empirical experience alone is not enough to provide meaning. Seeing a single black person would not provide me with any information regarding what is and isn't his stereotype. (I'd suggest reading Wittgenstein's "tove" argument.)
On the other hand, if you want to draw a black person and it make it obvious he is black, you don't have to exaggerate his features and draw him with very black skin and bright, large lips. Doing so overshadows all his other features and makes him a caricature and a stereotype.
Not necessarily.
Imagine the stereotype for black people was that they had large eyes. If I were to draw a black person with very dark skin and bright large lips, would my image be racist?
