Support NeoGAF

[Dina]

Really, the last country? You sure about that?

The interracial marriage being banned in Louisiana says yes.

And because it's a very very small minority (according to you), it should be dismissed? And no, it's not political suicide. America got rid of minstrels a long time ago and I think we are pretty much better for it.

No, it shouldn't be dismissed, but in matters like this it's expected of the minority to adapt to the majority.

And yes it is political suicide. You obviously don't know the Dutch and their view on the government.

 

[jamesinclair]

Its like the spanish thread all over again :lol

"Im spanish and I have a black friend! No spanish person is racist!"
*5 minutes later*
"Fucking gypsies only steal and rape GTFO of our country!"

 

[Hilbert]

Hai guise, Holland is pretty racist, amirite?

No, of course not, but sometime the people seem to be.

I like how America gets touted as one of the most racist places on earth, and also as the place where the most people are concerned about racism. An interesting duo.

 

[PolarBearsClub]

The interracial marriage being banned in Louisiana says yes.

Our black president says no?

No, it shouldn't be dismissed, but in matters like this it's expected of the minority to adapt to the majority.

In matters like what? Why?

And yes it is political suicide. You obviously don't know the Dutch and their view on the government.

Is it radically different the way people usually view their government?

 

[Scipius]

Why, because America has made leaps and bounds in its fight against racism? Though it has a really long way to go, it has progressed immensely.

Only on the surface. America has deeply rooted racial issues that simply cannot be compared to the tension created by migration in Europe.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

The interracial marriage being banned in Louisiana says yes.

One racist guy says he's not going to marry interracial couples and suddenly the entire state of LA has banned interracial marriage :lol

 

[harSon]

People going out of their way to defend their country's ignorant customs never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Walshicus]

It's not doing the Americans any either, believe me.

Also, there is no such country as "Holland". The name of the country is the Netherlands, of which Holland was only one. Its use as the country's name is deeply insulting to all Dutchmen not from Holland...

Napoleon's Kingdom of Holland is why the association is made.

 

[Purkake4]

No, of course not, but sometime the people seem to be.

I like how America gets touted as one of the most racist places on earth, and also as the place where the most people are concerned about racism. An interesting duo.

I was just mocking all the people poking their head in here just to say how racist The Netherlands is.

BTW, The Netherlands is still called "Holland" in my language.

 

[gerg]

See, if this is true, then why does everyone keep arguing that it's Americans being arrogant and PC?

Because people seem to be giving immediate authority to their reaction, without judging whether or not their reaction is appropriate. That is, people are quick to take offense without judging whether or not they have a right to be offended.

And gerg, what's your idea of racism?

I quite like the analogy of racism as a method, rather than a tool, which I proposed just now. To me, it appears that racism is an abstract ideology which can certainly take the form of propagated imagery. What I want to establish is that it's the racism that gives that imagery its racist content, rather than the imagery which is inherently racist (or stereotypical).

This is understandably hard to see because all imagery will be linked to its context.

[Edit: Of course, once the racism has generally faded from culture, racist imagery will still contain a historical link to a past culture, and so it may take time before the imagery can be reclaimed as un-racist, if it ever can.]

Just because something doesn't explicitly advocate violence or hatred towards blacks doesn't mean that it can't be insensitive. You keep arguing that the Dutch themselves don't view it is as racist, but how do you really know that? It's already been pointed out that some blacks in Holland aren't particularly fond of the tradition.

I'm not trying to deny that people may take offense to this imagery. Of course, people will find this offensive, some of whom understanably so. However, people will always find things offensive. Does this mean we should change our ways to suit them? Not necessarily.

As I've said before, it's an insidious kind of racism under the guise of tradition. You argue that it's roots aren't relative to the way it's celebrated today, but I just don't buy that. Why couldn't the racist imagery die with the racism?

I'd argue that the racist imagery has died with the racism.

It seems Piet's story has already been changed in that people now see it's just soot, not that he's black, but then why not change the the image? It's not a cultural thing, it's a human thing. No one likes to be stereotyped.

That seems like a very arbitrary distinction, imo.

 

[Timber]

Its use as the country's name is deeply insulting to all Dutchmen not from Holland...

thanks for letting me know. i'll make sure to get offended for myself and on the behalf of my provincial brethren whenever i hear dutch football chants from now on.

 

[Coen]

BTW, The Netherlands is still called "Holland" in my language.

Your language is racist. It should be boycotted.

 

[Scipius]

People going out of their way to defend their country's ignorant customs never ceases to amaze me.

We should all be Americans. Black Americans to be exact.

 

[jamesinclair]

Its like the spanish thread all over again :lol

"Im spanish and I have a black friend! No spanish person is racist!"
*5 minutes later*
"Fucking gypsies only steal and rape GTFO of our country!"

Oh shit, I cant believe I forgot about this.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW

 

[Walshicus]

Our black president says no?

Your black president whose approval ratings are higher in Europe than at home?

 

[Scipius]

thanks for letting me know. i'll make sure to get offended for myself and on the behalf of my provincial brethren whenever i hear dutch football chants from now on.

Yes, the worst offenders are of course the despicable Hollanders.

 

[harSon]

We should all be Americans. Black Americans to be exact.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Kabouter]

Napoleon's Kingdom of Holland is why the association is made.

No, it's because for as long as this country has existed, it has been completely dominated by Holland (Currently the two provinces of North- and South-Holland). Holland in the golden age, which contrary to what the forum posting in the OP says was not built upon slave trade, in practice dominated the politics of the country. He who was Stadtholder of Holland and Zeeland controlled the Dutch Republic. The rest of the provinces were often little different from impoverished countries to the East and North. And such dominance has had its effects. Dutch culture as it is right now is almost entirely Hollandish culture.

 

[Purkake4]

Your language is racist. It should be boycotted.

Don't worry, it's doing a pretty good job dying out on its own

 

[Scipius]

What does this have to do with anything?

Go fight the Man, not the Dutchman.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Your black president whose approval ratings are higher in Europe than at home?

I'm sorry. I am unable to see the correlation between approval ratings of the job the president is doing and how racist your country is.

Please try again.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So if the imagery was created simultaneously without the intent of stereotyping people, it wouldn't be racist?

I'd reject that premise. You don't create an image of an extremely dark, big red lipped, bug eyed ignorant person without trying to stereotype someone. As you said, it's not worthwhile to imagine imagery without context.

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.

"involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture>"

Oh I'm using the word exactly how it's meant to be used. As I said, the root of blackface is racism. That's not even up for debate.

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.

Images may not be racist by their own right, but the image is racist when it's deeply seeded in racism and was created to propagate some stereotype/caricature. And that's what blackface is. And unfortunately for your argument, that's what Zwarte Piet is based off.

We're basically arguing epistomology, and unless we can reach an agreement on how meaning is determined, we may as well agree to disagree.

We actually agree on a few things. But we disagree where you're wrong: some images were created to be racist, and are deeply seeded in racism. We may revive them now for innocent, comedic purposes, but the fact remains that the imagery's meaning does not change over time. Blackface in 1830 was a caricature of black stereotypes, and blackface in 2009 is a caricature of black stereotypes.

 

[PolarBearsClub]

Your black president whose approval ratings are higher in Europe than at home?

Oh sick burn. Except the claim was that Americans should be the last people talking about how bad racism is, because we are racist. Yet we elected a black President. So what does what you're saying have anything to do with anything.

And for effect: ;* =0 =p ;(

 

[RiotOfTheBlood]

I'm of African descent and pretty much grew up in the Netherlands, it never bothered me much but i can definitely see why some people would be put off by it.
I think it's going to be more and more difficult to preserve this tradition, the more multi-cultural it gets.
The roots of this tradition might be dodgy, but i can honestly say from experience the intention definitely isn't. I've never felt discriminated against during this holiday, and i think people are overreacting a bit.

Also, neger in dutch is an insult. The use of the word is primarily no different from the N word in English. Some people might say it regularly, but i'd be pissed off if someone called me that( forunately nobody ever has).

 

[harSon]

Also, there is no such country as "Holland". The name of the country is the Netherlands, of which Holland was only one. Its use as the country's name is deeply insulting to all Dutchmen not from Holland...

Eh, it's a tradition I'm not willing to break.

 

[gerg]

I'd reject that premise. You don't create an image of an extremely dark, big red lipped, bug eyed ignorant person without trying to stereotype someone.

:lol

You honestly can't imagine that someone could create such a character just to create something unique? I find that pretty hard to believe.

"involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture>"

Oh I'm using the word exactly how it's meant to be used. As I said, the root of blackface is racism. That's not even up for debate.

Just because the root of blackface was racist does not mean that the root of blackface had to be racist. It might be useful to employ modal logic here.

Images may not be racist by their own right, but the image is racist when it's deeply seeded in racism and was created to propagate some stereotype/caricature.

I'm not trying to deny that there is a historic connection to the racism of past imagery, but that that racism may be weakened if there is not a current connection.

We actually agree on a few things. But we disagree where you're wrong: some images were created to be racist, and are deeply seeded in racism. We may revive them now for innocent, comedic purposes, but the fact remains that the imagery's meaning does not change over time. Blackface in 1830 was a caricature of black stereotypes, and blackface in 2009 is a caricature of black stereotypes.

"A word's meaning is its use."

I find the current situation very similar.

 

[Kestastrophe]

Except the claim was that Americans should be the last people talking about how bad racism is, because we are racist.

No one is claiming that the U.S. is better than any other country, smh. There is no way that shit would fly over here, though

 

[Timber]

We should all be Americans. Black Americans to be exact.

one doesn't have to be american in order to acknowledge the racialist under and overtones inherent in the sinterklaas festivities. even ignoring the whole blackface thing which, granted, does not carry a history as volatile here as it does in the US, there is still the image of a saintly and wise white man subjugating hordes of black men. that ought to ring some alarm bells regardless of where you're from. the whole 'soot' thing and other petty justifications are nothing more than disingenuous excuses. it's about time the dutch people came face to face with what exactly they celebrate every year and what cultural images they wish to perpetuate. no more premature dismissals of every criticism lifted against their cultural traits. that's the very least any progressive, progressing society ought to do.

 

[Scipius]

Eh, it's a tradition I'm not willing to break.

It's not a tradition, it's ignorance on your part.

 

[RiotOfTheBlood]

Eh, it's a tradition I'm not willing to break.

:lol

 

[Kestastrophe]

It's not a tradition, it's ignorance on your part.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not

 

[Dennis]

It's not a tradition, it's ignorance on your part.

:lol

 

[PolarBearsClub]

Because people seem to be giving immediate authority to their reaction, without judging whether or not their reaction is appropriate. That is, people are quick to take offense without judging whether or not they have a right to be offended.

A right to be offended? What are you talking about? People have the right to react whatever way they want to. With your logic, every time someone called me a spic I'd have to sit and ponder whether I deserved it and if they are really racist, and whether or not I should just accept it as a fun joke. How about people just stop doing blatantly racist things?

I quite like the analogy of racism as a method, rather than a tool, which I proposed just now. To me, it appears that racism is an abstract ideology which can certainly take the form of propagated imagery. What I want to establish is that it's the racism that gives that imagery its racist content, rather than the imagery which is inherently racist (or stereotypical).

This is understandably hard to see because all imagery will be linked to its context.

Why do you insist on arguing silly semantics? You are straying further and further away from the argument at hand. Please come back. There's nothing abstract about racism, or to ponder about here. When one race puts down another race that is racism. And are the Dutch putting another race down? By the reactions in this thread, it looks like they are. But hey, since it's just the Dutch doing it to each other, they get a free pass.

And context MATTERS, that is the point. If it matters so little, they why just not change it, tone the make up down, is it really that difficult to do? Are you really sacrificing so much?

I'm not trying to deny that people may take offense to this imagery. Of course, people will find this offensive, some of whom understanably so. However, people will always find things offensive. Does this mean we should change our ways to suit them? Not necessarily.

If it's so understandable why some would find it offensive then why isn't it reasonable to suggest that the tradition should lose or tone down it's offensive qualities?

I'd argue that the racist imagery has died with the racism.

I'd argue it hasn't, because it hasn't. The face paint is the racist imagery I am talking about.

That seems like a very arbitrary distinction, imo.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. A black Dutch person is person first, and a Dutch second.

 

[Zabka]

I'm of African descent and pretty much grew up in the Netherlands, it never bothered me much but i can definitely see why some people would be put off by it.
I think it's going to be more and more difficult to preserve this tradition, the more multi-cultural it gets.
The roots of this tradition might be dodgy, but i can honestly say from experience the intention definitely isn't. I've never felt discriminated against during this holiday, and i think people are overreacting a bit.

Also, neger in dutch is an insult. The use of the word is primarily no different from the N word in English. Some people might say it regularly, but i'd be pissed off if someone called me that( forunately nobody ever has).

Get your first-hand knowledge and experience the hell out of here!

 

[Scipius]

one doesn't have to be american in order to acknowledge the racialist under and overtones inherent in the sinterklaas festivities. even ignoring the whole blackface thing which, granted, does not carry a history as volatile here as it does in the US, there is still the image of a saintly and wise white man subjugating hordes of black men. that ought to ring some alarm bells regardless of where you're from. the whole 'soot' thing and other petty justifications are nothing more than disingenuous excuses. it's about time the dutch people came face to face with what exactly they celebrate every year and what cultural images they wish to perpetuate. no more premature dismissals of every criticism lifted against their cultural traits. that's the very least any progressive, progressing society ought to do.

It's clear that Sinterklaas is only a frail and aging figurehead. The Zwarte Pieten are actually the ones running the whole operation; without them none of it would be possible. They are vibrant black men and women enacting judgement over hordes of white children, at the same time scaring and exciting them; now threatening the rod, and then rewarding them with candy.

 

[ymmv]

Also, neger in dutch is an insult. The use of the word is primarily no different from the N word in English. Some people might say it regularly, but i'd be pissed off if someone called me that( forunately nobody ever has).

No, it's not. Neger just means negro. Nikker (nigger) is the insult. Read the Dutch Wikipedia article on neger.

"Deze Amerikaanse gevoeligheden over het woord (neger) zijn niet zonder meer naar het Nederlandse taalgebied te transponeren. Hier wordt wel het Afrikaanse leenwoord nikker (of kaffer) doorgaans aan zeer negatieve gevoelens, racisme en discriminatie gekoppeld en als een echt beladen scheldwoord ingeschaald, maar voor het woord 'neger' is dat niet zonder meer het geval. Dit wordt in Nederland en België nog gezien als een gewone, onbeladen aanduiding voor mensen met een (zeer) donkere huidskleur, vergelijkbaar met de term blanke. Het is zelfs maar de vraag of zwarte in ons taalgebied niet eigenlijk een negatievere bijklank heeft - dit dus in tegenstelling tot de gevoelens hierover zoals die in met name de VS ervaren worden. Met name in Vlaanderen heeft zwarte de connotatie van een scheldwoord, weliswaar niet met de betekenis van neger maar wel van fascist of collaborateur. Ook het Franse scheldwoord boche (wat "mof" betekent, een oud scheldwoord voor Duitsers in de Tweede Wereldoorlog) zou via Frans-Guyana afgeleid zijn van het Surinaams-Nederlandse woord bos(neger)."

 

[Scipius]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not

I'm as serious as harSon was.

 

[Walshicus]

Oh sick burn. Except the claim was that Americans should be the last people talking about how bad racism is, because we are racist. Yet we elected a black President. So what does what you're saying have anything to do with anything.

And for effect: ;* =0 =p ;(

Okay, well I wasn't being entirely serious and I thought the wink at the end was a dead giveaway.

 

[PhoenixDark]

:lol

You honestly can't imagine that someone could create such a character just to create something unique? I find that pretty hard to believe.

"Unique"? No, I cannot.

I'm not trying to deny that there is a historic connection to the racism of past imagery, but that that racism may be weakened if there is not a current connection.

A fair argument. But of course, it does not address the fact that racist/divisive imagery remains racist/divisive imagery. You may not mean to offend, but you're using a "tool" that was created to offend

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCKxWQCs3f0
The imagery/commentary in that ad dates back hundreds of years, and was just as offensive then as it was in the 60s or today.

As pointed out by others, you continue to play semantics and move away from the argument at hand

 

[PolarBearsClub]

Okay, well I wasn't being entirely serious and I thought the wink at the end was a dead giveaway.

No, it just made you look smug.

 

[Dude Abides]

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.

Which context would that be? The only exculpatory context I'm seeing here are bare and self-serving assertions that it simply isn't racist. It is insufficient to simply state that the contexts are different without explaining why the difference is relevant to this particular situation. Why, specifically, should minstrel-style blackface, which, as someone posted above, was adopted at roughly the same time in the Netherlands (and has features distinct from those found in earler depictions of the character) as minstrelsy and the associated imagery was growing popular throughout the West, be considered offensive in America but not in the Netherlands?

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.

Sure. But it doesn't follow from the fact that any imagery can be offensive that this particular imagery in fact is not. A more appealing question is whether it is reasonable to be offended by this imagery.

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.

"Just so happens" is doing more work than it can bear in that sentence. As was pointed out previously, this particular depiction is different from earlier depictions of the character, and became widespread at the same time that similar minstrel-esque depictions grew popular.

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.

His skin color seems to be quite significant, judging from the fact that many Dutch appear to paint their skin black to look like him.

 

[harSon]

I'm as serious as harSon was.

For your own sake, I hope you knew that I was being sarcastic. However, your posts in this thread say otherwise...

 

[Walshicus]

No, it just made you look smug.

I'm European. We're as smug as you are arrogant.

 

[PolarBearsClub]

I'm European. We're as smug as you are arrogant.

Fair enough.

 

[Scipius]

For your own sake, I hope you knew that I was being sarcastic. However, your posts in this thread say otherwise...

No, they don't.

 

[Scipius]

I'm European. We're as smug as you are arrogant.

Probably a bit more smug, but it's only a tad.

 

[Mkliner]

Death to Holland

 

[MMaRsu]

Zwarte pieten racist :lol

 

[Arjen]

It's not doing the Americans any either, believe me.

Also, there is no such country as "Holland". The name of the country is the Netherlands, of which Holland was only one. Its use as the country's name is deeply insulting to all Dutchmen not from Holland...

This
And i have to to say, as a Fries im am highly offended by it

 

[RiotOfTheBlood]

No, it's not. Neger just means negro. Nikker (nigger) is the insult. Read the Dutch Wikipedia article on neger.

Oh god, a wiki article.:lol

As i've said before it might be normal to some people but it depends on when you're from. I've only ever heard that word used as an insult (e.g. "vieze neger!"), and tbh i don't care for the origin of the word being used formally or whatnot since thats not what i've grown up around. I doubt the casual people of america go around calling black people "negroes" anyway.:lol You can't do that.