United Nations and its incompetence

[Deleted]

The big "problem" is that the Zwarte Pieten use the parts of symbolic imagery of how malicious caricatures of black people was produced. KISS did have the same "problem" because they use part of the symbolic imagery of the Nazi SS lightnings runes in there name. Hence we need more people/festivals who use old "evil" symbolic imagery to take them back. Remember the swastika was a "good luck" symbol before the nazi ruined it.

- - - Updated - - -

It'd be something completely different if Germany never stopped with their Nazi-symbolism and suddenly started to claim that it's just a Buddhist-symbol.
"Don't take away our Swastika, it's tradition! And we don't mean any harm, it's because of Bhudda."
Yeah.. right..

If I did have a swastika and did start to march militaristic up and down in front of a synagogue, I will have hard to clam that its nothing racists because its a Buddhist symbol, now if I past the synagogue on my daily walk to a Buddhist shrine its easy to claim tradition of Buddhism. Now if I do use black cosmetics to be a "black face" and exclusively make bad jocks about black people its racists, but if I use black cosmetics then I handing out candy to kids on a festival, its a tradition.

[Bolson13]

If you're a 'blackface' handing out candy than you might not have the intent to be racist, but that doesn't mean the image itself isn't racist.

Nobody is claiming that everyone celebrating Saint Nicholas is a racist, they are just complaining about the origin of Black Pete.
(Almost nobody, you'll always have a few nutjobs)

The origins aren't racist. It became racist later.

The 1830s American stage, where blackface first rose to prominence featured similarly comic stereotypes of the clever Yankee and the larger-than-life Frontiersman; the late 19th- and early 20th-century American and British stage where it last prospered featured many other, mostly ethnically-based, comic stereotypes: conniving, venal Jews; drunken brawling Irishmen with blarney at the ready; oily Italians; stodgy Germans; and gullible rural rubes.

Blackface makeup was largely eliminated even from live film comedy in the U.S. after the end of the 1930s, when public sensibilities regarding race began to change and blackface became increasingly associated with racism and bigotry.

It was through blackface performers, white and black, that the richness and exuberance of African-American music, humor, and dance first reached mainstream, white audiences in the U.S. and abroad.

Black performers used blackface performance to satirize white behavior. It was also a forum for the sexual double entendre gags that were frowned upon by white moralists. There was often a subtle message behind the outrageous vaudeville routines

From the early 1930s to the late 1940s, New York City's famous Apollo Theater in Harlem featured skits in which almost all black male performers wore the blackface makeup and huge white painted lips, despite protests that it was degrading from the NAACP. The comics said they felt "naked" without it.

The black minstrel performer was not only poking fun at himself but in a more profound way, he was poking fun at the white man. The cakewalk is caricaturing white customs, while white theater companies attempted to satirize the cakewalk as a black dance. Again, as LeRoi Jones notes



Besides that our zwarte Piet wasn't even a stereotypical blackface like explained many times over already.

Also, symbols do change and can be accepted in its new form. Look for instance how Christmas for many non religious has become something not to celebrate the birth, but a commercial holiday to give gifts. Hardly what Christ would have envisioned? Is that then discrimination towards Christians?


Or how about you proving to us that blackface was racist or simply a caricature like the greasy Italian, yellow braided Chinese, stoned Dutchman, fat American, blonde Swedes, overly anal Germans, Brits with bad teeth and so on.

Some stereotypes have become more sensitive over time in some parts of the world like greedy Jews in Germany, peacepipe Indians and blackface in the US but as shown, not everywhere and not in this case.

[Muis]

Not as long as you still live on this planet and want to have any kind of relations with other countries.

Yeah, since we have had no prior relations with any country before this...
Well, lets ban Santa aswell and start working on those relations then!!

[Bolson13]

Are you still claiming that?
That's like saying there was no gender-inequality before feminism.
Not having the right to complain about something doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Back then people didn't complain about it because they had other issues to attend, more pressing matters like slavery and abuse!

It didn't became racist in the 1930's, it's just when (white) people started to realize and care about it.

And people that are not biased because of the tradition recognize it for what it is.

Ignoring the fact that before that time it was still used a lot by even black performers, it was used in the same shows with other satirical characters that are, in your mind, racist as well apparently.
If somebody was to draw a stereotypical black person during that time, they would give him curly hair and big lips back then.
However, our zwarte Piet was not described as a joke, nor a slave. Zwarte Piet never was this "American blackface", slave character and we never even had this sort of character here.

If you would be asked to show a stereotypical/satirical russian man, it would be something like this right?

Maybe not funny for all Russian but hardly racism right?

In 20 years from now the US decides that hate Russia again and they enslave them all for 10 years, making jokes that they are a bunch of drunks etc. after which they are freed and we all apologise.

Are we at this point in time racist? I mean, if we were to look back at this day 30-40 years from now? No, today it is still satire, a caricature and we are not aware what the future will bring.





So where is your argumentation. I make arguments and you say "NO ITS NOT!".

And now you say "Are you still claiming that?". Ehm, have you disproven anything?


Edit:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadji_Firoez

Look, on the UNESCO heritage list. Black guy with red lips.
Another place where the connotation is different.

[Deleted]

Edit:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadji_Firoez

Look, on the UNESCO heritage list. Black guy with red lips.
Another place where the connotation is different.

I can't judge wether or not Hadji Firoez has any racist connotation to it. To unfamiliar with it.
Even if it were, it's besides the point though "Look other folks are allowed to practice racism, so I'm allowed as well" is a freaking ridiculous argument.

Also, for dutch folk out their who are still defending Zwarte Piet ain't racist. Look at some of your compatriots:
http://nederlandspreekt.tumblr.com/
Sorry dutch only, they're spouting all sorts of racist bullshit (only sometimes veiled with a layer of 'tradition'). Tbh I'm glad most people won't be able to read what some of my countrymen are saying atm... Disgusting bunch of degenerates... )

And no I'm not claiming everyone defending Zwarte Piet is racist, but being on the same side as that lot makes you wonder doesn't it?

[Bolson13]

I can't judge wether or not Hadji Firoez has any racist connotation to it. To unfamiliar with it.
Even if it were, it's besides the point though "Look other folks are allowed to practice racism, so I'm allowed as well" is a freaking ridiculous argument.

Lol, the argument is 100% the opposite. Good job twisting words around there.

The idea of this Hadji character is that he is not a racist stereotype in Iran (and apparently UNESCO agrees) even though he is obviously (according to the people calling it racist) also the same "blackface" figure which is racist 100%, everytime, always. Simple because it is a non black painting his face black, with red lips, black hair etc.
So this is an example that it is not always racist. Therefore, zwarte Piet might also be an example of such a character not being racist.

Also, for dutch folk out their who are still defending Zwarte Piet ain't racist. Look at some of your compatriots:
http://nederlandspreekt.tumblr.com/
Sorry dutch only, they're spouting all sorts of racist bullshit (only sometimes veiled with a layer of 'tradition'). Tbh I'm glad most people won't be able to read what some of my countrymen are saying atm... Disgusting bunch of degenerates... )

And no I'm not claiming everyone defending Zwarte Piet is racist, but being on the same side as that lot makes you wonder doesn't it?

I don't like these people neither but that doesn't mean that this is proof that zwarte Piet is racist like you said:
"Also, for dutch folk out their who are still defending Zwarte Piet ain't racist. Look at some of your compatriots".

These are simply a minority of pissed off racists that try to drive a point home by discriminating. If you want to ban apples tomorrow, they will blame it on foreigners as well. If you want to bring this up as proof, that means you are generalising which would be a fallacy. Unless you have specific data saying xx% of Dutch see it as something racist (you've watched the news, different polls done, different results but all say a huge majority doesn't see it as racist) you can't claim that as evidence.

[Deleted]

So this is an example that it is not always racist. Therefore, zwarte Piet might also be an example of such a character not being racist.

Although with zwarte piet there are some dodgy facts you can't brush away with "it's soot, lol". There simply are certain things about zwarte piet that are racist, they got incorporated into the tradition in a time that society looked differently at such things, the world was a different place so you can't really blame anyone for it imo. Just as you can't blame us for it getting incorporated in the past. You can, however, blame us for being unwilling to do something about now that we know that it's racist.

And yeah you'll always get the true racists coming out of the woodwork in discussions like this. The amount of 'normal' people spouting racist garbage for the sake of tradition is staggering though.

[Bolson13]

Although with zwarte piet there are some dodgy facts you can't brush away with "it's soot, lol". There simply are certain things about zwarte piet that are racist, they got incorporated into the tradition in a time that society looked differently at such things, the world was a different place so you can't really blame anyone for it imo. Just as you can't blame us for it getting incorporated in the past. You can, however, blame us for being unwilling to do something about now that we know that it's racist.

Well, thank you for at least seeing that the "facts" are not so black and white.

However, I disagree that there is something racist about zwarte Piet. I am not saying that some parts aren't hurtful as satire can be taking wrongly and thus hurtful. I mean, whenever you go to a foreign country as a Dutch person, the first thing they ask about is the drugs. Like we smoke weed here all day. Not exactly the best stereotype to have but that is usually what happens with stereotypes. It is a small piece of information taken out of context one which they form a general idea. This is ignorance but as long as it is not born out of hate, it is also not racism.

Now I don't believe that zwarte Piet was born out of hate or has had the tradition as this hate bringing, racist character. It was not a slave in the original book. Nobody told the story as sinterklaas and his slave zwarte Piet, even though zwarte Piet was his helper he was not using "slave nuances" when he talks (like saying: yes bossman sir or something like that).

So now the world has changed. The US in particularly has had this backlash against the "blackface" type character. Britain had this with the "Golliwog" or whats it called. So we come to the same question: Should we change something about it now because it is racist in another (close to us, reasonably well know to us) culture.

First things first, on the side of "no change" there are a bunch of racists that completely ruin the point for people like me who think have a reasonable claim. But you also have to admit that there are a lot of people on the "change" side that like to throw out that everybody on the "no change" side are racist. I think those are equally detrimental to the discussion as the racists.

Back on topic, "no change" or "change". I think a lot of people on the change side like you say "now we know, so change it". But from "no change" side I think the key issue is that culture and tradition also have value and us Dutch weren't the cause or have perpetuated the stereotype of this blackface. Plus this tradition is arguably a big thing. The last few days has proven that. I think that part should be weighed in more as well.

So make him a little less black, remove the red lipstick to make the lips look big, no golden earrings, have them wear different styled hair so one has spikey black hair, another a mohawk for all I care . Lets all have one of our typical "poldermodel" discussion, put the pin in the "racism" handgrenade, both sides give and take a little, agree that this is the official step away from this racist blackface character, that we do not associate him with zwarte Piet or Sinterklaas in any way, send an official letter to that UN advisor for riling up the whole country by being prejudice herself and be with it for the next 20 years.

[Selsta]

I've been brought up with the tradition of Sinterklaas and so have most of the people here in the Netherlands, during this time I've never once thought of zwarte piet being racist. As a kid you don't look at things that way, and later on you continue with the tradition because it's, well....a tradition.
I was on the "no change" side for most of the time this discussion has been going on, which in reality has been several years, it's only this year where the discussion has been taken international but here every year this comes up.
Now I think I've changed my mind, if there are people that are truly offended then I think we should have another look at this. I've never thought of zwarte piet as a racist, but like mentioned earlier the intent doesn't matter.

My only concern with revisiting the idea of zwarte piet is that it should not affect the children in any way. Sinterklaas is a children celebration, once that all kids up to a certain age look out for. Imagine that the reindeer of Santa Claus are considered offensive because of I don't know animal abuse. You can't just take away the reindeer and tell all kids that "believe" that since PETA deemed the use of reindeer inappropriate that Santa will be pulling the sled himself.

Now I hear about the way this has been handled in the Dutch Antilles, and something along those lines would work for me. Now I don't know if this was brought up in the 21 pages, but the story is that the boat that brought Sinterklaas to the Antilles went through a rainbow, when the pieten went through the rainbow their colour changed into the different colours of the rainbow. Children will accept this, and the celebration can go on as it has been for so long, just slightly different.