Sinterklaas

[Escalion]

Okay, sorry for this but I just have to rant here about this (+ debate lol XD)

So while I'm in Thailand the United Nations have decided to fuck up one of my countries oldest and most well-known traditions, the celebration of "Sinterklaas"

Some info on the matter:
Sinterklaas is an old man, who's not the problem, and he has helpers called "Black Pete's" cause, well, they're black.
Has not much to do with actual skin color though. Sinterklaas is an old festival my country celebrates every winter on December 5th but starts already a few weeks before it when they arrive on their steam boat from Spain.

It has a religious base in the story of Saint Nicholas of Myra, who helped poor children. The current way we celebrate it is about 150-200 years old, but some influences of the festival date back to pagan-times in pre-Christian Europe and are said to be based of Odin.

It's a children's festival, they sing a song for him, his horse and/or the Pete's and they get gifts in return if they've been good.
As a matter of fact, our Dutch Sinterklaas festival is very similar to how Americans celebrate Christmas with Santa Claus,the gifts and supposed punishment for bad kids.

So, now comes what the perceived problem is. There are complaints Black Pete is racist. The story of the complainers is that Black Pete finds its original in the Netherland's slave-trade past.
The story Dutch people tell to their kids is that Black Pete is black because he Pete helps Sinterklaas deliver presents to all the kids and climbs through chimney's to do so, causing him to be black because of the soot in the chimneys.
And Black Pete is one of the things that has a much older telling than the modern chimney one, being based on the myths of Odin and especially his Black Ravens that helped him.

A Picture of Sinterklaas and his Black Pete's

Spoiler: show

Now the point that's pissing me really off right now.

The United Nations started an investigation into this Dutch tradition to see if it's racist or not.

Yesterday, the head of the research committee has said she thinks that it is racist and that the Dutch government should ban the festival.
Nevermind that reseach isn't even completed and there is no report or anything yet whatsoever. So they're sending me the mesasge they're not research IF our tradition is possibly racist, they're researching THAT it is racist.
And I'm pissed off

(Edit: And to make it worse she asked why we, the Dutch, need "another Santa Claus" insinuating Santa Claus came before Sinterklaas, while it's in fact the other way around)

I really don't see what's wrong with it, like 91% of my countrymen do as has shown in a resent poll and I'm pretty sure the country would rebel against anything even remotely suggesting a ban.

Some info links:
A new item
Letter of the UN to my government
Forum

I realize some more info on Black Pete and/or the whole concept of Sinterklaas in my country might be needed, and if so, please ask.

So yeah, debate, what you do guys/girls think of the Sinterklaas festival and Black Pete, and what about this United Nations thing?

[Talon87]

I think if the Black Petes' blackness had only to do with soot and nothing to do with skin tone then there would be no objection to toning down the amount of black paint applied to the face and hands. Have them look like Bert from Mary Poppins:

Clearly a white man covered in the soot of his trade rather than a white man impersonating a black man in historical blackface paints.

What kills the soot argument for me is the fact that the Black Petes' lips have clearly been embellished with red lipstick so as to look puffy and red. Notice that Sinterklaas isn't wearing any such lipstick: his lips look their natural color. So why don't the Petes'?

I don't know if Black Petes really are based on black men or not. I don't know if they're really based on black slaves or not. And I don't know whether the world community has any right to ask you to get rid of a centuries-old tradition that may be built upon a racist past when many of the world's self-styled most civilized nations continue to burn effigies or celebrate assistance they received from a people whom they would later wipe out. But I don't think you guys are doing yourselves any favors by trying to dodge the fact that this is probably blackface. Trying to peg it on chimney soot that the Petes occupationally accrue on their faces and hands ... I just don't buy that argument at all. The Petes look like they're either meant to be supernatural beings or else black people. They don't look like they're meant to be perceived as white people with soot on their faces. The red lipstick, the wigs ... these factors shouldn't be present if it were just about chimney soot.

[Concept]

Not entirely sure why blackface (or yellowface or whiteface for that matter) is a problem in and of itself; it's bad if you're dressing up to deliberately portray said race in a negative or stereotypical light, but if it's just changing your skin colour to reflect that a character is traditionally of that race then what's the issue?

Unless Black Pete's are portrayed in a stereotypical or negative fashion, black up all you want. Asian guy wants to colour his face to portray a traditionally white character? Be my guest.

[Rangeet]

I don't think this is racist in the least, but what I'm wondering is what on earth does this being a tradition have to do with it? Just because something is a tradition is no reason at all to not ban it.

[Ex-Admiral Insane]

And at the same time, this colourful character is part of the Nowruz festival which is registered on the UNESCO list of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. This is also most likely the source of the tradition considering our Saint Nicholas originates from Persia/Turkey.

Blackface? Yeah, I guess. The soot-theory worked at first and was told as an easy explanation to children. No need to overthink it - most people just naturally assume that covering oneself in soot was replaced for paint since it was easier in the modern age. Now the prevailing theory is that it had to do with older Pagan traditions. Possibly the conquering of the devil or some sort of banishment of demons. There is actually no connection to slavery or even Africans for that matter. Most of the people who say it is are those that are afraid of being racist (which to my mind is actually more racist than the festival itself).

Nowadays it's more of a tradition and these Zwarte Pieten might actually be more loved by children than Saint Nick himself. I mean let's face it; Saint Nicholas is an old man that walks slow, talks slow and you often wonder as a child if he's all there. The Zwarte Pieten are the ones that actually hand out the candy, presents and shake children's hands. They willingly help an old saint who gives present to children on his own birthday who can't so otherwise. I believe even these Zwarte Pieten are given present. And the punishment? The story is that if you're naughty Saint Nick will kidnap you and take you to Spain, not his helpers.

If you take the tradition away, you're going to deal a lot more damage than do any actual good. Can't find exact statistics but I believe the majority of any community enjoy the celebration, Dutch, German, Moroccan, Suriname, whatever. Again; it's a really small group of people that complain. I can say this about myself, and most likely other kids as well; that I've made no single connection as a kid between Zwarte Piet and any African Community. Those are 2 completely different groups. Banishing this part of the tradition is only going to send the message that there is a distinction to be made between people and that you should be careful of it. The complaints are actually the things that breath life into the concept of racism in a country.
[and I have to cut this short for dinner. Will be back later to see reactions.]

[Talon87]

The key difference with Hajji Firuz is that he isn't subservient to a white master. He is the star of his show. He is his own boss. That doesn't seem to be the case with the black Petes and the white Sinterklaas, so it's probably what invited this criticism from some in the international community in the first place. If Hajji Firuz turns out to be black, no one cares: because he's a black Santa Claus. But if Black Pete turns out to be black, people care: because he's a black Santa's little helper, subservient to a white Santa.

[Concept]

Must every instance of characters of one race being subservient to a character of another race be racism? Can their race not just be something unrelated? For that matter, why is it important if their subservience was initially to do with their race? So far as I can tell from a quick bit of research, there's nothing about modern Black Pete portrayals which suggests negative or stereotypical things about black people, so why does anyone care?

[Mercutio]

It sounds pretty racist. You can play the soot card all you like but you're talking about black face however it originated.

The report sounds like a botched process, though, and in a revealing way. I suspect that the UN will recommend that the festival be banned and then I suspect that it will continue for another few decades. This kind of cultural change takes a while.

[Ex-Admiral Insane]

Though not the same thing and you can't really compare them;

Aren't the elves (Santa's little helpers) technically offensive to Little People? For that matter, couldn't Santa Claus himself be considered offensive to people suffering from obesity?
And wouldn't pantomime be sexist in a way?

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Ex-Admiral Insane

Though not the same thing and you can't really compare them;

Aren't the elves (Santa's little helpers) technically offensive to Little People? For that matter, couldn't Santa Claus himself be considered offensive to people suffering from obesity?
And wouldn't pantomime be sexist in a way?

I think they're really very comparable. Which I think goes to demonstrate just how much whether something is or is not racist can be a matter of belief rather than fact. It gets back to what Concept says and I quite agree with: it's sad that we can't ever depict a racial majority in a position of affluence, power, or success alongside a racial minority in a position of poverty, impotence, or failure without people crying foul.

Unfortunately, though, I don't write the rules and neither does Concept: it's just the way the world works. Louis C.K. famously joked about the inequality between racial epithets for black people and white people, pointing out that there's pretty much nothing a black person can call a white person that will be hurtful: because no word is ever hurtful in and of itself. Words are only hurtful when, at some conscious or subconscious level, we legitimize their power to hurt us. For whites in America, you're not going to get that legitimization for an insult like "cracker" or "frosty" or "cream cake" or whatever. Even if someone were to call a white person "bird poop", "vomited milk", or other gross things that are white in color, I think the white person would just laugh off the insult for how absurd it is. But call a black person any number of racial slurs for black people in America and it can be very hurtful. It can really feel to them like the other party is treating them like a subhuman. It is in this very same vein that I disagree with Concept that black people (or other ethnic minorities; he cited Asians as his example) who find Black Pete offensive should have fun dressing up as white people behaving like stereotypical whites. That doesn't really address the inherent unfairness of the situation. In fact, it only serves to further illustrate it: white people in Europe and the Americas don't care if they're being ridiculed because who really gives a shit about disparaging remarks or depictions when you're affluent, in control, better educated, and so on? Black people (and, in this instance, black Dutchmen) can't really achieve true fair and equal treatment if they respond to Black Pete with their own "White Klaas" who is some ugly bald white gremlin that serves "Sinterpete" who is some well-dressed, jolly black man with magical powers of giving children toys and commanding a team of flying reindeer. It doesn't work because no white person is likely going to be as hurt by that depiction, which bears no resemblance to anything steeped in truth, as is some black person likely to be hurt by Black Pete, which bears some resemblance to reality, i.e. to the time when white Europeans held black slaves.

Like I said before, I don't think that trying to hide behind the soot defense while you continue to lay the black paint on thick is doing you guys any favors. The best thing to do in this scenario is either:

1. stick to the soot defense but quit applying such a thick layer of black face paint. Make it clear to everyone that the Black Petes are white men whose faces have been grimied with soot rather than black men being played by whites in blackface.
2. abandon the soot defense, embrace the identity of Black Pete as a black man, but make it clear to everyone that Black Pete is awesome and there's nothing hurtful about how he's depicted. Maybe establish that he has some powers that Sinterklaas lacks. Maybe establish that Pete and Klaas are best friends who have been through thick and thin together and do not have a traditional master-servant or employer-employee relationship. Stuff.

Obviously, the Netherlands needn't do either of these two things, but I suspect that so long as they don't, they're going to be harangued every so often by foreigners, white and black alike, who will accuse Sinterklaas and Black Pete of being a racist hold-over from times gone by. And obviously, like I said up top, I agree that it's sad that you can't have an ethnic minority sometimes simply be inferior to the ethnic majority without people freaking out and accusing it of being racism. But ... that's life. ^^; So rather than try and get into a shouting match with people, sometimes it's better to just create a happy compromise. After all, if there are people who are sincerely being hurt by Black Pete -- if, for example, there are black Dutch men going home to their families saying that the marriage is off because the fiancée's father forbid his daughter from marrying "some Black Pete" -- then is it really worth preserving a centuries-old icon just because you happen to have never been hurt by it and you don't want to see it go? Generally speaking, it's better to show more affection for our countrymen than for our traditions.

You mention that 91% of the Netherlands doesn't want to see Black Pete be changed. But I wonder what percent of dark-skinned ethnic minorities in the Netherlands felt that same way? According to Wikipedia ...

The majority of the population of the Netherlands is ethnically Dutch. A 2005 estimate counted: 80.9% Dutch, 2.4% Indonesian, 2.4% German, 2.2% Turkish, 2.0% Surinamese, 1.9% Moroccan, 0.8% Antillean and Aruban, and 7.4% others.

Of the 16.9% who are neither Dutch nor ethnic German, I wonder what percentage are of black African descent? And I wonder what percent of those would like to maybe see Black Pete be modernized for a modern age with modern sensibilities?

[Mercutio]

Obesity isn't quite the same as millennia of oppression.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Obesity isn't quite the same as millennia of oppression.

Who said anything about obesity?

[Mercutio]

Ex did.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Talon87

It is in this very same vein that I disagree with Concept that black people (or other ethnic minorities; he cited Asians as his example) who find Black Pete offensive should have fun dressing up as white people behaving like stereotypical whites.

Apologies, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean black/white/yellowfacing up and acting in a stereotypical manner was ok; I meant I feel it's possible to alter your skin colour without doing so in a stereotypical and hurtful fashion. My point was that if someone non-white wants to do whiteface in order to portray a character traditionally white, that's fine - but if they want to act in an offensive and stereotypically white manner, regardless of whether they've whitefaced or not, that's not cool. Similarly for non-black people donning black face in this instance.

As far as I can tell (from admittedly quick google searches) even opposition to Black Pete makes no claims that white people dressing up as Black Pete are acting in a stereotypical and offensive manner when doing so, which I feel is the only place an issue could lie.

• abandon the soot defense, embrace the identity of Black Pete as a black man, but make it clear to everyone that Black Pete is awesome and there's nothing hurtful about how he's depicted. Maybe establish that he has some powers that Sinterklaas lacks. Maybe establish that Pete and Klaas are best friends who have been through thick and thin together and do not have a traditional master-servant or employer-employee relationship. Stuff.

I pretty much agree with this.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Ex did.

I still can't seem to find it but okay. I'm assuming it's in his longer of two posts but skimming it twice again just now I still don't see any mention of obesity.

Originally Posted by Concept

Apologies, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean black/white/yellowfacing up and acting in a stereotypical manner was ok; I meant I feel it's possible to alter your skin colour without doing so in a stereotypical and hurtful fashion. My point was that if someone non-white wants to do whiteface in order to portray a character traditionally white, that's fine - but if they want to act in an offensive and stereotypically white manner, regardless of whether they've whitefaced or not, that's not cool. Similarly for non-black people donning black face in this instance.

And then I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position. Seems we pretty much have the exact same position: that there isn't a problem with Race A donning makeup and pretending to be Race B so long as it's done tastefully. (Example: Sir Ben Kingsley's portrayal of Mahatma Gandhi in Gandhi.)

Originally Posted by Concept

As far as I can tell (from admittedly quick google searches) even opposition to Black Pete makes no claims that white people dressing up as Black Pete are acting in a stereotypical and offensive manner when doing so, which I feel is the only place an issue could lie.

If that's the case, then it honestly would seem that the extent of the issue is the outside world getting upset with the Netherlands about a questionable use of the soot defense. This basically returns us to my two bullet points: the Netherlands should either lighten up on how much "soot" is applied or else just embrace the idea that Black Pete is black but make it abundantly clear (if they haven't already) that he's not a mockery of black people.

I would still be interested to know what percentage of non-Caucasian Dutch citizens believe Black Pete needs to be overhauled.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Ex-Admiral Insane

Though not the same thing and you can't really compare them;

Aren't the elves (Santa's little helpers) technically offensive to Little People? For that matter, couldn't Santa Claus himself be considered offensive to people suffering from obesity?
And wouldn't pantomime be sexist in a way?

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Concept

Not entirely sure why blackface (or yellowface or whiteface for that matter) is a problem in and of itself; it's bad if you're dressing up to deliberately portray said race in a negative or stereotypical light, but if it's just changing your skin colour to reflect that a character is traditionally of that race then what's the issue?

Blackface with the red lips is culturally loaded imagery, so the effect in the United States (and around the world) would be equivalent to denying the Holocaust in Belgium or something. It is so infamously offensive to many it isn't tolerated even in a historical context, whereby even someone dressed in the garb of the Ku Klux Klan could get away with "free speech" and "self-expression" alongside being offensive, but application of blackface is degenerate enough to not even be considered a valid exercise of free speech. The mere use is considered mass defamation and denigration against black people everywhere.

Now, there is some irony to this, I think. I don't believe historical blackface is as guilty for all of the sins it's often scapegoated for. The shows themselves were chiefly a format and didn't universally portray black people in a negative light, and since they were for entertainment value I don't agree that audiences of the eras minstrel shows played for actually took what they saw on stage as reality. Similarly, minstrel shows lost popularity to vaudeville toward the early part of the 20th century, so they barely existed by the time Civil Rights rolled along.

It's just that the Civil Rights movement needed a white Jesus to crucify and the minstrel show was very convenient, since it made fun of blacks and paralleled black history from a few decades before emancipation to the present. Only in the 1960's+ did it get demonized to the point of enshrinement in the hallowed halls of infamy.

Perhaps undo, but decades of mind drilling has done that. My first thought seeing Escalion's picture was "that is racist, and totally unacceptable". Rational kicked in secondary to that revulsion.

So yeah, even knowing it's a tradition, I personally (on an emotional level) wouldn't feel comfortable seeing blackface and red lips on Black Petes. Perhaps in an alternate universe, someone feels just as strongly toward Santa Claus' elves, recognizing them as derogatory Irish stereotypes. I'm not in one of those universes.

[Ex-Admiral Insane]

(I did mention obesity. My second post right after Santa's elves.)

Originally Posted by Talon

Unfortunately, though, I don't write the rules and neither does Concept: it's just the way the world works. Louis C.K. famously joked about the inequality between racial epithets for black people and white people, pointing out that there's pretty much nothing a black person can call a white person that will be hurtful: because no word is ever hurtful in and of itself. Words are only hurtful when, at some conscious or subconscious level, we legitimize their power to hurt us. For whites in America, you're not going to get that legitimization for an insult like "cracker" or "frosty" or "cream cake" or whatever. Even if someone were to call a white person "bird poop", "vomited milk", or other gross things that are white in color, I think the white person would just laugh off the insult for how absurd it is. But call a black person any number of racial slurs for black people in America and it can be very hurtful. It can really feel to them like the other party is treating them like a subhuman. It is in this very same vein that I disagree with Concept that black people (or other ethnic minorities; he cited Asians as his example) who find Black Pete offensive should have fun dressing up as white people behaving like stereotypical whites. That doesn't really address the inherent unfairness of the situation. In fact, it only serves to further illustrate it: white people in Europe and the Americas don't care if they're being ridiculed because who really gives a shit about disparaging remarks or depictions when you're affluent, in control, better educated, and so on? Black people (and, in this instance, black Dutchmen) can't really achieve true fair and equal treatment if they respond to Black Pete with their own "White Klaas" who is some ugly bald white gremlin that serves "Sinterpete" who is some well-dressed, jolly black man with magical powers of giving children toys and commanding a team of flying reindeer. It doesn't work because no white person is likely going to be as hurt by that depiction, which bears no resemblance to anything steeped in truth, as is some black person likely to be hurt by Black Pete, which bears some resemblance to reality, i.e. to the time when white Europeans held black slaves.

Originally Posted by Concept

As far as I can tell (from admittedly quick google searches) even opposition to Black Pete makes no claims that white people dressing up as Black Pete are acting in a stereotypical and offensive manner when doing so, which I feel is the only place an issue could lie.

Yeah this is the part that's bothering me the most and this is exactly what I'm trying to point out.

Originally Posted by Talon

abandon the soot defense, embrace the identity of Black Pete as a black man, but make it clear to everyone that Black Pete is awesome and there's nothing hurtful about how he's depicted. Maybe establish that he has some powers that Sinterklaas lacks. Maybe establish that Pete and Klaas are best friends who have been through thick and thin together and do not have a traditional master-servant or employer-employee relationship. Stuff.

Now I feel bad. It seems we haven't explained it well enough because this is exactly what it is. Admittedly, we don't precisely know what the origins are ourselves. Granted 'the soot theory' doesn't work. That's been known for a while now and the theory's not being used that often any more. Some want to claim that the idea of painting one's face black has origins to times of slavery whereas the concept actually has older roots. (An uncertain part of history and all). Oldest ideas are that Sint represents good whereas the Zwarte Piet is supposed to represent a captured demon, so evil. So good and evil next to each other. But he's transformed from a figure representing evil to a character that's as beloved as the Sint himself. Out of the top of my head, their relationship is closer to that of Don Quichote and Sancho Panza (granted, I never read the book so I might not know what I'm talking about). Or how about this comparison; Ash and Pikachu. Strictly speaking, one is supposed to be the master of the other but they're really partners, we all perceive them that way (at least I assume so). Pikachu isn't really forced to do anything for Ash, he chooses to do so. And let's face it - everyone loves Pikachu more than Ash. The only difference, as has been pointed out, is that Sinterklaas could be seen as racially insensitive which is a pity.

Granted, other stories that I've heard is that the actual bishop on which Saint Nicholas is supposed to be based on lived in times in which having slaves was considered usual (especially if you were a bishop). But even then; the saint was actually a really good master. He immediately bought their freedom and the slaves chose to stay with him and help him. They got food, clothing, shelter and were among the few to receive presents on the day of celebration (Saint Nicholas' birthday). In exchange, they help him in delivering and giving presents to the poor orphaned children because there were so many but there was only one bishop who was (becoming) old.
Now this last story is uncertain. I've heard this version many times as well but like the rest of it - there is proof yet to be found. If it turned out the colouring of the faces was actually connected to slavery (and actual proof was found) than I wouldn't be defending this tradition as much.

[Slash]

I think that in the pursuit of trying to be too politically correct in favour of one group, they are starting to infringe on the rich history of another, which is of course horrible. Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet are merely characters of historic tradition, in the spirit of love, charity, and friendship. How can that be a bad thing?

To what Talon said about more-or-less retconning the legends, that's fairly offensive to me. The legends are part of the tradition, part of who they are. Would you tell a group of Greek Pagans "You know, I really respect your right to religious freedom and everything, but we're going to have to change the oral tradition of the Greek Gods to make them more PC. So let's cut out everything that I would deem inappropriate, like all the sorcery, rape, incest, and harsh language. If you don't, the UN will get involved."? Sure, it's not exactly the same, but you'd still be trying to change an entire culture's historical figures.

Also, what Ex said about their bond and relatiionship.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Kairne

To what Talon said about more-or-less retconning the legends, that's fairly offensive to me. The legends are part of the tradition, part of who they are. Would you tell a group of Greek Pagans "You know, I really respect your right to religious freedom and everything, but we're going to have to change the oral tradition of the Greek Gods to make them more PC. So let's cut out everything that I would deem inappropriate, like all the sorcery, rape, incest, and harsh language. If you don't, the UN will get involved."?

If it were the case that the greek gods were portrayed as being right in doing these things you're damn right I would. Cultural heritage and tradition mean basically nothing to me, and they're used to defend too many modern bigotries (being gay I'd have thought you'd appreciate that, with the damage fundamentalist Abrahamic mythology does to your rights and how people view you).

In this case it doesn't look to me like it's being used as a vehicle for modern bigotries, so what Talon said is more "clarify things" than "change things". But if it were? I'd be on the UN's side so fast, cultural heritage be damned.

[Jerichi]

There's a difference, though, between knocking down bigotry and overaggressively playing PC police.

In my opinion, the UN shouldn't be sticking their noses into these kinds of things. They have better things to debate than whether or not people should be offended over something.

[Rangeet]

What you call "whether or not people should be offended about something" plenty of people would call "systematized racism", Jeri. That is kind of the reason UN is "sticking its nose" into this.

[Jerichi]

How is it systematized? Is it denying people jobs? Is it causing people physical or emotional harm?

[Mercutio]

Well it's systemised because it's an ingrained part of the culture; in fact, it would bw better to describe it as ingrained racism because it doesn't seem to have a tangible effect on jobs or welfare.

As for harm, you can argue that simply having an icon that conceivably represents your identity and doesn't have universally positive connotations is inherently harmful. That's qhy black face is considered a disgrace in the first place even though it doesn't actually do any physical harm and isn't necessarily used to mock or degenerate. ir can definitely harm you wmotionally.

[Amras.MG]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

There's a difference, though, between knocking down bigotry and overaggressively playing PC police.

In my opinion, the UN shouldn't be sticking their noses into these kinds of things. They have better things to debate than whether or not people should be offended over something.

Completely agree with this.

Didn't realize the UN had any power in the first place.