Zwarte Piet (Black Peter)

[vison]

The Dutch-Canadian community in New Westminster won't have a Zwarte Piet this year.

The Wikipedia article is not that satisfactory, but it gives the general idea.

So, here's the thing: is Black Peter racist and demeaning? A woman in New Westminster complained that it was - because the character is usually portrayed by a white person in black paint.

For me, I don't think it is "racist and demeaning". Black Peter is a heroic figure, not a villain or a fool. But I am quite willing to let black people decide, and since it's not my "culture", it doesn't hurt me either way.

Still, do all black people speak as one on this topic? Would, say, President Obama and Oprah Winfrey say it's racist and demeaning? Would the black teacher at the local bible college think so?

I do understand that this is a terribly loaded topic. But I also understand that Black Peter is a beloved character to the Dutch and that they have never meant for him to be anything but a hero.

[Lalaith]

I tend to agree with you, though I can't help but thinking that perhaps they could find a real black person to portray Black Peter. Maybe that would eliminate the distaste of the blackface.

??

I don't really know enough about it to say with any certainty whether or not it's racist. It doesn't appear to be, but I'm not black. So there you go.

[Primula Baggins]

And there's the fact that intent doesn't excuse effect in cases like this. But I don't know what the effects are.

[yovargas]

I didn't read the full wiki - does it say why they get a white guy to play a black character?

[Lalaith]

They didn't. I was assuming it was because, at least traditionally, they probably didn't have many black guys in the area (the Netherlands). So I was just sort of guessing that it was out of necessity. Necessity probably became tradition, and that may be causing the issue now.

The article did intimate that the origins could be a little less benevolent than at first appears. His character may have originated from a demon or the devil. It looks like the origins are pretty murky, though. I think it would be hard to figure it out clearly.

At least for me, in cases like that, I look at what it means today. (A good example would be Christians saying, "We can't have a Christmas tree! It has its origins in paganism." Well, probably, yes, but perhaps not entirely. So, dubious origin aside, what does it mean now? Does it still symbolize paganism to most Christians? Does it make me want to go worship the tree spirits? No, so I have no problem with Christmas trees.)

[Dave_LF]

On the other hand, lots of benign, traditional uses of the swastika had to be curtailed thanks to what the Nazis did with it. The jerks are always ruining things for everyone.

[Alatar]

And there's the fact that intent doesn't excuse effect in cases like this.

I absolutely fundamentally disagree with that position and argument whenever its made. People can choose to be offended by practically anything. That doesn't mean we should humour them.

[Primula Baggins]

And people (not you, I know) can and do use that excuse to say practically anything. "It was just a joke. Doesn't she have any sense of humor?"

[Teremia]

But a "joke," Prim, still contains an acknowledgment of the offending meaning, just with a humorous frame. That's different from, say, using a perfectly fine term with no intent to harm (like the "niggardly" blow up of a while ago) and having other people find it offensive because they apply a folk etymology to it (an example supporting Alatar's point).

In the Sinterklaas case, it would be interesting to know more about the origins of Zwarte Piet ((googlepause here)) -- okay, looks like [obviously everything here is the result of very shallow research!] the character started as Sinterklaas's black servant, a Moor, originally from Africa, since for some reason the Dutch decided Sinterklaas was coming to them from Spain....

I sense some difficulties!

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, those are different cases, Teremia. I'm not arguing that everyone offended by something is justified in being so. But it was also true for many years and is still true in some circles that "humor" is used as a cover and justification for some truly demeaning, dehumanizing, even disgusting speech. (I'm not talking about Zwarte Piet. But we've all witnessed this kind of thing.)

In some cases there is no actual offense; in some cases there's plenty. So some jokes and cultural traditions probably call for, well, heightened scrutiny.

[Alatar]

Seems like a good place to mention this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw

(I'm on a Tim Minchin kick right now...)

[Lalaith]

(And now return to your serious discussion...)

[vison]

It will be a long time, probably never, before I get over the insanity over the word "niggardly".

When the God of Brains was handing out common sense he was pretty niggardly in certain cases.

[Frelga]

The answer to the question "Is someone going to get offended?" is inevitably yes. In regards to anything.

That doesn't mean that the question "Is this offensive?" should not be asked. It's a different question altogether.

[vison]

The answer to the question "Is someone going to get offended?" is inevitably yes. In regards to anything.

That doesn't mean that the question "Is this offensive?" should not be asked. It's a different question altogether.

Well said.

[Holbytla]

Yeah people can choose to be offended by pretty much anything if they want, and people can and do choose to be ignorant of their offenses.

I have yet to hear a remotely sufficient reason for anyone ever to be offended by the word niggardly. The fact that some people were offended shows me how deeply rooted and hurtful racism is and was, and the level of ignorance that pervades our society. Not to mention the people with chips on their shoulders.