Aussies do tend to be fairly direct when offended. The Brits reactions were great.
'Black Peter' and the danger/importance of 'Traditions'
- Thread starter Mockney
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Aussies do tend to be fairly direct when offended. The Brits reactions were great.
Actually, the tradition argument doesn't work if you have women doing it too. Pete was male, so if it's OK to change that rather fundamental aspect of the character, his skin colour could certainly change!
Santa Claus is of course St Nicholas, who was a real person and was Greek - so he wasn't black, but was not particularly fair-skinned, either. Interestingly, this was on the BBC a few days ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-30354994
He's whiter than Jesus at any rate.
They are not the only people to travel by boat from spain and invade holland
You're absolutely right about how it still doesn't explain the blackface and the curly hair and all. Another good point would be that although the Dutch have been trying to portray Pete in a more political correct way, the 'Sinterklaas songs' have some pretty strange lyrics. In the end modern day Sinterklaas still contains racist elements. However, the subtle changes that have been made over the years show there's room for debate, which I think is always a good sign.
The history of Sint & Black Pete in a nutshell: Saint Nicholas has been mentioned. He became Sinterklaas and in the 1600's or 1700's people were already celebrating Sinterklaas in Holland, with no Black Petes. The church, who were controlling the country at that time, weren't happy and tried to prohibit people gathering at night celebrating stuff. But it was good business for the merchants and the people liked it. So Sinterklaas cut all ties with religion except for the cross on his hat. Sinterklaas wasn't celebrated at the Christian christmas date. In 1850 Black Pete first appeared in childrens books, obviously a reference to the Moors and the slave culture that was going on at that time, and Pete has been very popular since then. So in the one hand it contains racist elements because of the Petess, that's not nice. But because it has no affiliation with Christmas, it was also very open for non religious Dutch people, and for muslim and jewish children.
The whole Sinterklaas tradition is mainly meant for children obviously. In that regard, primary schools have already started experimenting with coloured Petes this year, and I believe there were schools who already started with it a couple of years ago. I think at the moment it were mainly multi-ethnic schools and 'free creative type' primary schools who were eager to switch up, but because of the huge discussions I think most primary schools and also high schools will be open to change too in the coming years. It's a process and takes time, Louis van Gaal would say.
Another interesting thing is the 'Sinterklaas News' (Sinterklaasjournaal). The Dutch equivalent of the BBC shows this leading up to December 5th. A lot of people watch it, it's people dressed up as Sint & Petes play acting the adventures of their trip from Spain to Holland and stuff like that. People eagerly awaited the stance on Black Pete in this show. In the first two episodes, Pete was still black. But I believe they made an episode where some Petes at their 'training academy in Spain' were afraid of climbing through chimneys, and therefore remained white. The final episode featured a black man playing 'Sinterklaas', which was a complete novelty. So public television has taken a very neutral stand on this subject, introducing two novelties with the white Pete and the black Sint, again a good sign that discusion is open.
Also, black action groups already tried to go to court to prohibit this years annual arrival of Sinterklaas. Courts made very clear that there were no grounds to do that. However, they also made clear that the Sinterklaas celebration ,,contains racist elements that might lead to negative stereotyping of black people". They strongly adviced against political meassures, the judges felt it was a case the Dutch society has to work out itself by keeping a very open dialogue.
I think the best point you made was in your first post. People from Holland see it as a 100% national debate, and therefore aren't really interested in how it might be offensive to people all around the world. That's why it's great that it is gaining international attention. Making the discussion international will lead to more self-reflection.
Before I continue I would like to comment that although the Black Pete discussion has gotten very emotional, there's also a very light hearted side to the debate. No real hardcore violence or deaths, or massive protests and riots. I guess it was a nice switch from the other thing that dominated the Dutch news the last months, the MH17 airplane shot down killing 300 innocent people. After a tragedy like that, Black Pete is something you can really get annoyed and frustrated at, but after 15 minutes you can also shrug your shoulders and focus on matters that are perhaps more important.
The most interesting question for me is, how can people be so stubborn about something that's obviously racist? The polls really show that 85% of the Dutch people want Black Pete to stay as it is. Normally you'd say it would be more of a 50-50 or 45% vs. 48% situation, like in American politics, with the usual suspects on both sides of the discussion. It seems like such a small effort to quit the black facing. What is holding people down?
Last edited:
This has been brought up a lot, and the people in favour of Black Pete use it as a point. Because Suriname became independant in 1975. Surinamese people who wanted to keep Dutch citizenship had to move to Holland. In total, 50% of the whole Surinamese population migrated to Holland. The other 50% gained Surinamese citizenship, since it became an indepenent country.
After Suriname became independent, people living there have continued to celebrate Sinterklaas with Black Petes for the last 40 years. Same goes for the ABC-islands. So obviously the Dutch reaction was: if anyone knows whether something is offensive, it's the people living in the former colonies. And since they don't seem to have a problem with Black Pete, we don't see a problem. Although you have to add that Black Pete has also been criticised in the former colonies. And some people over there started celebrating with coloured Petes years ago. The discussion in Holland has led to replacing Black Petes with 'Sugar Fairies' in Suriname this year, but like I said for the last 40 years celebrating Black Pete was considered normal over there.
I felt it was important to point out that racism is discrimination against race, and that there is also discrimation against homosexuality and that females are still being repressed all around the world. I might be mistaken, but I feel there's a bigger taboo on discrimination against race. Laughing at a gay man with strange antics or making discriminating jokes about females is offensive, but it seems to cause less problems than insulting someone over his skin colour. I obviously think that's very strange, but then again, it might be a misinterpretation.
Anyway since this is a football forum, this is what happened when Leroy Fer posted a selfie after the last international break this year, when the Black Pete discussion was very prominent:
Translated comments: ,,Almost 5 december, then they are popping up everywhere". ,,Nine Black Petes". ,,Freed themselves from the 'chains' and then this is what you get''. Anyway, you get the idea. Investigation has started and the people who posted the comments will be proscecuted for discrimination and slaunder.
Problem with Leroy Fer is, he fecked a 13 year old girl when he was 18 and playing for Feyenoord. He's also appeared in some rap-video's and is a strong advocate of the so called 'Hip Hop-culture', just like most other boys on that picture. Now I personally love hip hop, but just like with Black Pete there's no denying that it contains a lot of discriminating elements. Against females, gay people and there's also a lot racism involved. It's a very weird and hypocritical situation, where people think it's a good idea to actively discriminate through the music they like, but are offended by racism at a festivity that's meant for little children.
So sure most people in Holland felt the comments on that selfie were disgraceful. But I don't think a lot people really felt sorry for Leroy Fer when he commented how 'sad and dissapointed' he was. Which brings us closer to the reason 85% in Holland is in favour of Black Pete: there are no good role models, and the people against Black Pete tend to give off a very bad vibe. I believe Edgar Davids has spoken out againts Pete. That's a grumpy ex-footballer who still has the stigma of beating his wife, and then he's jabbing on about 'respect', that's not helping your cause.
Same story for Patrick Kluivert, he speaks out against racism and Black Pete. But he was involved in a car crash, a man was killed and he got 'community service' because the judge ruled 'he caused death'. Ten years later he pretended to having made amments with the family of the man that was killed, but it turned out he never once spoke to them after the car crash, just sent the family a text message. Truly sad story. Same goes for the most popular female singer in Holland, who's name is Anouk. She's white and very popular and has spoken out against Black Pete. But she has 4 black kids with 3 different black men, all her marriages failed and she literally has had rants on live TV about how she only wants 12+ inch dcks and would never date a white man.
I think if you look at the 85% that wants Black Pete to remain Black Pete, at least 50% are open to change and feel it's not good that Sinterklaas has racist elements. But like with politics, if you want to make a point or win an election, you have to deliver a good campain. A lot of black people in Holland who are intelligent and highly rated aren't speaking out, because they don't want to be affiliated with the angry black men playing the victim cards, and the discriminating hip hop culture. So what I think we need in Holland is a, fogive me for saying it, "Barack Obama type" of person, who politely and intelligently points out what's wrong with Black Pete. And then slowly but steadily there will become more support for celebrating Sinterklaas without Black Petes.
And now again I have to go and I haven't got time to read through all the sh1te I spouted. But I'll be checking it out tonight or tomorrow.
Last edited:
Not any more, the Normans took them to Kilkenny when they got kicked out in the 12th century.
I find Iggy Azalea more offensive.
I don't think I need to comment on the Black Pete stuff. It's clearly wrong and should be done away with.
That Fox video though. Four adults and one comes out with the line that "Jesus was white. He was a historical figure, we know this." And none of the other three even bat an eyelid. It really must get to Americans who really think about it an realise that Jesus would have looked a lot more like Osama Bin Laden than Jim Caviezel.
That Fox video though. Four adults and one comes out with the line that "Jesus was white. He was a historical figure, we know this." And none of the other three even bat an eyelid. It really must get to Americans who really think about it an realise that Jesus would have looked a lot more like Osama Bin Laden than Jim Caviezel.
To be fair to Fox News, they know their demographic. It doesn't include anyone who really thinks about anything.
Fair point.
Well surely Santa is white because he lives in the North Pole??
Oh touche!
Bloody hell. So basically loads of celebrity miscreants speaking out about Black Pete have undermined the agenda?This has been brought up a lot, and the people in favour of Black Pete use it as a point. Because Suriname became independant in 1975. Surinamese people who wanted to keep Dutch citizenship had to move to Holland. In total, 50% of the whole Surinamese population migrated to Holland. The other 50% gained Surinamese citizenship, since it became an indepenent country.
After Suriname became independent, people living there have continued to celebrate Sinterklaas with Black Petes for the last 40 years. Same goes for the ABC-islands. So obviously the Dutch reaction was: if anyone knows whether something is offensive, it's the people living in the former colonies. And since they don't seem to have a problem with Black Pete, we don't see a problem. Although you have to add that Black Pete has also been criticised in the former colonies. And some people over there started celebrating with coloured Petes years ago. The discussion in Holland has led to replacing Black Petes with 'Sugar Fairies' in Suriname this year, but like I said for the last 40 years celebrating Black Pete was considered normal over there.
I felt it was important to point out that racism is discrimination against race, and that there is also discrimation against homosexuality and that females are still being repressed all around the world. I might be mistaken, but I feel there's a bigger taboo on discrimination against race. Laughing at a gay man with strange antics or making discriminating jokes about females is offensive, but it seems to cause less problems than insulting someone over his skin colour. I obviously think that's very strange, but then again, it might be a misinterpretation.
Anyway since this is a football forum, this is what happened when Leroy Fer posted a selfie after the last international break this year, when the Black Pete discussion was very prominent:
Translated comments: ,,Almost 5 december, then they are popping up everywhere". ,,Nine Black Petes". ,,Freed themselves from the 'chains' and then this is what you get''. Anyway, you get the idea. Investigation has started and the people who posted the comments will be proscecuted for discrimination and slaunder.
Problem with Leroy Fer is, he fecked a 13 year old girl when he was 18 and playing for Feyenoord. He's also appeared in some rap-video's and is a strong advocate of the so called 'Hip Hop-culture', just like most other boys on that picture. Now I personally love hip hop, but just like with Black Pete there's no denying that it contains a lot of discriminating elements. Against females, gay people and there's also a lot racism involved. It's a very weird and hypocritical situation, where people think it's a good idea to actively discriminate through the music they like, but are offended by racism at a festivity that's meant for little children.
So sure most people in Holland felt the comments on that selfie were disgraceful. But I don't think a lot people really felt sorry for Leroy Fer when he commented how 'sad and dissapointed' he was. Which brings us closer to the reason 85% in Holland is in favour of Black Pete: there are no good role models, and the people against Black Pete tend to give off a very bad vibe. I believe Edgar Davids has spoken out againts Pete. That's a grumpy ex-footballer who still has the stigma of beating his wife, and then he's jabbing on about 'respect', that's not helping your cause.
Same story for Patrick Kluivert, he speaks out against racism and Black Pete. But he was involved in a car crash, a man was killed and he got 'community service' because the judge ruled 'he caused death'. Ten years later he pretended to having made amments with the family of the man that was killed, but it turned out he never once spoke to them after the car crash, just sent the family a text message. Truly sad story. Same goes for the most popular female singer in Holland, who's name is Anouk. She's white and very popular and has spoken out against Black Pete. But she has 4 black kids with 3 different black men, all her marriages failed and she literally has had rants on live TV about how she only wants 12+ inch dcks and would never date a white man.
I think if you look at the 85% that wants Black Pete to remain Black Pete, at least 50% are open to change and feel it's not good that Sinterklaas has racist elements. But like with politics, if you want to make a point or win an election, you have to deliver a good campain. A lot of black people in Holland who are intelligent and highly rated aren't speaking out, because they don't want to be affiliated with the angry black men playing the victim cards, and the discriminating hip hop culture. So what I think we need in Holland is a, fogive me for saying it, "Barack Obama type" of person, who politely and intelligently points out what's wrong with Black Pete. And then slowly but steadily there will become more support for celebrating Sinterklaas without Black Petes.
And now again I have to go and I haven't got time to read through all the sh1te I spouted. But I'll be checking it out tonight or tomorrow.
Surprised no-one has commented on the Ruud pic. Wtf?
Tradition - the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation.
Are traditions ever good? Ofcourse, otherwise they wouldnt exist. Are there bad traditions? Ofcourse, as a generation you can put a stop to it.
A world without tradition would be a shitty place to be.
Are traditions ever good? Ofcourse, otherwise they wouldnt exist. Are there bad traditions? Ofcourse, as a generation you can put a stop to it.
A world without tradition would be a shitty place to be.
I don't think anyone has said that certain traditions aren't good or valuable though. But when you're trying to ethically, legally or socially defend something, the mere fact that it's a tradition or has been done for many years is not a strong argument in itself.
Well if Santa Claus tradition came from Germany, England and the Dutch then obvious they made him white.
It's comforting to know that the internet can get together and decide what the Dutch people should and should not be doing.
Some people scour the internet and tv looking for things to get offended at.
Pictures of black piet have been posted on the caf in years gone by but only seems to be offensive and a current even this year.
It has? Blackface embarrassed me back in the 70's growing up in a Daily Mail stronghold so how anyone can possibly think it is acceptable nearly 40 years later?
That's not really my point
have you been more offended by it this uear than any other?
have you been more offended by it this uear than any other?
Not offended... Just seems like a stupid thing to get defensive over. And cowardly to be honest... You don't see cultural events mocking Jewish stereotypes or otherwise displaying them somewhere in Western Europe, despite a long and proud history of Jewish... attributes
Who's defending it
Never heard of it before. Or I have and forgot.
You.
Either it's offensive or it isn't. If you've got a problem with people finding it offensive (and you obviously do) then you're defending it.
Yeaaaah ok
"Tradition" is the sole argument presented by those who want bullfights to remain legal in Portugal. More specifically (and stupidly), it's even backed by the law, which allows a handful of cities to actually kill the bulls in the arena in traditional fashion during the spectacle, even though that specific part of it is illegal everywhere else.
In reality, it's not so much about tradition as it is lack of willingness to impose authority in these villages in what most politicians will see as an issue not worth getting dragged into. Those people (mostly old-fashioned conservatives) will riot and disobey the law to satisfy their blood-thirst. It has happened before, and hence the exception in the law for places where killing the bull in the arena is an important "tradition".
Personally, unless it's about some kind of local foodstuff prepared in traditional fashion, I abhor the word "tradition". Which is strange, as "traditional" shouldn't have a moral value attached to it, it just means something which has been passed upon from previous generations in a given setting. I guess it's a reflection of how much the word is abused by people wanting to defend indefensible stuff.
In reality, it's not so much about tradition as it is lack of willingness to impose authority in these villages in what most politicians will see as an issue not worth getting dragged into. Those people (mostly old-fashioned conservatives) will riot and disobey the law to satisfy their blood-thirst. It has happened before, and hence the exception in the law for places where killing the bull in the arena is an important "tradition".
Personally, unless it's about some kind of local foodstuff prepared in traditional fashion, I abhor the word "tradition". Which is strange, as "traditional" shouldn't have a moral value attached to it, it just means something which has been passed upon from previous generations in a given setting. I guess it's a reflection of how much the word is abused by people wanting to defend indefensible stuff.
This thread is the first time I've heard about the character, so I don't really know enough to comment on the specific details of the tradition. But I do have a question about blackface in general as I come from a country that never had the whole slavery/black issues in history.
I can fully understand how painting your face black and pretending to be that sort of character is frowned upon, or even doing it and playing up to black stereotypes. But how is it viewed when you are dressing up as a certain individual who is black. Clearly painting your face black to finish off your Tiger Woods or some other famous black person isn't racist. For me there really should be nothing wrong with that, but from what I can understand doing so would still be insulting to some people?
I can fully understand how painting your face black and pretending to be that sort of character is frowned upon, or even doing it and playing up to black stereotypes. But how is it viewed when you are dressing up as a certain individual who is black. Clearly painting your face black to finish off your Tiger Woods or some other famous black person isn't racist. For me there really should be nothing wrong with that, but from what I can understand doing so would still be insulting to some people?
Bolded isn't entirely true
.As for your second point, you should always err on the side of caution and just not black up at all, no matter your intention.
I know we have the aboriginal issues, but hardly on the scale or length of time that places like the US have.Bolded isn't entirely true
As for your second point, you should always err on the side of caution and just not black up at all, no matter your intention.
I can understand caution, but find it a bit daft that people would still get offended by doing it in that situation.
Erm? No black/slavery issues in Australia?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...-legalised-slavery-exist-in-australia/5580456
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...-legalised-slavery-exist-in-australia/5580456
Our issues with Indigenous people date back to about 1778.
Ok, so no issues was probably the wrong thing to say. Probably less volatile and vocal, compared to the focus it receives in the US was more in line with what I was actually thinking at the time.
That would be because indigenous Australians have less of a voice than African-Americans. Not because they have less issues to complain about.
That's OK then.To answer the question, there is a huge difference between what Al Jolson did (a singer who dressed in blackface, but a notable white supporter of civil rights) and what Robert Downey jr did in tropic thunder, to the racist depictions in minstrels and other things like that.