'Black Peter' and the danger/importance of 'Traditions'

Mockney

Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
41,016
Location
Editing my own posts.
I'm sure many of us are aware of Black Pete, or Zwarte Piet, the bizarre Moorish elf-like figure in the Dutch's crazy Spanish Christmas folklore, who's managed to legitimise blacking up in the name of tradition decades beyond it's tenuous appropriateness elapsed.

black-pete-dutch.jpg


There's recently been an increase in local (Dutch) opposition to it, with an activist allegedly beaten up for wearing a "Pete is Racist" T-Shirt, and the release last week of a documentary called "Our Colonial Hangover" by Sunny Bergman, which has attempted to bring the National debate back, whilst alerting her compatriats to just how badly the character is seen abroad. This includes a trip to London in full "Pete" dress to test English reactions, which obligatorily features Russell Brand for some reason, as everything these days seems to..



Like Brand, I'm a bit confused why a modernised country we now associate with post-Colonial liberalism is so blind, or just blase about such an obviously offensive and anachronistic character. Does the acceptance of Pete give people like our own Ruud Van Nistelrooy carte blanche to do bonkers shit like this, for example?

Ruud-Van-Nistelrooy-Blacked-Up-2.jpg


And while posting that photo again is more than enough reason alone for starting a thread, I'm also interested in a more general sense by how Pete embodies why the ever-present Conservative argument of "tradition" is such an irrelevant and blind sighting thing.

So as well as seeing if any Dutch posters have an argument for (or against) this crazy thing, it could also be a good jumping off point for a wider discussion on tradition. How much respect should we give the Dutch tradition of barmy racist stereotyping for example? Is the obvious racial insensitivty it promotes enough to override any fears of being culturally insesitive to the Dutch? (Yes, obviously, but we can still debate it!) How 'traditional' does something need to be in order to attain such a respect, or even a leg to stand on in such debates? Is tradition ever a good reason for anything? It's pretty much the only reason Morris dancing still exists, but are there any positives?

And, you know, anything you can think of that wastes a bit of time.
 
Last edited:
I went to a wedding in Germany about 10 years ago, where the (pre) post-nuptials included guests blacking up and performing the Banana Boat Song. There have been long-standing traditions like throwing your shit out the window into the street. We don't do that anymore.
 
Did these "guests" include you? When in Rome and all that pete..

Human sacrifice was once a tradition. It's a terrible argument for anything in my view.
 
Everything bad ever was once a tradition to someone, somewhere. Slaves, womens rights, scousers, marital rape, murder etc.

It's a ridiculous argument and I have no idea why it manages to hold up.
 
Tradition only stands in the way of progress. Like people saying United can't use the diamond because we're all about pace and wide play. Just an excuse for a nostalgic disregard of moving on.

Can be manipulated too. Hate how politicians appeal to people's sense of tradition to gain votes.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Tradition only stands in the way of progress. Like people saying United can't use the diamond because we're all about pace and wide play. Just an excuse for a nostalgic disregard of moving on.

Can be manipulated too. Hate how politicians appeal to people's sense of tradition to gain votes.
Click to expand...

Well, it's tradition..
 
Yeah, I was afraid of bumping into this. They also have 'Zwarte Piet' in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Discussion has been going on for months now in Holland. At first it was funny and fascinating, but after a week or so it became annoying. Now I almost forgot about it, although it's still being discussed on a daily basis. Foreign media are picking up, so we might never get over it.

What does make me curious, have there been large national debates and discussions in the USA or UK about Santa? About how it is racist that Coca Cola always uses a white man as Santa? Or Hispanics who demand a quotum of Latino Santa Clauses? Or feminists/females feeling discriminated against because Santa is generally portrayed as a man?

And how did those discussions end?
 
A lot of African Americans have a problem with blackface, and rightly so. It was a mainstay of slapstick comedy back in the heydey of Jim Crow that reinforced racial stereotypes, giving the dominant white population an excuse to perpetuate segregation and racial discrimination. I'm not familiar with the origins of blackface across the pond though... is this something that is a tradition, and are it's origins steeped in something else than racism and prejudice?

I find those specific images in the OP unfunny and mildly disturbing. If there isn't enough social capital in those countries to discontinue the practice I guess it will go on. Oh well, it's a check in the box against me finding any reason to associate with someone.
 
If you can't see why blackface is inappropriate you probably shouldn't be allowed to use sharp knives. Or drive. Or breed.

etc
 
adexkola said:
A lot of African Americans have a problem with blackface, and rightly so. It was a mainstay of slapstick comedy back in the heydey of Jim Crow that reinforced racial stereotypes, giving the dominant white population an excuse to perpetuate segregation and racial discrimination. I'm not familiar with the origins of blackface across the pond though... is this something that is a tradition, and are it's origins steeped in something else than racism and prejudice?

I find those specific images in the OP unfunny and mildly disturbing. If there isn't enough social capital in those countries to discontinue the practice I guess it will go on. Oh well, it's a check in the box against me finding any reason to associate with someone.
Click to expand...

Origins in the UK were from the US minstral type shows mainly but it was very popular and lasted longer here - I am 50 and I remember the Black and White Minstral show being on the telly until the late 70's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show and I'm sure it is just as offensive.
 
Henrik Larsson said:
Yeah, I was afraid of bumping into this. They also have 'Zwarte Piet' in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Discussion has been going on for months now in Holland. At first it was funny and fascinating, but after a week or so it became annoying. Now I almost forgot about it, although it's still being discussed on a daily basis. Foreign media are picking up, so we might never get over it.

What does make me curious, have there been large national debates and discussions in the USA or UK about Santa? About how it is racist that Coca Cola always uses a white man as Santa? Or Hispanics who demand a quotum of Latino Santa Clauses? Or feminists/females feeling discriminated against because Santa is generally portrayed as a man?

And how did those discussions end?
Click to expand...

Last year people on Fox (who else) insisted that obviously Santa Claus was white, just as Jesus is.
 
Wonder Pigeon said:
Last year people on Fox (who else) insisted that obviously Santa Claus was white, just as Jesus is.
Click to expand...
Insane is about the best word to describe this.


Also it's pretty clear a lot of people think Jesus was a White American from the South.
 
They all look so happy. Even Ruud is sporting a massive grin.
 
I've seen it here before where a black guy 'whites up' and is sinterklass

I find having to pay 42% tax far more disturbing than some characters in a book from 1850
 
Yer wan at the front looks a bit of alright, love the ice blue eyes, and into dress up.. yes please!
 
Sweet Square said:
While I agree with everyone in that video(The book with the boat in it is shocking)I did think the Australian lady at the end was a right arsehole
Click to expand...

Think she was English, not Aussie. That confrontation happened at a kids playground (one I used to go to a lot) so you can see why emotions were running high. Of course, for the same reason, threatening to hit someone and holding a rock in her hand was a dickish thing to do.
 
She definitely sounds Aussie to me. But yeah, holding two rocks and walking menacingly towards someone is never a great argument tactic.

Henrik Larsson said:
What does make me curious, have there been large national debates and discussions in the USA or UK about Santa? About how it is racist that Coca Cola always uses a white man as Santa? Or Hispanics who demand a quotum of Latino Santa Clauses? Or feminists/females feeling discriminated against because Santa is generally portrayed as a man?

And how did those discussions end?
Click to expand...

Santa isn't a negatively portrayed character or a racial stereotype. He isn't a fictional cartoon of a minority as an enslaved devil, neither is he depicted as a comic fool. His whiteness also isn't portrayed overwhelmingly by non-white people "whiting up" and even if it was, it wouldn't carry anywhere near the historical connotations of dehumanisation that blackface does. It's a completely different argument tbf.
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
How 'traditional' does something need to be in order to attain such a respect, or even a leg to stand on in such debates?
Click to expand...

A quick look at the Wikipedia page you've linked to shows that this 'timeless tradition' dates back all the way to...the 19th century. Somehow the Dutch got by without it up until that point. They can easily let go and move on.

This is typical of many supposedly sacred traditions, e.g. the Scottish kilt and associated clan colors go back no further than the late 18th century. Similarly the Turkish Fez was also a product of modernity, going back to the 19th century.

A pioneering work on the historical ambiguity of much of what we call 'tradition' for anyone interested:

Hobsbawm & Ranger, The Invention of Tradition - http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/505.The_Invention_of_Tradition
 
RedMist99 said:
In Padstow they have a day called 'Darkie Day'

http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/events/darkie_day.htm
Click to expand...

..which usually involved the performance of a traditional play whilst wearing a disguise, traditionally a blackened face, which allowed the players to lose their inhibitions and perform outlandishly in return for food or money.

The spectacle of an entire town taking to the streets with blackened faces and singing about 'niggers' was understandably deemed by some to be inappropriate.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Santa's weirdly black looking helpers travel by boat from Spain to bring presents. Riiight. Makes our Christmas tradition sound believable and not weird at all.
 
2cents said:
A quick look at the Wikipedia page you've linked to shows that this 'timeless tradition' dates back all the way to...the 19th century. Somehow the Dutch got by without it up until that point. They can easily let go and move on.

This is typical of many supposedly sacred traditions, e.g. the Scottish kilt and associated clan colors go back no further than the late 18th century. Similarly the Turkish Fez was also a product of modernity, going back to the 19th century.

A pioneering work on the historical ambiguity of much of what we call 'tradition' for anyone interested:

Hobsbawm & Ranger, The Invention of Tradition - http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/505.The_Invention_of_Tradition
Click to expand...


Thing about "traditions" is that they can still change, they don't have to be 1000 years old. Not defending traditions, just saying that new "traditions" can spring up at anytime, though it takes a few years for them to become "traditions." Obviously all traditions have to be invented by someone they don't just spring magically to life.
 
Wonder Pigeon said:
Last year people on Fox (who else) insisted that obviously Santa Claus was white, just as Jesus is.
Click to expand...

Yeah I read about that, but I don't know if the discussion is still going on. And looking at that Fox video, there might not have been much to discuss. In Holland the discussion hasn't stopped since it started 4 or 5 months, maybe it's already going on for 8 months thinking about it. So that's why I was curious if it has ended in the USA, or for instance if there are more black Santa's this year as a counter-reaction to the people who feel he should be white.

Mockney said:
She definitely sounds Aussie to me. But yeah, holding two rocks and walking menacingly towards someone is never a great argument tactic.

Santa isn't a negatively portrayed character or a racial stereotype. He isn't a fictional cartoon of a minority as an enslaved devil, neither is he depicted as a comic fool. His whiteness also isn't portrayed overwhelmingly by non-white people "whiting up" and even if it was, it wouldn't carry anywhere near the historical connotations of dehumanisation that blackface does. It's a completely different argument tbf.
Click to expand...

Well sure, it's not 100% comparable. But it's gotten into a very emotional discussion, not really one about facts. So that's why I thought brining up Santa would give you a feel for how it's going in Holland. If you just want to make a factual discussion out of it, then it's pretty simple: Black Pete has racist 'origins'. But in terms of law there's not much that can be done about it, so celebrating or not celebrating with Black Pete's becomes a 'moral question'. I'll explain this later.

First to give you insight at how the discussion is going: a 'person in favour of Black-Pete' would say that for the last 50 years Black Pete isn't portrayed negatively. They say he's portrayed as a hard working man who brings candy, presents and joy to little children. He is black because he goes through the chimneys every night (leading up to December 5th, kids place their shoes infront of a chimney or stove at night, parents put in a present and the next morning kids think it was Black Pete & Sint so they have to sing a song for them). Kids usually adore Black Pete and are more 'afraid' of Sinterklaas. Pete has been adressed differently too for the last 50 years, words used in stories and songs switched from 'servant' or 'slave' to 'helper'.

Again, this was just an example. Note: my estimation would be that 85% of the Dutch people feel there's nothing wrong with celebrating 'Sinterklaas & Black Pete' morally. Popular quote by a historian that people feel is a good metaphor: ,,Celebrating Sint & Black Pete makes you a racist, in the same way driving a Volkswagen makes you a Nazi". (check out history of VW Beetle if you dont get it.)

So like I already said, in terms of law there's not much that can be done. You have to understand that racism is discrimation against race. There's also discrimnation against gender, or against homosexuals. These acts are punishable by law in most developped societies. Painting your face black is not against the law. It's interesting that Russel Brand said something about 'tolerance', because in most Western societies there's a freedom of speech. And a certain amount of tolerance is exactly why you can't make a law against Black Pete. For instance, there is freedom of religion in most constitutions, including the Dutch. So you legally have the freedom to believe in an imaginairy creator of the universe and institutions like churches or mosks even get money from the government. Religion has very discriminating elements, against females and homosexuals for instance.
Then there's writers or stand-up comedians who make certain comments, normally that would be racist but for the law it falls under 'satire'. Or perhaps Pulp Fiction, written and directed by white male Quentin Tarentino, contains a lot racist elements. But it's not illegal to make a movie like that as a white man, because there is a certain creative freedom and stuff like that. That freedom in law makes that there can't be done much about Black Pete.

So thats that, now to get to the core:

The core of the discussion in Holland is that even though Black Pete has been portrayed in a politically correct way for the last 50 years, a small group of people (15% would be my guess) feels it's still offensive and they want to replace 'black' by 'rainbow colours'. However, that's not the biggest problem. Reason the debate is still going on, is because this discussion has also become a metaphor for black people who feel repressed by 'the system' and in politics you can see a pattern of people deemed 'left wing elitist' who support this claim.

And this is where it's gets interesting, because you have to realize: every country has a different situation regarding 'slavery' and dealing with ethnic groups. Apartheid in South-Africa or racial segregation in the USA is very different from the Dutch situation. In Holland we didn't really have that issue, which changes the sensitivity of the subject. Not that Holland is better because there wasn't much racial segregation, we had colonies (traded New York for Suriname) and traded slaves. In 1975 Suriname and the ABC-Islands became independent and people living could choose wether to say or move to Holland. A lot chose to move to Holland, so before 1975 there weren't many black people living in Holland.

Unfortunately I have to go now, haven't quite finished my story. But I hope that I've already given some insight in this discussion, I was typing quickly and don't have time to read it all back, but if there are questions you could ask them and I'll check it out tonight.
 
Sweet Square said:
Insane is about the best word to describe this.


Also it's pretty clear a lot of people think Jesus was a White American from the South.
Click to expand...


Poppa feckin' Christmas.

Gives you presents if you are good, pops a cap in yo worthless ass if he finds out you been disrespectin yo!


Is that right?
 
Henrik Larsson said:
Well sure, it's not 100% comparable. But it's gotten into a very emotional discussion, not really one about facts. So that's why I thought brining up Santa would give you a feel for how it's going in Holland. If you just want to make a factual discussion out of it, then it's pretty simple: Black Pete has racist 'origins'.
Click to expand...

Of course. Look at the thing!

First to give you insight at how the discussion is going: a 'person in favour of Black-Pete' would say that for the last 50 years Black Pete isn't portrayed negatively.
Click to expand...

Apart from the blackface? And the big red lips?

They say he's portrayed as a hard working man who brings candy, presents and joy to little children. He is black because he goes through the chimneys every night (leading up to December 5th, kids place their shoes infront of a chimney or stove at night, parents put in a present and the next morning kids think it was Black Pete & Sint so they have to sing a song for them). Kids usually adore Black Pete and are more 'afraid' of Sinterklaas. Pete has been adressed differently too for the last 50 years, words used in stories and songs switched from 'servant' or 'slave' to 'helper'.
Click to expand...

So the argument is, who cares if it's racist as long as people like it?

The "chimney" thing isn't really true, is it? He's a moor from Spain is he not? That's a bit of a modern ad on to try claw back some cred. It still doesn't explain the big red lips and curly hair. Much like changing the word "slave" it's a cosmetic attempt to clean up a very problematic thing. And if you're happy enough to clean up these things, then what's wrong with cleaning up the blackface too?

Again, this was just an example. Note: my estimation would be that 85% of the Dutch people feel there's nothing wrong with celebrating 'Sinterklaas & Black Pete' morally. Popular quote by a historian that people feel is a good metaphor: ,,Celebrating Sint & Black Pete makes you a racist, in the same way driving a Volkswagen makes you a Nazi". (check out history of VW Beetle if you dont get it.)
Click to expand...

How many of these people are black? White dutch people don't get to decide how acceptable a black dutch stereotype is.

You have to understand that racism is discrimation against race.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up.

Painting your face black is not against the law.
Click to expand...

I haven't suggested it should be. But people doing it should be aware of the offence it will cause, especially if they're telling the people it clearly offends that they shouldn't be offended by it.

It's interesting that Russel Brand said something about 'tolerance', because in most Western societies there's a freedom of speech. And a certain amount of tolerance is exactly why you can't make a law against Black Pete. For instance, there is freedom of religion in most constitutions, including the Dutch. So you legally have the freedom to believe in an imaginairy creator of the universe and institutions like churches or mosks even get money from the government. Religion has very discriminating elements, against females and homosexuals for instance.
Then there's writers or stand-up comedians who make certain comments, normally that would be racist but for the law it falls under 'satire'. Or perhaps Pulp Fiction, written and directed by white male Quentin Tarentino, contains a lot racist elements. But it's not illegal to make a movie like that as a white man, because there is a certain creative freedom and stuff like that. That freedom in law makes that there can't be done much about Black Pete.
Click to expand...

See, you're losing me here. This seems a bit like an attempt to play the victim card, and that's quite a hard card to play for blackface, in a country that's massively white, where you've claimed 85% feel there's not much wrong, and have already admited has racist origins. If you want to hold Black Pete up as a standard bearer for tolence and understanding, it's a tough sell.

Sorry if I've misinterpreted.

The core of the discussion in Holland is that even though Black Pete has been portrayed in a politically correct way for the last 50 years
Click to expand...

Again, apart from the blacking up and all that jazz. His more malicious racist elements have been sanitized is all. I would still call it far from politically correct.

a small group of people (15% would be my guess) feels it's still offensive and they want to replace 'black' by 'rainbow colours'. However, that's not the biggest problem. Reason the debate is still going on, is because this discussion has also become a metaphor for black people who feel repressed by 'the system' and in politics you can see a pattern of people deemed 'left wing elitist' who support this claim.
Click to expand...

As they should do. What's wrong with black people pushing back against their repression, or indeed "left wing elites"?

The depiction of him as a captrued foolish slave (and originally a tamed devil) has already been altered, because presumably people acknowledged the offence. What's the harm in continuing this into the actual blackface bit?

I would be worried that it seems like lots of white people doing a very insulting thing, and then telling the very people they're insulting they're being intolerant by criticising it.

And this is where it's gets interesting, because you have to realize: every country has a different situation regarding 'slavery' and dealing with ethnic groups. Apartheid in South-Africa or racial segregation in the USA is very different from the Dutch situation. In Holland we didn't really have that issue, which changes the sensitivity of the subject. Not that Holland is better because there wasn't much racial segregation, we had colonies (traded New York for Suriname) and traded slaves. In 1975 Suriname and the ABC-Islands became independent and people living could choose wether to say or move to Holland. A lot chose to move to Holland, so before 1975 there weren't many black people living in Holland.
Click to expand...

But this becomes irrelevant in the modern day. There ARE black people living in Holland now, and however culpable they may or may not have been on the scale of racial injustice (and some would say they indirectly had a hand in the South-African situation) the fact there's a traditional character depicted as a blacked up slave who came over on a boat just isn't acceptable now. It most definitely wouldn't be if introduced now, so why should it be because it was introduced years ago?

This is what I'm getting at you see. What's the difference? Why is tradition, as a thing, so important that it makes people accept, or even fight for things they know are mad?

Unfortunately I have to go now, haven't quite finished my story. But I hope that I've already given some insight in this discussion, I was typing quickly and don't have time to read it all back, but if there are questions you could ask them and I'll check it out tonight.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for doing so. From my POV it seems like a perfect example of the tradition blindness I was trying to get at in the OP. You've mentioned no reason why Black Pete should be acceptable. Nothing you've said gives me any reassurance that the character isn't racist, isn't hugely offensive, and isn't regressive. The only argument I can see is the very fact it's a traditional. And tradition is somehow bulletproof.

Personally I disagree with this. Traditions are just things some people have done for a while, they should be constantly re-evaluated on their merits. This seems to have very few.

That said, not being Dutch, I'm obviously viewing it from an entirely objective place. I'd argue this is a good thing, but perhaps not?

Thanks again anyway..
 
Last edited:
I was in Amsterdam last week. I thought Zwarte Piet was a really niche thing, a cultural throwback like Punch and Judy or Bruce Forsyth, but it's not... It's really mainstream and is EVERYWHERE.

A doll of black pete is in most shop windows and their main department store (De Bijenkorf) has huge animatronic models of pete climbing up the middle of the store. I went to this shop while pete was arriving on his white horse to hand out presents, it was completely mental (as the Dutch generally are) but there was little commotion other than about 5 students stood outside with a couple of signs.

What was especially weird was that many of the employees working in the shop were black. I can't imagine they were comfortable with the spectacle. I wasnt.
 
Mockney said:
Did these "guests" include you? When in Rome and all that pete..

Human sacrifice was once a tradition. It's a terrible argument for anything in my view.
Click to expand...

Technically no historical or archaeological evidence for human sacrfice in Europe, but...I get ya.
 
I don't see what's so bad about this. It's just people having some fun dressing up. We don't have this Black Pete tradition where I live, but some people "black up" for carnival and I've never met anyone who thought it was racist.
 
ctp said:
I don't see what's so bad about this. It's just people having some fun dressing up. We don't have this Black Pete tradition where I live, but some people "black up" for carnival and I've never met anyone who thought it was racist.
Click to expand...
It's considered racist in the UK and no-one does it nowadays.

I don't see why Black Pete can't just be Pete, and everyone can still put on the costume and be whatever skin colour nature gave them.
 
There's definitely a discussion to be had about the appropriateness of blackface in countries where it doesn't have a stigma, which I think is what @Henrik Larsson is trying to get at. I even ask it in the OP, and I imagine there's an argument that those of us who are appalled are projecting our cultural norms onto theirs, which they see as arrogant.

The counter would be that 'stigma' is unimportant when something is so obviously based in racism. The stigma could not be there simply because it's never been properly challenged by a suitably empowered (or numerous) black populace. The fact Holland hasn't had the same racial tensions as the US or even UK doesn't automatically mean their non-white population are better catered for. Blackface, afterall, was widely accepted in the same way here, and it was only these "tensions" that helped empower the disenfranchised to speak up about such things.

If you look at the countries who still think it's acceptable, they tend to be very white ones, culturally. Australia, Canada, Lowland Europe. It doesn't help the impression that it's a bunch of white people going "So what?"

However I admit this is an assumption, and not based on much more than my general shock at how obviously offensive this seems to me. If there's a sizeable black Dutch or black German population who're perfectly happy with the white majority in their country blacking up in this manner, then I'll admit it sets my argument back a bit.

Still, I think the modern world is far more inter-connected and inter-reliant these days, and there's an argument that any custom based in racism has no place in it, but I'm interested in other opinions.

Penna said:
I don't see why Black Pete can't just be Pete, and everyone can still put on the costume and be whatever skin colour nature gave them.
Click to expand...

Neither can I. They've already changed some of the more insidious parts of the legend, and I struggle to think what would be "lost" by getting rid of the blackface too. It would be perfectly accepted after a few generations anyway, with the change looked back on as perfectly understandable.
 
Last edited:
It heartens me that so many in this thread think it unacceptable. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean its right.

In the UK the "golliwog" character is still seen as harmless by some, but it is clearly not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.