Zwarte Piet racist?

[DrZoidberg]

So there's a debate now in Holland if Black Pete is racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet

I personally think.. maybe... It's a long history to this. The father Christmas figure in Germanic traditions wasn't always a jolly guy. Originally he mostly focused on punishing children. Over time Black Pete was introduced. Originally as a devil character. Devils are often portrayed as red or black. That's black black. Not from-Africa-black. This is to emphasize their inhumanity. The variants of the blackness has been experimented widely in Holland over the ages.

After the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands Black Pete started wearing a Spanish uniform from that time. The Spanish army had Moorish soldiers (who were black as in from-Africa-black). After that over time Black Pete became a black face. This is how symbols work. It's not saying that all black people are bad. Just the black people who occupied them.

Every country usually celebrates their casting off from foreign occupation way out of proportion. The Dutch are no different.

Sure, I have no problem how somebody can read in racism in this, or even do it with racist motivations. But I also have no problems seeing how somebody can do this with zero racist motivations.

What do you think, unquestionably racist, or only racist sometimes depending on perspective? Does it matter? Does that fact that it's a black-face mean that it's beyond quibbling about, and we should just lose it for the modern colonial implications? After all, history is stuff that actually happened. We have to accept that, regardless of the Moorish occupation connection.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Whether it's racist in intent or not (and with most people I know, it's not), the Zwarte Piet thing is a relic of the past and needs to be dispensed with, IMO. As the knecht (servant) of Sinterklaas, he's a reminder of not only colonialism, but slavery, which is still a touchy subject here. And the whole idea of white people in blackface is one that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

It could be done without losing the Piet tradition altogether, though; many groups and communities are embracing the idea of "kleuren piet", colour Piet, with blue, green, yellow, multicoloured versions. I quite like the "Piet Mondriaan" version (pun very much intended) ...

 

[Sarpedon]

Or they could just dress him in black, and pretend that the adjective pertains to his clothes. Seems pretty obvious.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is a psychological association between darkness is evil or undesirable that has nothing to do with black people and likely emerged in anglo culture long before their encounters with Africans. There is a metaphorical connection of the dark vs. light and what is good versus evil or dangerous. In fact, African culture likely has the same association.

That said, this same entrenched association very likely contributed to the dehumanization of africans and a level of mistreatment of black slaves that went beyond what was typical of white-on-white slavery or black-on-black slavery. Thus, regardless of the original intent of this character having black skin, it is near certain that for the past few centuries, most people in those cultures associated the character with black people and it became a racist concept, especially since he is clearly not a "companion" so much a as a servant. Thus, its continued use can not be doubted to reinforce racist ideas among some who are exposed to it. That is reason enough to dispense with it, even if the idea in general and all those who employ it cannot be said to be "racist".
This is the same logic as to why blacks should not use the word "nigger", because their own intent in what they mean by it is irrelevant to the broader impact of its use.

 

[fromderinside]

A pound of BS for concluding negative black has nothing to do with race. Fear of what one can't see (dark night) isn't really related to hatred of dark skinned people.

 

[Juma]

There is a metaphorical connection of the dark vs. light and what is good versus evil or dangerous.

In fact, African culture likely has the same association.

Likely?

Exact what is your fact? That African culture LIKELY has the same association?

Wouldnt it be more correct to say that you have no idea and are just guessing?

Which makes the entire piece worthless....

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a metaphorical connection of the dark vs. light and what is good versus evil or dangerous.

In fact, African culture likely has the same association.

Likely?

Exact what is your fact? That African culture LIKELY has the same association?

Wouldnt it be more correct to say that you have no idea and are just guessing?

Which makes the entire piece worthless....

"African culture". Africa is a collection of pretty diverse cultures all with their own symbolic heritage. The various "corners" of Africa are quite different.

Isn't "our" idea of dark vs light dichotomy a western thing? I recall reading how different cultures have loaded the various base colours will a variety of values and associations. In China for instance black is a neutral colour. It's basically background, or the nothingness. Certainly nothing threatening. While white is harmony and fulfillment. Red is more along the lines of what we in the west associate with black. I seem to recall Indonesia uses green for that function.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is a metaphorical connection of the dark vs. light and what is good versus evil or dangerous.

In fact, African culture likely has the same association.

Likely?

Exact what is your fact? That African culture LIKELY has the same association?

Wouldnt it be more correct to say that you have no idea and are just guessing?

Which makes the entire piece worthless....

No, its informed speculation made likely by the fact that association is extremely pervasive across cultures and the black is objectively (and thus for all people in all cultures) that absence of light and absence of the Sun, which are for all people in all cultures critical for life, growth, and being able to see. Darkness literally makes things unknown and creates dangers, making it harder to find one's way and easier for predators with better night vision to attack.

The roots of the association in things that are fundamental and universal aspects of human existence makes it likely that most cultures, regardless of the skin color of its people's would have developed a metaphorical symbolic association between blackness and dangers, the unknown, and negativity.

]Isn't "our" idea of dark vs light dichotomy a western thing? I recall reading how different cultures have loaded the various base colours will a variety of values and associations. In China for instance black is a neutral colour. It's basically background, or the nothingness.

Light and dark are objectively at odds in all parts of the earth, so no. Also, black and white are objectively opposites, with black being the absence of visible light reaching the retina and white being all wavelengths of visible light reaching the retina.

Also, are the Old Testament and the Koran purely "western things"? Because they both contain many uses of dark and light and black and white symbolizing impurity/evil vs. purity/good.

Taoism is kinda big in China, and Yin is symbolized as black, and often used to refer to the negative and darkness (and "nothingness" isn't exactly neutral given that it means the absence of life which just about all living people view as a positive). Taoism doesn't have the same notion of "evil" as Abrahamic religions do, but given they are humans, they have notions of dangers and harms, and black is sometimes used to symbolize it. The fact that within Taoism one shouldn't hate or seek to destroy the darkness but accept it as part of what gives life and light meaning doesn't change the fact that blackness is associated with the "negative" in the sense that they view the negative.

The Hindu religion also associated black with negativity and unhappiness, which is why one should not wear black to Temple or during festival celebrations.

Black was also used to denote death and the underworld in ancient Egypt.
[P]"In ancient Egypt, black (kem) was a symbol of death and of the night. Osiris, the king of the afterlife was called "the black one." One of the few real-life people to be deified, Queen Ahmose-Nefertari was the patroness of the necropolis. She was usually portrayed with black skin, although she was not a negro. Anubis, the god of embalming was shown as a black jackal or dog, even though real jackals and dogs are typically brown."[/P]

So, Juma, I should not have said "likely", but "definitely" since Egypt is in Africa. What varies is the ideologies that cultures create to deal with and understand death, dangers, and the unknown. They don't all have the same simplistic notion of "evil" that was developed under Abrahamic religions. But nearly all cultures seem to have an association between the color black and death, darkness, and the unknown. These are more basic and general than racial ideas and thus are likely more of an influence upon rather than a product of racial ideas. Obviously, whether and how these general association would influence ideas about people of various skin pigments would depend upon the skin pigments of the people forming such ideas and whether such ideas were compatible with another universal human tendency to view oneself and one's group as positive and good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

]Isn't "our" idea of dark vs light dichotomy a western thing? I recall reading how different cultures have loaded the various base colours will a variety of values and associations. In China for instance black is a neutral colour. It's basically background, or the nothingness.

Light and dark are objectively at odds in all parts of the earth, so no. Also, black and white are objectively opposites, with black being the absence of visible light reaching the retina and white being all wavelengths of visible light reaching the retina.

Also, are the Old Testament and the Koran purely "western things"? Because they both contain many uses of dark and light and black and white symbolizing impurity/evil vs. purity/good.

Taoism is kinda big in China, and Yin is symbolized as black, and often used to refer to the negative and darkness (and "nothingness" isn't exactly neutral given that it means the absence of life which just about all living people view as a positive). Taoism doesn't have the same notion of "evil" as Abrahamic religions do, but given they are humans, they have notions of dangers and harms, and black is sometimes used to symbolize it. The fact that within Taoism one shouldn't hate or seek to destroy the darkness but accept it as part of what gives life and light meaning doesn't change the fact that blackness is associated with the "negative" in the sense that they view the negative.

The Hindu religion also associated black with negativity and unhappiness, which is why one should not wear black to Temple or during festival celebrations.

Black was also used to denote death and the underworld in ancient Egypt.
[P]"In ancient Egypt, black (kem) was a symbol of death and of the night. Osiris, the king of the afterlife was called "the black one." One of the few real-life people to be deified, Queen Ahmose-Nefertari was the patroness of the necropolis. She was usually portrayed with black skin, although she was not a negro. Anubis, the god of embalming was shown as a black jackal or dog, even though real jackals and dogs are typically brown."[/P]

So, Juma, I should not have said "likely", but "definitely" since Egypt is in Africa. What varies is the ideologies that cultures create to deal with and understand death, dangers, and the unknown. They don't all have the same simplistic notion of "evil" that was developed under Abrahamic religions. But nearly all cultures seem to have an association between the color black and death, darkness, and the unknown. These are more basic and general than racial ideas and thus are likely more of an influence upon rather than a product of racial ideas. Obviously, whether and how these general association would influence ideas about people of various skin pigments would depend upon the skin pigments of the people forming such ideas and whether such ideas were compatible with another universal human tendency to view oneself and one's group as positive and good.

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but historically all colours haven't been equal. Some colours are cheaper to produce. Expensive colours tend to be sacred, while cheap colours aren't. The cheapest colour is then associated with badness.

And then of course it's down to contrast. Dirty or blended colours are not likely to get to represent anything, like brown or beige. So it's all down to which clean or bright colours can be produced on an industrial scale.

In medieval Europe red and yellow were hard to produce so that led to those colours getting all kinds of sacred significance. Not that long ago there was a law that all Swedish churches had to be painted red, since it was the most sacred colour. That was because Sweden had a huge copper mine. Red was just as sacred all over Europe. But we had access to it. So we made it happen.

My point is that I think there's more factors to this than pure symbolism.

 

[ronburgundy]

Light and dark are objectively at odds in all parts of the earth, so no. Also, black and white are objectively opposites, with black being the absence of visible light reaching the retina and white being all wavelengths of visible light reaching the retina.

Also, are the Old Testament and the Koran purely "western things"? Because they both contain many uses of dark and light and black and white symbolizing impurity/evil vs. purity/good.

Taoism is kinda big in China, and Yin is symbolized as black, and often used to refer to the negative and darkness (and "nothingness" isn't exactly neutral given that it means the absence of life which just about all living people view as a positive). Taoism doesn't have the same notion of "evil" as Abrahamic religions do, but given they are humans, they have notions of dangers and harms, and black is sometimes used to symbolize it. The fact that within Taoism one shouldn't hate or seek to destroy the darkness but accept it as part of what gives life and light meaning doesn't change the fact that blackness is associated with the "negative" in the sense that they view the negative.

The Hindu religion also associated black with negativity and unhappiness, which is why one should not wear black to Temple or during festival celebrations.

Black was also used to denote death and the underworld in ancient Egypt.
[P]"In ancient Egypt, black (kem) was a symbol of death and of the night. Osiris, the king of the afterlife was called "the black one." One of the few real-life people to be deified, Queen Ahmose-Nefertari was the patroness of the necropolis. She was usually portrayed with black skin, although she was not a negro. Anubis, the god of embalming was shown as a black jackal or dog, even though real jackals and dogs are typically brown."[/P]

So, Juma, I should not have said "likely", but "definitely" since Egypt is in Africa. What varies is the ideologies that cultures create to deal with and understand death, dangers, and the unknown. They don't all have the same simplistic notion of "evil" that was developed under Abrahamic religions. But nearly all cultures seem to have an association between the color black and death, darkness, and the unknown. These are more basic and general than racial ideas and thus are likely more of an influence upon rather than a product of racial ideas. Obviously, whether and how these general association would influence ideas about people of various skin pigments would depend upon the skin pigments of the people forming such ideas and whether such ideas were compatible with another universal human tendency to view oneself and one's group as positive and good.

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but historically all colours haven't been equal. Some colours are cheaper to produce. Expensive colours tend to be sacred, while cheap colours aren't. The cheapest colour is then associated with badness.

And then of course it's down to contrast. Dirty or blended colours are not likely to get to represent anything, like brown or beige. So it's all down to which clean or bright colours can be produced on an industrial scale.

In medieval Europe red and yellow were hard to produce so that led to those colours getting all kinds of sacred significance. Not that long ago there was a law that all Swedish churches had to be painted red, since it was the most sacred colour. That was because Sweden had a huge copper mine. Red was just as sacred all over Europe. But we had access to it. So we made it happen.

My point is that I think there's more factors to this than pure symbolism.

All of that is true, but none of it is in conflict with anything I said. There are both naturally occurring colors and the things they are naturally associated with (like black to the absence of light, and red to blood) and there are colors of manufactured pigments and the nature and cost of the process will impact the colors economic value which in turn impacts what it is used to symbolize. But there is lots of evidence that the natural associations of black dominate its near universal use to symbolize death, negativity, sadness, impurity/unsanitary, or the unknown, and with concepts of demons and evil within cultures that have those concepts to begin with.
It isn't just ties to actual absence of light, but the countless natural associations of blackness and darkened colors in nature to decay and disease. Almost all nutritious and healthy foods (both plant and animal flesh) are brighter colors when safe and fresh and begin to darken toward black as they rot and decay. Our own bodily fluids like urine, mucus, and feces turn dark and even black almost entirely as a result of dangerous infection, disease, or injury.

Whatever the manufacturing factors are for black in particular, there seems to be no evidence that they work against this natural association, and they either reinforce or have minimal impact on that association. In fact, your own example shows how these factors would reinforce the negative association of darker colors. "Dirty" and "blended" (aka impure) colors would be associated with being dirty and impure, or with poverty and inability to afford to buy or keep clean bright single pigment colors. It isn't coincidence that the word "drab" refers both to a "dull brown color" and also is a generally negative term used to refer objects and people that are dull or lacking "brightness" or "color" in a metaphorical sense. Take any bright color and add black to it and you make it more "dull" and "drab".

Also, in early cultures black pigments typically consisted of burnt charcoal made from once living organic matter, like wood, plant, animal or even human bones, a manufacturing process which would only reinforce the tie to destruction and death.

I'm not saying the roots of all color symbolism are simple and universal, but rather that the natural associations between black/darkness and "negative" things like death, decay, and danger are so inherent to human existence that such an association would long predate most cultural practices and continue to take some form across those variable cultural practices that have more impact on variable symbolism of other "colors". Whether that general symbolic association gets translated into ideas about people born with variable skin pigments will depend upon the skin pigments of the people in question. A culture in Africa where most people have darker skin than most other living organisms around them (including most primates) is not going to develop a view that they are all "evil" by applying that general association to their own skin.
But a culture in Sweden where everyone has skin tones relatively lighter and more "white" than much of the natural world around them, might apply this association to skin, even before they ever encounter actuall other people with dark skin. Its highly plausible that such cultures could invent folk-tales where the demons or "bad" people are depicted as dark skinned without ever having encountered or heard of real people with "black" skin, just as the depiction of a green-skinned mythological being could emerge entirely from the general symbolism of green without that culture having any racial notions about actual "green" races, yet if they ever happened to encounter a race of green people in the future, those stories would wind up impacting how they viewed those people.

Getting back to my original point, what all this means is that stories of dark-skinned "dangerous" creatures can have zero racism in their origins and continue to convey those non-racist ideas rooted in pre-racial symbolism, but once they wind up having overlap with expected future realities and racial divides and culture clashes, they are likely to take on and influence racial sentiments. Not exactly a radical notion, and while it doesn't myopically presume that racism is the sole driving force behind everything, it also doesn't deny racism or that non-racist ideas can become so.