DrZoidberg
Contributor
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.
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.