Rolling 2017 Thread on Race

Haven’t regretted deleting it for a single second.

As part of her comments, she referenced the author of the NatGeo piece as "a literal Becky", appropriating from a black person to complain about black people objecting to something they perceive to be racist.

This article, I assume?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/

Holy fucking shit that woman is a stupid troll

Also this could go in the black, white, purple thread:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/world/europe/zwarte-piet-netherlands-united-nations.html

The Dutch are already reinventing the way they portray the controversial character, said Lodewijk Asscher, minister for social affairs and employment. “At the school of my own children, the Petes last year were orange,” he said.

yup, yup, and yup

I might give her viewpoint more credence if we weren't talking about the country whose colonial adventures gave us apartheid.

a man writing about problems within the feminist movement

i am going to meditate on that and try and figure out how it maps onto brave dutch piet-lovers

don’t forget the Easter bunny

Here was the comment that was a direct response to that NatGeo article:

I wish they would assign these stories to journalists who actually live in, come from, or have a connection to the culture they are writing about, rather than a literal Becky who lives in Washington D.C. and grew up in the U.S. I teach a travel writing class and am frequently telling my students to be very careful about writing critically about cultures to which they don't belong from a subjective and presumptuously American-supremacist perspective. It's very American to take the position of authority about all other cultures. I think this issue could be much better covered by writers who have a connection to the culture. This, to me, reads like a man writing about the problem within the feminist movement today, or a white person writing about the problems in the black community. Wrong messenger entirely. Americans feel entitled to insert themselves in the conversation when it is not their cultural history and thus not really appropriate for them to act as anything but neutral observers. And they don't need to infantalize or chastise the Dutch people. The Dutch are sophisticated and intellectual and completely able to have these critical discussions in their society without the American voice coming down from above to tell the them how it is. NatGeo should have hired a Dutch journalist to write about this.

This was the general consumption comment:

For those upset by the blackface, this is an issue being debated in the Dutch community, BUT, also realize that if you are American, you are projecting your cultural experience of blackface from the perspective of an America-centrist history, drawing on things like American slavery and minstrel shows that simply aren't a part of the culture you are judging. Blackface is shocking to Americans, but it doesn't mean the same thing to cultures without that history. That isn't to say that Zwarte Piet's race and origin doesn't need to be reconsidered. Sinterklaas comes from Spain in the legend, and Zwarte Piet is his Moorish helper. Piet is the trickster, who plays practical jokes on the kids, and puts naughty children in the bag to take to Spain. He carries a bundle of sticks to swat naughty children, and candy for the good children (which he throws through the windows. He also plays ding-dong-ditch, leaving candy and presents on doorsteps). He is not regarded in a slave position or an oppressed position by Dutch people in modern culture. Now of course, with the tradition going back hundreds of years, the blackface hasn't aged well, especially with American-centric cultural perspectives dominating all over the world. So the Dutch are trying to find a way that they could change this tradition with an EXTREMELY ingrained character (imagine telling Americans that the Easter Bunny was cruel to animals, so henceforth needed to be a man, and not a bunny? How many families do you think would change the tradition overnight for their kids? How would they even explain to their kids who LOVE the Easter Bunny?) Some ideas that have been floated are using yellow/green/blue facepaint instead. But still, it will be very hard to get the Dutch to let go of their traditional, beloved character "Zwarte Piet". I grew up with Zwarte Piet. He was my hero as a kid, much cooler than Sinterklaas, who was a bit scary. He's as important as the Easter Bunny or Santa's elves to the Dutch (speaking of, aren't elves offensive to little people?) And I kind of do think it's a little problematic for Americans to dominate the conversation about another country's culture, forcing their own historical perspective onto that culture as the dominant culture and not even being aware that that whole history they are reactive about (of slavery, of minstrel shows, etc.) is not shared by other countries in the same way. It feels aggressive and like an example of American exceptionalism. Yes, Zwarte Piet is a sensitive issue and the Dutch will hash it out, but the debate is not for Americans to insert themselves into, I think, because they are being triggered for a whole other reason.

Never mind that the better analogy would be the Washington Redskins or that the few studies I've been able to find that survey what black Dutch think of Zwarte Piet show 60-75% of think he is a discriminatory figure.

(there's also the bit about equating dressing up like a black person with dressing up as an anthropomorphized animal)

it will be very hard

haven't they been not doing this for like my entire adult life

Hey I’m learning a lot because of this terrible person and her stupid bad opinions

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545

The Dutch played even less of a part in the ending of the slave trade, and what little they did was largely the result of British pressure. At first glance it seems odd that the Dutch, with so little to lose, dragged their feet while England, with a much heavier investment in the trade, took the lead. On this issue the Dutch failed to take the moral high ground which was to become so familiar to them by the later-nineteenth century. Emmer attributes this failure to the deeply conservative nature of early-nineteenth-century Dutch society and politics together with concern for the plantation economy of Surinam. More weight might, perhaps, have been given to the general fragility of the Dutch economy in contrast to the dynamism of industrializing Britain. The Dutch believed they were in no position to take risks, and only later in the century, with increasing profits from the exploitation of their East Indian possessions, did they feel able to afford to end slavery in their American colonies. Emmer sees this notable lack of humanitarian concern as morally reprehensible but notes that other countries with relatively weak economies and an investment in the slave trade and slavery were equally unwilling to act.

He also plays ding-dong-ditch, leaving candy and presents on doorsteps).

That's not what I heard it called growing up.

My Dutch friends hate the Zwarte Piet thing and actively campaign against it, was discussing this yesterday with a friend who lives in The Netherlands and was surprised to find that his entire otherwise liberal circle of friends think it's just a bit of harmless fun.

― mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Saturday, December 2, 2017 7:36 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The first goes for me as well. It's a disgrace. It's become our (part of our) culture wars. The fight's bigger every year, and more and more people want to get rid of it, change the figure.

It'll take a long, looong time though, I'm afraid. Can't go into the nitty gritty as it's too depressing. December has become the months where your friends and neighbours and family suddenly turning out to be racist etc.

I hear the "blackface is an American thing!" argument so many times and it's so ahistorical and dumb - European portrayals of blackness are at the root of what became minstrel/blackface culture, which was then in turn enthusiastically exported to most of Europe ("Black & White Minstrel Show" running in the UK up to the 70's etc.); it's all connected.

Dan, totally understand if you don't want to waste any more time engaging with this idiotic troll, but fwiw I enjoyed this interview w/ a black dutch person on Zwarte Piet (and other things), can't play the "outsider to the culture" card here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be03kzCVhz8

I feel like the French contribute a certain je ne sais quois to racism

DanRf, that video is great. I am tempted to post it even though the woman who put up the original picture asked us to stop the conversation.

It's great. There were more of those about the same subject.

Just last Saturday the 'kick out Black Pete' demonstration - they tried to rally before but pro Pete's blocked the highway and police let them, no kidding - went along. I was on my to Amsterdam when I drove under an overway and saw a crowd gathered there, with flags and stuff: it could only have been pro Pete's waiting for the buses of anti-Pete's to pass and throw stuff or kick a stirr. Several of my friends were at the anti Black Pete demo. I apped them and police got rid of the troublemakers.

Reading my own words, I'm aware of how insane it may sound to anyone outside this fucked up country. Everyone's completely entrenched, digging further down their own "opinion" (yes: were no further here really than if you say Black Pete is racism people will say: that's your opinion, and also it's wrong, it's a kids party etc.) Trying to explain why it's racist is turned into a "*you* people want to change our traditions, if you don't like it gtfo", which is racist and xenophobe.

But our prime minister is on record, blatantly, smilingly saying Black Pete is "just part" of the tradition, he "has black friends who celebrate it with him" etc. Long, looooooooooong way to go... :-/

btw someone on that thread said "that Zwarte Piet is a actually a black man underneath all that so clearly it's not racist"

I kind of want to throw the entire history of minstrel shows at her but I'm respecting the original poster's wishes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjosGL5YwPw

^^ (you can turn on English subs, they seem ok). This is basically where we're at. This clip from the only Late Night show got a lot of traction, and he tried to explain why BP is absurd. But obv it got traction because it's a white man who is saying what black people here have been saying for aaaages. Which is causing a rift in the anti BP movement: should white people be "allowed" to spread the message when black people have done this for ages and aren't credited for it, versus: well yeah but at least white people are reached now because of this and it makes them think etc.

It's, quite frankly, a mess.

Reading my own words, I'm aware of how insane it may sound to anyone outside this fucked up country. Everyone's completely entrenched, digging further down their own "opinion" (yes: were no further here really than if you say Black Pete is racism people will say: that's your opinion, and also it's wrong, it's a kids party etc.) Trying to explain why it's racist is turned into a "*you* people want to change our traditions, if you don't like it gtfo", which is racist and xenophobe.

Dunno if it helps any but all this sounds pretty familiar from debates I've experienced in Portugal, the UK and the US. Especially when it comes to anything that's categorized as children's entertainment - ppl get apeshit defensive because, I think, subconciously if they admit that a beloved thing from their childhood is actually racist (or sexist or etc.) they see it as a judgement on their entire childhood.

campaigning to keep the original words to "Eeny, meeny, miney, mo"

I rewatched Kind Hearts and Coronets recently and that rhyme comes up a few times...

Especially when it comes to anything that's categorized as children's entertainment - ppl get apeshit defensive because, I think, subconciously if they admit that a beloved thing from their childhood is actually racist (or sexist or etc.) they see it as a judgement on their entire childhood.

there's been a pretty strong reaction to that "The Trouble with Apu" thing and I think this is exactly why

Because a lot of people would rather be racist than change anything they like?

I think part of it is that a lot ppl think of racism primarily in terms of being a personal moral failing rather than a structural issue? so when it's suggested that a beloved childhood thing is racist they react like they're being retroactively denounced as a terrible bigoted person for things they did/thought/felt as a child and get defensive.

hopefully it's possible to have treasured childhood memories of Christmas involving Zwarte Piet and also acknowledge that Zwarte Piet is bad and racist and shouldn't continue as a tradition? probably everyone's most precious memories are inextricably wrapped up with stuff that's problematic to some extent?

I keep thinking back to an essay I wrote in high school about racism and received wisdom and how pervasive and infectious it is; one particular point I made was that even as a black kid I wasn't immune to getting caught up in this type of thing as well, using the example of the willing ridicule I participated in with some of my friends after a presentation by a local Native American outreach group over some of the claims they made about the contributions of Native Americans to global society, which included writing and arithmetic. I realized halfway through my mocking that my haughty invocations of cuneiform and Babylon were looking at things from precisely the wrong context that there was literally no reason why analogous concepts couldn't have been co-discovered by a contemporaneous society that Americans spent a good portion of their history attempting to wipe off of the face of the Earth; my mistake was thinking that if I could have this epiphany as a 16-year-old, that meant most adults already realized this.

There's a commitment wired into a specious definition of truth and facts that plagues the academic-minded maybe, or factual literalists for sure

/Reading my own words, I'm aware of how insane it may sound to anyone outside this fucked up country. Everyone's completely entrenched, digging further down their own "opinion" (yes: were no further here really than if you say Black Pete is racism people will say: that's your opinion, and also it's wrong, it's a kids party etc.) Trying to explain why it's racist is turned into a "*you* people want to change our traditions, if you don't like it gtfo", which is racist and xenophobe./

Dunno if it helps any but all this sounds pretty familiar from debates I've experienced in Portugal, the UK and the US. Especially when it comes to anything that's categorized as children's entertainment - ppl get apeshit defensive because, I think, subconciously if they admit that a beloved thing from their childhood is actually racist (or sexist or etc.) they see it as a judgement on their entire childhood.

+ the lie of "all childhoods are happy and innocent"

I was a very happy kid growing up but the experience of being the one black kid in a sea of racism pretty much put the kibosh on romantacizing childhood.

I was thinking about yeah, even with a happy supportive family your experience of childhood is likely to be utterly different to oblivious white kids like most of us in the west

we need to kill the idealization of childhood in general, imo

Which is like talking about Americans or dutch or British as if we're one unified mass of experience and background xp

Also yes nhex, childhood is one.of the constructedest ideas there is

It's not surprising that people have a knee-jerk, egocentric reaction to accusations of racism, viewing it in terms of how they're personally inconvenienced by the accusation rather than in terms of their complicity in something harmful. The effort one is willing to put into shifting their perspective from point a to point b (or the extent to which they in fact double down on the personal butthurt) is a pretty straightforward metric for determining how much of a dickhole racist that person is, I find.

it's usually no more than "you're making me feel bad. I don't like people who made me feel bad"

is there any reason to think conservatives are not disposed to worry about complicity arguments

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem.html

singal doing his i-just-have-some-questions schtick

Thought this was a good interview: http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2017/11/racial-justice-doesnt-trickle-down.html

I will listen to that but the "class only" strawman from the description really bugs me. Who's seriously advancing that?

I think there are some problems w this but the overall gist gets at some aspects of the conversation that has confused old people

https://t.co/CHXmHsmLQG?amp=1

x-post: Lol, sorry, but that's perfect for the 'Posts perfectly in character' thread.

fair

Something I'm struggling with in the discourse advanced/described in the Tablet piece (and that I've seen replicated on social media in slightly more extreme forms on the strongly identitarian wings of the left) is, what takes the place of whiteness-as-identity? If whiteness is inherently supremacist, and therefore an identity and oppressive superstructure to be scrapped in history's dustbin (an argument I am totally fine with in and of itself), I would think that risks once again reverting to white people not "seeing" race when they look at themselves, reverting to the nullity that white supremacy encourages, a sort of "otherness" beyond race. Yet I also see people frequently dismissing the idea of "reforming" or "redefining" white identity. So I guess what I'm wondering is, and what I can't seem to piece together from the existing discourse, is what is the non-oppressive way for white people to conceive of themselves?

history's greatest monsters