Black Pete is completely unacceptable, but the article is incorrect in making it seem like the character is completely condemned in Holland. It's not -- a NYT article recently reflected that a lot of Dutch people consider it a "harmless tradition".

IIRC black pete is black because from the chimney soot, not being a black person.

@2: You may just be of low intelligence, but chimneysweeps don't have blood-red lips, an afro, and fully black skin. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/892226/thumbs/…

They also aren't servile creatures, destined to head to Moorish Spain.

Obligatory octogenarian rant: All this #hashtag and @something and RTbullshit really, really harms readability.

It's like you kids are speaking Martian half the goddamn time. Quit it.

Yeah what the fuck? We aren't all on the same page about blackface yet? Crazy ...

Ha ha. We'll I'm bright enough not to actually go out carousing with the blackfaces like Kelly O. Only dipshits like you, who can't go a day in their life with out seeing the world through a racist lens (how tiring and boorish), have to get butthurt about Dutch tradition. The Dutch will keep celebrating Black Pete despite white hating whities with nothing better to do.

Charles & @1,
Indeed, I read that article as well. I was startled to find the repellant character endearing especially among children. I thought "The Netherlands?". I had thought it one of the more enlightened countries in Europe and that it wouldn't tolerate such nonsense. That's most unfortunate.

Alas, African-American caricatures have been used in this country. Many years ago I read "Devil in the White City" by Eric Larson. In a lecture about researching the book, he mentioned that Aunt Jemima Pancakes distributed by Post (?) was orginally introduced at the 1893 Chicago World's Fair as "Slave in a Box"! No kidding.

I then recalled as a boy seeing the box in my Mom's kitchen cupboard. I noticed the logo/face of Aunt Jemima resembled a "mammy" with a kerchief tied around the back of her head. I never knew then that is was a caricature. Obviously, I do now. I also have noticed the logo/face has changed. The box now features an elegant black woman wearing earrings and a nice hairdo.

We still have much to do regarding these debasing images.

@6: Go back to Stormfront dude, we don't care about your fight for white culture.

Dressing up like a black person is not necessarily the same thing as "blackface".

Do you really think you're advancing the cause of social justice by sicking the internet on, for example, some girl who decides to dress up as a black character from a TV show for Halloween? Personally, I think you're advancing the cause of dumb.

@10: Yes, blackface is shit, as are the people who perform Minstrelsy.

@12: I posted in whatever thread it was brought up that it was horribly crappy to do, if her. I would have called her out on it if I saw it around town, on Halloween, a drag night, or otherwise.

Here's the link to the NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/world/…

@2, 3 is correct -- Black Pete is a Moor, not black from chimney soot -- that's just plain wrong. And Black Pete is a bad guy -- he terrorizes kids, threatening to throw them into a river if they misbehave. I was roped into playing Santa once in a former Dutch colony (white guy, speaks the local language) without knowing Black Pete would be accompanying me on my rounds. His job was to scare the shit out of kids, and he made some of them cry and squirm. Great, associating dark skin with terror and fear.

I guess as an aside, is it less racist if it's a brown person wearing blackface, as this case was?

@8 tradition dies hard, I suppose, even in mostly tolerant Holland. That being said, if you look at the NYT article, there are plenty of well organized people against Black Pete. And many who seem ambivalent. @6 also seems to not understand that the Dutch aren't all of one mind on this ("The Dutch will keep celebrating Black Pete...")

@8

David Sedaris performed (I guess read?) a piece about that on This American Life.

@10

Are you saying that black people dress in a certain way?

@15: What do you want me to say? It's tone-deaf as hell and inappropriate and completely ignorant of history.

If I could make every person who does it watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C45g3YP7J… on a loop with the Ludivico technique, I would.

@13: Why is it "shit" - simply because you say so? That's some pretty compelling reasoning you've laid down.

False accusations of racism are not part of the solution.

@20: It's callous and insensitive, even if you've got a token black friend who thinks it's hilarious. You can be imaginative without using blackface, you can dress as a "black" character without using blackface, their ethnicity is not essential to the costume.

I'm glad you're here, virtuously fighting for your right to Minstrelsy.

For examples of character identity not being linked to race-

http://www.xojane.com/issues/mad-back-co…

@18: It's tone-deaf as hell and inappropriate and completely ignorant of history.

I find it ironic that someone who apparently doesn't understand the difference between minstrel and a Halloween costume is accusing others of being tone deaf and ignorant of history.

Here's another holy war for you to fight - kids dressing up as KKK for Halloween! Hard to believe this kind of thing still happens in our country.

@21: It's callous and insensitive

Cultural norms should not be dictated by overly sensitive, chronically offended assholes, be they on the left or the right.

virtuously fighting for your right to Minstrelsy

No, I'm virtuously fighting against dumb.

Hey, in America we all have the right to dress in blackface, and also the right to call people who do it/support it callous, shallow, and insensitive shitbags. This includes Kelly O/her friend, as well as a klansman from Mississippi.

Freedom!

@24 What the fuck is your major malfunction? It's a fucking caricature of group of people, one that is clear in both it's history and it's meaning.

You're fighting to harm people, fuck off.

@21 You know that minstrel shows were a 19th century American tradition and have nothing to do with Holland right? Not all black face is the same as minstrel shows.

@24: I love it that white guys always know what's best!

And before anyone says anything I'm not defending black face I'm pointing out that minstrel shows are a very specific kind of black face. And yes, in this day and age all black face is bad and should be avoided.

@29 Nicely done.

@27: The character and costume design of Zwarte Piet originated in the 19th century, even if not directly influenced by Minstrelsy, the racist caricature in art and popular culture influenced him totally.

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

@31: My friends from the Netherlands are also shocked that the people they grew up around are still racist. What's your point? Some traditions need to die out. (If we can kill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_sal… , why not?)

It MAY have influenced him, there was nothing directly linking the two and it looks like he equally evolved from an enslaved devil. Regardless, it's still not the same thing in practice or intention.

@24: "Cultural norms should not be dictated by overly sensitive, chronically offended assholes, be they on the left or the right."

Cultural norms are dictated by whomever dominates the culture. Your outrage that we might take offense is similarly ignored. You are no better than we, no less shrill, and certainly no more deserving of deciding what should be kept for future generations.

@34:

1) You've just confused Piet for the Krampus.
2) You certainly do gloss over his image and origins as a Moorish slave, which is how he is presented in today's culture, which is the issue.

Issue/practice/intention.

@36: I love the Krampus! I got the Husband a Krampus sweater to wear this year. I've never seen him so in the Holiday spirit! Usually he just hangs a black leather stocking off the corner of his TV and calls it good.

@38 The depiction of the Krampus in The Venture Brothers is the best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7qLbJUPC…

My apologies if that link sucks or does not work, I can not preview at work, and so can only go by the description.

@38: We've got a Krampus ornament on the tree! I defer to the costumed ones at Santarchy, though. I have a Krampus hat, but I'm not going to go full shirtless with stilts paddling with switches and throwing the naughty into sacks...

@14, it was common for black minstrels to black up in blackface in the minstrelsy era (and well into the vaudeville era that followed it). The blacking doesn't indicate "oh, here is a black person" -- it indicates "here is a perfect collection of black stereotypes. A black performer could (sometimes) sing or dance in his normal coloring and be respected as a singer or performer in his own right (by some people), but when he put on blackface he was transforming himself into a dialectical folkloric "coon" recognized by both blacks and whites, whether they were familiar with the origins or not.

Blackface is fundamentally racist whatever color the skin of the person wearing it (unless used ironically), because of this association with minstrelsy and the image of black people that minstrelsy promulgated (which is still deeply soaked into all aspects of American life). It's a code, whether the wearer understands that or not.

Furthermore, white people don't need to "get it". If black people are offended, it's offensive, whether you think that's ridiculous or not. That's what "offensive" means. If you want to act as if the feelings of real black people right now are less important than your own desire to explain away your own historical relationship to racism in theoretical tropes, that's your perogative, but no one is interested in hearing it. (This is not directed @14, but to some of the other people in this thread).

@23,

I find it amazing that you're fighting this particular fight in a thread about *objective*, blatantly racist black face. Speaks volumes about you.

@41: Well said Fnarf.
@39: That is one of my favorite episodes!
@40: I got the ornament too. I think the idea of an holiday figure that gives out whuppings may be what the Husband finds so appealing. ;)

Hey chucklefucks, minstrel shows actually traveled all across Europe and were incredibly popular. Take a fucking history class before spewing abject bullshit ok?

@41 Got it, I was sort of joking/making light about a brown person wearing blackface. Or at least not serious. There is tremendous racism in the former Dutch East Indies, both toward darker skinned people (Papuans are on the lowest, darkest rung, but other less dark but darker than most Easterners are not far behind) and of course ethnic Chinese.

May I apologize for my fellow dutch for this embarrassing "tradition", do know that many dutch of all colours are challenging this and the ingrained racism in dutch society, give us few years to catch up with the civilized world.

Ohhhhh Zwarte Piet. My Dutch cousins have been posting photos of their children in blackface on Facebook and it is hella awkward. I don't believe everyone who participates in the tradition is racist, but the tradition itself definitely is. Unfortunately the Dutch have a huge blind spot about it because it's all tied up in warm, fuzzy, child-hood nostalgia.

@36 I'm not glancing over anything nor am I saying that the character being a blackface character isn't an issue, it's obviously an issue. I'm saying it's different than minstrel shows.

@42: Yeah, I like how he's backed himself into implying that Charles, an actual black person, is overly sensitive for finding black face offensive.

@48, blackface originated in minstrelsy, ~200 years ago. What are you talking about?

This is like those white guys who bitch because they don't "get to" use the n-word. "Jay-z says it all the time why don't I get to say it?" *sigh*

@41, Fnarf -- very well said.

Given what the Dutch did in South Africa, I'm not surprised that they're still engaged in racist traditions in their homeland. Good that ethnic Dutch are speaking out about this "Black Pete" nonsense.

Just a question.

What about two pink females applying brown (not black) makeup and wearing tennis player outfits, in order to dress up as the sisters Serena and Venus Williams, in a country with no history of blackface or minstrelsy, nor a history of racial segregation ?

Their costume was not worn in a mocking manner, but the brown makeup was so unevenly applied it looked pretty bad, to the point they had to explain who they were despite having "serena" and "venus" sewed on the back of their clothes, and a tennis raquette each. They mainly looked covered in mud.

I'm not defending them, nor condemning them. I myself don't apply brown makeup when I dress up in an actual Malian dress, because I feel I'm dressing up as "an African" and not as "an African who is black" (and I hate makeup). So, I'd like to know whether that's insensitive of them or not ?

@53: What do you think?

http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/0/…
http://allforalltodosparatodxs.files.wor…
http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/9/…

Seriously, the amount of casual racism that occurs in Europe is infuriating and saddening.

Also http://rollingout.com/wp-content/uploads…

Fucking hell, how can persons not throw up or condemn these ignorant shitheads?

Er, not that these images were taken from Europe, we have plenty of terrible youth here in the States. I just mean that I can't imagine how there would be any confusion about blackface and its legacy and current inappropriateness.

@50 Actually it didn't. Blackface is as least as old as all white casts performing Othello in the early 17th century but most likely is much older than that which is part of my point. There was blackface before minstrel shows and blackface after minstrel shows. A white person dressing up in blackface as Flavor Flav is certainly offensive but it isn't a minstrel show. Minstrel shows were very specific things with a very specific intention. Black Pete is certainly offensive as indicated by the number of Dutch-Africans protesting the blackface characterization (and if the character is central to their christmas celebration then there's no excuse to not have a black person playing the character anyway) but the Dutch relationship to blackface is completely different than ours. Critiquing other country's race relations through the lens of American race relations is silly is all I'm saying.

Again, your ignorance of the racism that occurs elsewhere and the spread of vaudeville/minstrelsy throughout Europe is not really a worthwhile defense. America isn't the only one embarrassed by the vestiges of colonialism and slavery.

"Critiquing other country's race relations through the lens of American race relations is silly is all I'm saying"

Shamelessness doesn't make you "beyond" race, it makes you a nation of smug assholes.

"the spread of vaudeville/minstrelsy throughout Europe is not really a worthwhile defense"

Nor is is it relevant to this discussion because, as I posted before, blackface had been established in Europe literally hundreds of years before minstrel shows made their way there. The issue seems to be your confusion about what a minstrel show is and is not. A minstrel show is NOT just someone wearing blackface. Was the original performances of Othello with white actors in blackface a minstrel show? No. Is someone in blackface at a halloween party offensive? You bet! Is it a minstrel show? No. Black Pete is not a minstrel show. Is it offensive? Once again, yes it is offensive, but it is not a minstrel show.

" your ignorance of the racism that occurs elsewhere"

Sorry, there is not such ignorance here. I'm well aware that there is racism elsewhere. Although you seem to be under the impression that racism is expressed in the EXACT SAME WAY elsewhere and it's simply not. It's not even as cut and dry in our country/culture let alone other country/cultures.

I'm hesitant to tell you this because I'm afraid it might make your head explode but here it goes; Al Jolson was actually very well regarded throughout Harlem and by black performers of his day. It's true, feel free to look it up (and I would highly recommend that you do.) Jolson wore blackface in the same kind of spirit that drag queens dress up like women. He didn't do grotesque parodies of African Americans like they did in minstrel shows, he felt that there was a strong connection between the Jewish immigrant experience and the African American experience and what better way to express that than a Jewish immigrant performing as a black man? I know, I know, to our modern aesthetic he didn't look at all like an African American but that's how audiences of the time (including black audiences) perceived it. That's actually the whole plot of The Jazz Singer. A Jewish kid who rebels against his father who is a cantor at the local synagogue and runs off to become a jazz singer. Jolson actually played a very important role in introducing and popularizing jazz to the rest of America and the world. Not as a parody or mockery of African Americans but out of strong connection with them.

@53

The women in question were a math teacher and a history teacher. The math teacher I know to be lacking of respect to other teachers but the history teacher is vocal agaisnt racism and wouldn't partake in what she thought was racist. We have a diverse student population as well as teacher population, our highschool superintendant was a black lady at that time, and she didn't pass any comment on it being inappropriate, which I'm sure she would have done if she had felt it as inappropriate or racist. Though I did not speak up (who am I to say it's racist if it's not felt as racist by French black persons in a position of authority ?) I wondered whether I was the only one of 1000+ persons attending who was bothered by their makeup, and that because I know of blackface being a sensitive topic in the US.

"Critiquing other country's race relations through the lens of American race relations is silly is all I'm saying"

And 57 is quite right in saying it.

Racism in Europe is something we fight and, we're winning against it. Black youngsters carrying skittles are not murdered in my country, not even by police. Nor would their murderer go free (unless if a policeman, same everywhere). If that's being too arrogant to dare mention to Americans (self-described Leaders of the Free World - but that's not arrogant one bit, mind) how it happens to be actually better elsewhere for minorities, then I'm very proud to be arrogant.

But that better result has nothing to do with smugness, and everything to do with history.

There were never slaves in mainland France. None of my ancestors (I checked) took part in slavery, nor lived where slavery happened, nor profited by it. There also never was any legal segregation in France, except for a short time during the Nazi occupation. When black soldiers arrived in France during WWI they were received as "American heroes", not as second-class citizens like they were home. They found plenty of white women who were eager to bed them and/or to marry them. Same during WWII. In the US you had segregation in schools going on well into the 1960s, while from the previous century on, we were educating on our campuses people of all colors and backgrounds. One of our most successful XIXth century writers was part-black, never heard of Alexandre Dumas, and his character d'Artagnan ? Part black, and that didn't make him a social outcast one bit.

Yep, my country did slavery in the Antillas, which was horrible and sickening and believe me, we commemorate it, and also colonisation abroad. But even far away from mainland France, once slavery was done with for the second time in 1848 (it was abolished in 1790 but reinstated by Napoleon), it was never converted into legal segregation and miscegenation laws.

Face it : on how far racism once went, USA can only be compared with South Africa, no other country of the world. Except Nazi Germany pre-holocaust. On nowadays racism, it's bad in some places of the US and worse in its justice and its police forces, it's appalling in Russia, it's better but in no way near destroyed in Western Europe - Switzerland and Austria excepted, where it's bad.

@62: "Racism in Europe is something we fight and, we're winning against it."

Not by endorsing quaint blackface.

I'm not endorsing blackface.

In my country I've seen it happen once, and our black supervisor let it pass without comment - and she's not someone to shy away from controversy.

So I'm asking about it to you fellows, and all I'm getting back is terminal anger and accusations of being racist or being blind to racism. And as far as I know, I'm none of those, and my black ex-supervisor very certainly was none of those.

So, can we or can't we have an adult conversation on blackface as a fancy dress masquerade : is it really offensive in countries that are not the US ?