As far as I understand, Zwarte Piet started out as a depiction of a black person. But it wasn’t used, like minstrel shows were, to push hateful and limiting stereotypes of black people.
I don’t think every American doing blackface must have been racist, but I think that given the cultural context in America, doing so will justifiably cause such massive offence that it can’t really be defended.
yeah this still just sounds like “it’s only racist when americans do it,” because yeesh, that explanation of where it came from isn’t helping your case.
Uh, are they literally depicting a minstrel-show black man kidnapping a white woman?
Euro racism denial is like those confederate losers who say it’s “just about heritage.” Or WWII collectors who seem to ONLY gravitate toward third reich shit. It’s such a naked “well, technically…”
Where’s the hate/limitation I spoke of? Or I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
I also specifically didn’t say that the reaction makes something racist; rather I said it can make it indefensible. I feel like we’re not communicating well here.
Americans tend to assume that any instance of a white person painting their face black is horrendous
That implies that the instance we’re talking about, in this case Zwarte Piet, is not horrendous. See above image. The caricature shown is often present in historical American minstrel shows, yes, but its separation from the minstrel show does not place it in a vacuum that makes it not racist. It’s still a dehumanizing caricature of a black person, and goes far past the realm of Lawrence Olivier in Othello. I believe that is about as clear of an explanation of this scenario that I can give from my perspective.
Black people look like people, not drow elves with giant red lips. It’s a racial caricature. I’ve stated and restated that. It was not created in a vacuum, it was created as a caricature of black people. In the same vein of caricature as minstrel shows. Dutch Christmas celebrators themselves recognize that, and have since modified Zwarte Piet to actually look like someone covered in soot.
Old Zwarte Piet Costume:
New Sooty Pete Costume:
I’ve explained as best I can. This feels like willful ignorance. It’s up to you now to read what we’ve said and figure out why we’ve said it. Trust me, if you reread this thread you’ll figure it out.
But why is making a (racial) caricature of someone harmful? Can you imagine any situation or alternative timeline in which such a caricature would be neutral?
It was not created in a vacuum
I think that non-vacuum is exactly what I’m getting at. Was it created it to be racist? Was it used to promote a negative image of people? Minstrel shows certainly were used that way, but I don’t know that Zwarte Piet was.
I’m not being “willfully ignorant” - I just disagree about something and am trying to give you the space to convince me otherwise (but it’s up to you if you don’t want to follow that thread any more)
As far as I understand, Zwarte Piet started out as a depiction of a black person. But it wasn’t used, like minstrel shows were, to push hateful and limiting stereotypes of black people.
I don’t think every American doing blackface must have been racist, but I think that given the cultural context in America, doing so will justifiably cause such massive offence that it can’t really be defended.
yeah this still just sounds like “it’s only racist when americans do it,” because yeesh, that explanation of where it came from isn’t helping your case.
I didn’t give an explanation so I don’t really understand
Idk about that one, chief.
Also, the reaction to something isn’t what makes it racist. It’s the content.
Uh, are they literally depicting a minstrel-show black man kidnapping a white woman?
Euro racism denial is like those confederate losers who say it’s “just about heritage.” Or WWII collectors who seem to ONLY gravitate toward third reich shit. It’s such a naked “well, technically…”
Where’s the hate/limitation I spoke of? Or I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
I also specifically didn’t say that the reaction makes something racist; rather I said it can make it indefensible. I feel like we’re not communicating well here.
That implies that the instance we’re talking about, in this case Zwarte Piet, is not horrendous. See above image. The caricature shown is often present in historical American minstrel shows, yes, but its separation from the minstrel show does not place it in a vacuum that makes it not racist. It’s still a dehumanizing caricature of a black person, and goes far past the realm of Lawrence Olivier in Othello. I believe that is about as clear of an explanation of this scenario that I can give from my perspective.
What exactly is it that you find horrendous? Pretend I’m a very sheltered teenager.
Black people look like people, not drow elves with giant red lips. It’s a racial caricature. I’ve stated and restated that. It was not created in a vacuum, it was created as a caricature of black people. In the same vein of caricature as minstrel shows. Dutch Christmas celebrators themselves recognize that, and have since modified Zwarte Piet to actually look like someone covered in soot.
Old Zwarte Piet Costume:
New Sooty Pete Costume:
I’ve explained as best I can. This feels like willful ignorance. It’s up to you now to read what we’ve said and figure out why we’ve said it. Trust me, if you reread this thread you’ll figure it out.
But why is making a (racial) caricature of someone harmful? Can you imagine any situation or alternative timeline in which such a caricature would be neutral?
I think that non-vacuum is exactly what I’m getting at. Was it created it to be racist? Was it used to promote a negative image of people? Minstrel shows certainly were used that way, but I don’t know that Zwarte Piet was.
I’m not being “willfully ignorant” - I just disagree about something and am trying to give you the space to convince me otherwise (but it’s up to you if you don’t want to follow that thread any more)