The North rages as Disney fails to deliver racist imagery

So this is apparently the most important issue in Sweden right now, lighting a fire of righteous defense of Swedish traditions in the heart of every true Swede, or something:
http://www.google.com/gwt/x?hl=en&u=http://www.thelocal.se/45080/20121214/&q=Sweden Disney

For background on this particular tradition, see here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2009/12/nordic_quack.html

It's... a bit embarrassing.

I think this thread has taught me that Kalle translates into English as the much goofier sounding 'Donald'.

Kalle is Karl/Charles.

Many of the comments make me happy. I think it may be due to being reminded that this kind of idiocy is not just a US thing. I know there's a Swedish version of me slapping his forehead somewhere out there. (Probably in Sweden!)

That's what he wants you to believe! I'm trusting Disney.

Reading those comments, it's comforting to know that idiocy knows no national boundary. You can read those same exact comments in any American story about race.

Not quite true. The American version would have worse spelling and grammar.

Chuck=Kuck
Chaz=Kaz
Chimichonga=Kimikonga

Apparently, Christmas is a great time for racist traditions in a lot of countries (the Netherlands in this case). You may recognize Black Peter from an episode of The Office a few weeks ago.

If anything, I think large parts of Europe and the world in general (Asia for sure) are more racist than the US. At least our political parties try to hide their racism for the most part (alright, sometimes they get a bit carried away with the anti-Mexican rhetoric).

That's an odd thing to say, not least because racism does not universally function in the way that Americans think of it and it's really difficult to compare across cultures. You can probably say some things that could be classed as racism have a greater impact in measurable form x,y,z from one place to another, but depending on those measurable forms and the causes you'd end up with the US all over the place.

For instance, is racism interchangeable with xenophobia? Is there a difference between the racist beliefs or practices of dominant groups versus marginalized ones in terms of how you assess the broader panorama of racism in a society? Who is doing the measuring for each? Do you need an exchange program to ensure that both are measured "equally" unfairly, or is that a chimerical goal?

Stop projecting your culture upon mine. Blackface is racist in the USA. The Netherlands is not the USA nor do we share your particular intense history when it comes to racism.

Furthermore, that linked article is laughable. There is no growing opposition. It's just the same tiny group of whiners that has been around for the past decade and taking every chance to get their smidgen of spotlight. That quote of the popular right weblog Geenstijl makes it even worse as huffington and most other media failed to realize that Geenstijl's posts were 100% sarcasm intended to ridicule said tiny group of whiners.

If you want to look for racism in the Netherlands there is plenty to be found, but sure as hell not here.

Yeah, painting your face black with absurdly exaggerated lips is totally not racist, I don't see what people are getting all bent out of shape about.

(while Zwarte Piet may be traditional, the way he's depicted is so fucking racist it's not even funny)

Saying Zwarte Piet's depiction isn't literally the same as blackface in the Anglo-Saxon countries and especially the US is one thing, and it's true. And American and Dutch racism issues aren't exactly comparable on a 1:1 basis, and there's a really explicit hookup from America's race problems and America's blackface, whereas such a connection may not be at all evident to citizens of the Netherlands who are anti-racist but very used to an historically familiar tradition.

But here's the thing. Those people in Asia with Hitler-themed cafes or whatever don't think they're being racist either. Intent and context only go so far. It's a caricature of an African with big red lips. When we see that sort of thing in anime or something we might not think "OMG Japan is in the KKK," but we also don't think "oh that's totally innocuousness" either. Try to bear in mind that people can object to something like Zwarte Piet without suggesting that it's a direct analogy to US blackface and its history. It's still probably not too charming to tourists from Africa, yeah? Would a gross caricature of an Asian with a conical hat and squinty eyes be harmless in some country without a strong tradition of anti-Asian racism?

That's dumb. Racist stuff is racist, no matter what culture you're looking at it from. I'm speaking as a Dutch person so don't pull that 'projecting culture' bullshit. While it definitely has less of a painful backstory of slavery (although the Dutch had quite a hand in that as well) blackface is without a doubt super duper racist. It took me a while to see it, but Zwarte Piet comes from a history of ridiculing black people. And guess what? It doesn't matter that we don't have the same racist history as America, or that Zwarte Pieten weren't actually a slaves. It's still fucking racist. And I am glad I'm not a black person in this country, because three weeks the whole country goes all "we don't care that it's offensive because it's tradition". Nobody wants to hear that their favourite childhood memory is mad racist but it so is.
The rest of you need to understand that the arguments made do actually show what the problem is. A lot of people don't realize that it's racist. The link between Zwarte Piet and black people is obscure, because when you're a kid you don't actually realize that it's there. When you look back you start to see it, but since Sinterklaas is so fun a lot of people just sort of ignore it. I can't really explain it any better than that, but what I'm saying is that people in favour of the existence of Zwarte Piet don't hate black people. They're still wrong in not seeing that it's racist, but it's not the same as white people thinking they can say the n-word to a black person or something.

That said, people quoting Geenstijl is like people quoting The Onion.

What is racist and what is not racist is determined by culture so your claim is utter nonsense. In the nineteenth century nobody batted an eyelid at black face in the US. The reason? Different cultural values.

And yes it is a caricature. So what? A caricature is a simplified depiction of a person both used to insult or compliment. The Political Cartoon thread is full of them. It's all about intent. And in this day and age there is no racist intent in the usage of black face with black pete no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise.There might have been at some point, but not now.

Please, just stop. The reason no one batted an eyelid was that back then it was socially acceptable to be racist.

...and it was every bit as racist back in the nineteenth century. It's fucking racist, and you are blinding yourself to it.

EXACTLY my point. Different cultural values.

So then, you're acknowledging that Zwarte Piet is racist, but it's ok, because Dutch?

You're missing the point by a mile. It was racist back then, and it's racist now. It's our attitude to racism that has changed, not what is racist and what isn't.

Something so inherently racist as blackface is not culturally determined. It started out as, and stayed, a grossly offensive stereotype of black people. A caricature that 'exaggerates traits' of an entire people that have had to go through fucking slavery because those traits were different than those of white people is just not funny. Intent doesn't matter. The fact is, when you realize the racial implications of something like this, you're supposed to go "Oh shit. Let's not do that then". Instead, everyone collectively goes "Well I didn't know it was racist before, but I'm just going to keep on doing it even though now I do know that it's racist".

Edit: Also, taking the political cartoon thread as an example is not so great because most of those cartoons are fucking terrible.

You are correct. My point was not that it wasn't racist but that the view of it was indeed different. I admit I worded it poorly and two things got conflated.

I started out my very first post that black face as historical in the USA and in the Netherlands are two separate things. And no I do not acknowledge that Zwarte Piet as it currently exists is racist. I however, do acknowledge that it is racist to you and do not expect you to think otherwise despite your fuming way of posting.

You seriously think that this is the mindset people in the Netherlands have about Zwarte Piet? That they were just ignorant that the black face was a clear display of white man superiority over keeping black slaves? Or rather that they never attributed any racist aspect to it to begin with?

This is the basic point I've been trying to make. What is acceptable to one culture is not to the other. I don't subscribe to the thought that things can be inherently racist. That would mean that everyone anywhere would immediately perceive something as blackface as something negative regardless of cultural background. If you seriously want to argue that to be the truth then there is nothing more I can add.

The most galling part of this yearly recurring theme, however, is that every time the (inter)national media focuses on this because it's an easy target while the real racism in society remains hidden.Say for the sake of argument that the blackface is banned and that all petes are rainbow coloured instead. Will this reduce racism in the Netherlands in any way? Will it stop coloured people from being rejected at clubs? Rejected for good jobs and pressed into little paying menial labour? Avoided by white people when two of them are standing at the street corner? Or will it stop them from being the target of a certain right wing political party determined to single them out as the problem to all what ails the nation?

It will not. It won't make a shred of difference. It's just posturing to show how tough people are on racism allowing it to go underground and lull people into believing that progress is being made.

Yes. It's the history of blackface, I can't make it any better than it is.

I didn't seriously expect you to change your opinion, since almost no one ever does in this discussion. But don't act like I can't see it from your point of view, because I did. For a lot longer than I'm proud of actually. But eventually I changed my mind, because I learned the true meaning behind blackface. It took a few years on the internet, but there you have it.

Oh yes, poor us for being picked on by the other nations because of our racist-ass tradition. You're right that it won't change any of the other racist shit going on, but this is a racist thing in and of itself. "Let's not stop this one racist thing because it won't stop other racist things". Okay...

And about the media attention: everybody already knows that Geert Wilders is a fucking racist cockmongering douchenozzle (gotta love that guy right), and that xenophobia is A Thing in Europe as a whole. It's been mentioned in this thread a bunch of times.

It's the white west European, and by immigration extended, US history. Though I suppose in this day of globalization

Nice straw man you have there. You are seriously equating a performance specifically aimed at ridiculing black people with a Christmas like festival intended for children? Totally the same thing because they share a bit of imagery.

You don't get my point of view at all. I don't give a rats ass about tradition. It's about insisting on maintaining a racist stigma to something that no longer has that connotation. The only ones making that link are people who do have valid reasons to find blackface racist and offensive. And that's perfectly understandable and to them getting rid of it would appear to be a step forward in reducing racism.

Yet as the majority of people don't associate the event with racism at all nor hold it up as some kind racist example the reduction in actual racism would not be small, it would be zero and thus useless.

I didn't care about tradition either. I also thought it didn't have a racist connotation anymore. So don't tell what I do or do not get, just because I disagree with you. If you really want to think blackface has a "racist stigma" and that the racism is entirely cultural you're living in a delusional fairytale land.

I'm not going to keep on discussing after this, because I'm done. Normally this wouldn't bother me so much but it's a viewpoint I have to defend all the goddamn time, and I'm getting sick of it. Think whatever you want, I've given you plenty of reasons to change your mind, but you didn't.

So why don't they do it without blackface? I mean since it's not meant to represent black people.

Quoting for emphasis.

Somewhat off-tangent but a srs question -- if a white male actor putting on the blackface to portray (exaggerated) black person is inherently racist and how dare they, are they similarly inherently sexist if they put on a wig, dress and makeup to portray (exaggerated) woman... with no ifs, buts, excuses or any possible way to consider it an acceptable practice in some performance-oriented context?

(asking because while the answer seems to be 'yes, it is', it doesn't seem to get people so much up in arms about cross-dressing... yet, anyway. So it makes me curious which way the attitudes will evolve, regarding both these subjects)

Blackface and dressing up as a woman is in no way the same but I think I get what you mean. Like Robin Williams or that Big Momma's House bullshit (probably both racist and sexist). I don't really know the answer since I've never seen one of those movies, but I can imagine that they're pretty sexist yes. But racism and sexism are two different beasts and should be treated as such.

Cross-dressing has a little more grey-area anyway, since the history of for example transvestites doesn't lie in riduculing women as it does with Zwarte Piet and black people. The hypothetical doesn't add up in the end.

It's not inherently racist. There are plenty of situations where context dictates that the intent and primary outcome can be educational or even an incendiary but intelligently designed form of entertainment; however, the further you stray from strictly controlled environments and audiences the harder it's going to be to justify to the public at large and the more your rationale is going to have to be in front (and in many cases points to it being a better idea not to do it at all). In much the same way, there are a lot of reasons why a white male actor might put on women's clothing and not be sexist or transphobic; as a broad assumption, though, it's generally been done in mass culture for reasons that are primarily sexist, misogynistic, or transphobic. For instance, the old SNL standard of having women viewed as unattractive played by men is a double standard borne of sexism and outright misogyny at times, and I'm sure the major Hollywood movies on the topic have a pretty mixed track record with what they were trying to accomplish beyond situating a character in an otherized context.What you do with it is up to you as an audience member, but at the very least it's worthwhile to be self-aware while you're viewing it and not just reach out for the nearest "my best friends are..." to excuse it out of hand.

In the case of the Dutch you have a practice whose best defense is that it's rooted in naive, childlike ignorance in the more innocent (ie children) who do it. That is not a good defense for the adults that perpetuate it or those that defend it on the basis of it somehow being detached from the racist context that obviously underlies it in a country with its own complicated issues with respect to darker skinned minorities, Africans and the slave trade. It's not the same as a broadly abstracted blackface scenario or a broadly abstracted cross-dressing scenario; you can't remove the contextual tools and cues that people use to assess the values in a performance from the equation and expect to have useful examples.

I agree with the substance of your point, but I don't think your answer is all that useful. Racism and isms generally are complicated relative to your own upbringing, made worse when the criticisms come across cultural lines so they seem like projection.
So I think it's certain that the Dutch have a lot to sort out with respect to their own racial history, and I think there's a lot of value to Lizzy's description of how she came to her conclusions. I think Marinus is dead wrong about the innocence of the tradition. But while being a douchebag may factor in, I don't think it's the key variable, and I don't think the Dutch generally are being driven by the sort of malicious, willful blindness that characterizes analogous positions in countries that have had to confront their histories more directly. It reminds me a great deal of how some Australians described their country's handling of Aboriginal issues to me; otherwise decent people saying obviously untrue things is a really uncomfortable phenomenon that is rarely best addressed through direct confrontation from outsiders.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I was going to say something about Elyscape's comment but I trailed off. While I have to admit that I laughed, I don't think Marinus is a douchebag. If I thought that, I would have to think almost everyone in my life is a douchebag (which I don't). It's why I got so mad in the first place, because usually I have to defend myself to everybody with my back against the wall in arguments about Sinterklaas, and that kind of sucks. It's why I mentioned the fact that love for Zwarte Piet doesn't come from hate for black people.

Tagline: You know who else liked to drink coffee?

No sweat. I think you've done a fine job of addressing a difficult subject in a temperate manner (which is not the same as being an emotionless robot about it), and I wanted to help stay the course on what I thought was a productive discussion.

I think the important issue everyone seems to be missing is that Sweden renamed Donald Duck "Carl". Yeah, well fuck you, Sweden. and your king, Donald Gustaf!

Which reminds me, I need to read Heart of Darkness some time.