The Pot Calling the Kettle Backwards

I didn’t want to write about the artist Makode Aj Linde, since a lot has been written on him already. Besides, womanist-musings wrote an excellent critique on Linde’s “performance art piece,” to which I can add very little. However, then I came across the following statement on a Dutch language website:

“Sweden is still way behind the Netherlands with regard to the multicultural society. In fact, people think that blacks are cakes…”

Compare and contrast:

Makode Aj Linde's "blackface cake".

A Dutch Zwarte Piet "blackface cake".

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw any stones.

The Trouble with Piet

There are people who have fixed ideas about Zwarte Piet; people who are reluctant to give up or throw away ideas that are worn, for warmth and security I guess, if not for tradition – even in the face of evidence that counters their notions. These people often pepper their narratives with perfectly rehearsed lines and show the flexibility of fabulists. Unfortunately, these folks have a rather clinical view on trans-class, trans-ethnic, trans-racial relations within The Netherlands and spent a considerable amount of effort in the careful separation of good & bad, tolerant & intolerant, Left-wing & Right-wing politics, racists & non-racists.

However, the ability to think of yourself, or someone else, in terms of Left-Right, tolerant & intolerant, racist & non-racist, good & bad does not imply that you possess a sophisticated conceptual framework, or an assumed ideology, or a keen understanding of racist power structures. These overall attitudes are simply abstracts of your position on the (political) issues that concern you the most.

I’ve been embroiled in a heated debate on Facebook about Zwarte Piet. I’ve already written a blog entry about this racist caricature, so I’m not going to delve into it again. It boggles my mind that there are still people who can’t see that Zwarte Piet is a racist stereotype. Their consciously articulated and choreographed performances expose a profound lack of awareness, understanding, compassion and a love for false oppositions. The celebration of Sinterklaas promotes racism through the use of blackface stereotypes and Zwarte Piet is the cardinal representative of the hypocrisy & racism in The Netherlands.

What I find extremely troubling is the fact that a majority of the people react viscerally without proper knowledge of our shared history. It is utterly mystifying that so few contemporary Dutch citizens understand the cultural & historical significance of a mainly white Dutch society celebrating a white saint who travels with a Black underling. Most Dutch people tend to see blackface & problematic race relations as typically American. It is true that the discourse on race has been predominantly influenced by the civil rights movement in the United States & African American studies. However, we must not forget that racism, like blackface, is not an American invention, nor a specifically American problem. Europeans brought racism to America.

As of late the discourse on race/immigration has taken a turn for the worse in The Netherlands. The discourse on immigration & the blurred & porous European borders have evoked pervasive feelings of anxiety; the Other is perceived as a real threat to the Dutch way of life. In an attempt to safeguard Dutch culture the majority clings on desperately to traditional Dutch values & celebrations. Race (in the guise of ethnicity) & questions of identity & loyalty are being fiercely debated; and these debates are shaped by the Dutch imagination.

To many people of colour Sinterklaas is a yearly manifestation & celebration of white supremacy. However, pointing out the racial dynamics of Sinterklaas often provokes fervent, violent protestations. The Zwarte Piet apologists profess that Zwarte Piet isn’t a racist stereotype and proffer the popular explanation that his blackness is caused by Zwarte Piet’s downward climb through the chimney. According to Dutch folklore Zwarte Piet climbs down the chimney to deliver presents and he’s black because of the soot. This explanation and others about the origin of Zwarte Piet are given in an attempt to de-racialize him. The most common arguments in support of their claims are:

• The holiday is a celebration for children and children aren’t racist.
• It’s a matter of ‘tradition’ (which ‘foreigners’ certainly can’t critique due to a limited understanding).
• The critics are the ones who make it racist.

Most Zwarte Piet apologists fail to see that these counterarguments do not negate the argument that Zwarte Piet is a racist caricature. Sinterklaas may be for children but it is adults who dress up as Zwarte Piet and act out racist notions – until a few years back these adults spoke a mangled form of Dutch with a Surinamese accent. Tradition is simply the sense that the present is continuous with the past – that the present in some way repeats the forms, behaviour, and events of the past. Zwarte Piet in his current form originated in the 19th century when slavery was still legal and Zwarte Piet embodies a lot of notions that were in vogue back then.  So, in essence Zwarte Piet is utterly traditional…
And to suggest that ‘foreigners’, by which they often mean Allochtonen, can’t critique this tradition due to a limited understanding of Dutch culture is paternalistic – to say the least. If I follow the same reasoning and apply it to Dutch policy then the Dutch can’t critique e.g. female circumcision, and I could state unblinkingly that the Dutch critics are the ones who make female circumcision misogynistic – which will make me sound extremely stupid & insensitive & misogynistic.

These explanations & arguments present us with ahistorical views that do not take into account the assertions that are being made about race through the representation of a Black underling and a white saint. These defenses call to mind the warped morality that enabled self-proclaimed Christians to enslave other humans. Representations of Black people have a history that goes much deeper than Zwarte Piet and contemporary debates and representations build on the ideas we have inherited from the past. You cannot look at Zwarte Piet without analyzing the historical context that has led to stylized images of Black people. The fact that the current embodiment of Zwarte Piet is a racialized modification of the devil – with stereotypical darkie iconography – is exactly the problem with Zwarte Piet.

Furthermore, the belief that black equals inferior is widespread, and this colour bias, which preceded the racial bias, is embedded in our language. Black is used as a marker to tag schools & neighbourhoods that have a poor reputation, or house a large population of people of colour. Through this colour bias people, especially children, are being taught to associate Zwarte Piet with Blackness and by extension with people of colour.

This colour bias/racial bias is universally & uncritically applied in the media and politics. Politics & the media present Dutch white people as the primary agents/subjects in society. Historically & culturally there is a long tradition of considering people of colour as innately different. The Allochtoon is constructed in juxtaposition with what is considered ethnic white Dutch and is placed outside society. Differences in behaviour & practices of ethnic minorities are not constructed on the basis of cultural differences, but on the basis of a deviation from the norm that the majority, i.e. ethnic white Dutch, constitutes. What is defined as Dutch is consequently dependent on a subordinated other. This viewpoint leads to a perceived incompatibility of identities, restricted access to a Dutch identity & discrimination. The development of the nation state went hand in hand with the ideology of nationalism. And the development of racism co-occured with the development of the nation state. Nationalism, like racism, theorized a distinction between Self and Other.

One role of the nation state is the generation and (re)construction of a sense of the ‘imagined community’ of nation. This raises the question of belonging; who belongs to this ‘imagined community’?

The nation state seeks to create an ‘imagined community’ by unifying & universalizing subjects that are located in different political, cultural, linguistic or religious contexts by blurring the boundaries between these differences. However, by blurring the boundaries we risk allowing the distinct voice of the Allochtoon/Other to get lost in a sea of whiteness & privilege. The physically distinct (non-white) Allochtoon is for ever the Other; this group is usually singled out & discussed & dealt with as a problem by politicians, the media, and the academia. All of which are predominantly white and male and Dutch-centric.

The Dutch definition of citizenship is problematic because of the dualism in the collective Dutch consciousness. This dualism is a result of the power/race relations & “common sense” discourse, which determine a certain “logical structure” of society – a structure that shapes the identity of both the ethnic white Dutch & the physically distinct Allochtoon/Other. This “logical structure” (majority/minority, Autochtoon/Allochtoon) implicitly denies Dutch membership to everyone who isn’t white. The ‘construction’ of the ethnic white Dutch subject itself can be seen to be inseparable from the construction of the Allochtoon/Other. This “logical structure” can be traced back to colonialist discourse in The Netherlands, when colonialist discourse created a new ideological category of the physically distinct situated “Other”.

In the process of constructing a single voice of authority over the colonized, the colonialist included the situated Other in its discourse by representing the situated Other as being starkly juxtaposed with the European Self (wild vs. civilized). The colonial authority and the Other became locked in the same historical narrative; their cultures and identities became dependent on each other. The incorporation of the Other hybridized the European Self.

The tradition of Sinterklaas is the paradigm of this dualism; power/race relations are codified within its rituals. This racist power structure manifests itself not only through the ritual itself but also through the public debate about Sinterklaas. Sinterklaas illustrates how the power/race relations paradigm is structured in the Dutch imagination and how this power/race relations paradigm is expressed in “common sense” discourse.

So, when nationalist intellectuals fail to critique their nation’s traditions, and fail to see how these traditions affect certain ethnic minorities, it is because these minorities seem so far removed, so radically Other. These minorities don’t occupy a significant space in their consciousness.

Most ethnic white Dutch people assume that blatant acts of racism are the chief & only instances of oppression and conceptualize racism in terms of the physical distinctness of people of colour. However, this view doesn’t take into account that distorted representations of people [of colour] contribute to the oppression of people [of colour] and that racism has very little to do with physical distinctness: racism centers on constructing a subordinated Other in order to maintain a position of privilege. It is, therefore, important to analyze the various dynamic differences that take effect in our interpersonal relationships and the world around us, and how we differentiate the Other from ourselves. In our interpersonal relationships we need to be aware that how we experience power and our alterity shapes our beliefs. This awareness will make us realize that our point of view is not the default – this allows us, in turn, to act toward other people with sensitivity when they express experiences of power and oppression that differ from our own. Our experiences of society are intricately complex.

Though my critique of Zwarte Piet serves a political purpose I do not critique Zwarte Piet from a political standpoint solely. I critique Zwarte Piet from a socio-cultural standpoint, as well. This is a matter of social justice. The population of The Netherlands consists of diverse communities that are interdependent. The Allochtoon/Other, as the ethnic white Dutch, are inherently hybrid and syncretic. So, discussions of “race” or “ethnicity” are not only one-dimensional (because of intersecting forms of oppression & our shared history), but they also isolate & trap the communities of Allochtonen in “common sense” discourses that deny them agency & multivocality and create the illusion of The Netherlands having been historically an ethnically pure country. The institutional “common sense” discourses and power/race relations set forth narrowly constructed and sometimes arbitrary techniques of representing the Allochtoon/Other. These representations are not “real”.

The concept of social justice raises two very important questions for the Zwarte Piet apologists: How do we balance cultural demands against moral demands? And is it morally appropriate to exploit the legacy of colonialism for entertainment?

Blackface Minstrelsy

As soon as the categories Race and White are mentioned in a conversation as social factors that still determine & influence social behaviour, the conversation is liable to grind to a halt. Race is not something people are comfortable talking about. Race & racism hark back to the nasty days of slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, and the civil rights movement in the US.  For obvious reasons, people tend to steer clear from unpleasant subject matters. Some believe that the present  “post-racial” situation does not merit such a schismatic way of thinking; some believe that the race problem is inherently human; some think that “political correctness” has gone too far; some accuse people like me of perpetuating the concepts of “white guilt” & “minority victimization”.

I am not blogging about these categories to foster feelings of self-hate, guilt, nor victimhood. I am trying to bring attention to how relations of power, that originated in the 16^th century during the slave trade, and consolidated during colonialism, persist to this day and uphold intangible racialized frameworks. Systemic racism is very much a part of reality. By ignoring it, it won’t go away.

Most of us would agree that racism is a noxious thing. And none of us would readily entertain the thought that we ourselves are spreading racist notions & further racist stereotypes.

To those who profess that “they don’t see colour”, I would say consider this: if you do not see colour, i.e. my race, why is it that you refer to me as a Black man, and not just a man? Many people who use that argument fail to see the disconnect that follows when they proceed to name a person’s colour (cognitive dissonance). You cannot divorce the received notions on race, that society has taught you, from my Black person by simply stating that you don’t see colour. Race is something that cannot be made to disappear like that.

To those who profess that they do not further racist notions, I would say reflect on this: you further racist notions, unbeknownst to yourself, whenever you refer to someone as a ‘halfbloed’ – which implies that white is the norm against everything else is judged.  This does not mean you are a racist; it is how people in Western societies have been taught to view the world.

I feel the Dutch should be more sensitive to the topic of slavery and its effects, however when Dutch people refuse to see the fact that Zwarte Piet is a racist stereotype, or fail to see the racist overtones of certain words, e.g. neger or halfbloed, it seems near impossible to discuss race & racism.

Most white Dutch people say that we cannot simply superimpose racist cultural memes of another nation’s history on Dutch traditions and say they are alike – as is the case with blackface & Zwarte Piet. That would be an entirely valid argument if The Netherlands had existed in a cultural & ideological space unto itself wherein the concept of race were utterly alien. Though The Netherlands does not have a tradition of blackface comparable to The United States it has a tradition of white people painting their faces black to entertain. It remains highly improbable, considering the overlap, that The Netherlands was not in some way influenced by the American tradition of blackface & the stereotypes of Black people that existed & that were also endorsed by Dutch society & capitalized on by Blacks themselves.

Even when placed in an entirely Dutch context blackface, i.e. Zwarte Piet, remains racist since it perpetuates certain stereotypes of Black people. Blackface, whether as a form of theatrical performance or as a tradition & source of “innocent” entertainment, has no place in any culture.

Now most Dutch people will argue that blackface in the guise of Zwarte Piet is done with good intent. When Dutch people say that people of colour should not take offence I always present this scenario to illustrate my point: imagine you are in a committed relationship, and you’ve been in this relationship for quite a long time; imagine that several irritations have been plaguing your relationship (some are voiced, others remain unaddressed); now one day you approach your partner and state that you wish to discuss one of those irritants; imagine that after hearing your case your partner brushes your grievance & feelings aside and claims that you are overreacting, that he, or she, did not mean it that way, that is was done with good intent, and that you should be a bigger person and not cry about it; let’s say this goes on for quite some time; after a while, you will be fed up with it and end the relationship. You’ll feel neglected and dismissed. You’ll feel like your feelings were ignored. A lot of atrocities were committed “with good intent”.

The defense of Zwarte Piet serves as an example of the subtle paradox that exists in a culture that claims itself to be so modern, so progressive & so egalitarian, as it vacillates somewhere between blatant racism and a hypocritical readiness to look the other way.

There is something shady about an entire culture that remains obdurate in the face of valid objections and refuses to acknowledge that a white person in blackface and a frizzy wig & bright red lips has racist overtones.

“Political correctness” is a step in recognizing how concepts & ideas interconnect. PC isn’t simply about the use of convoluted language to avoid hurting people’s feelings, it’s about language that is not dehumanizing and coated with prejudice and contempt, e.g. you don’t say to someone that he/she has a harelip, which is dehumanizing; you say cleft lip instead.
Another step is debunking & invalidating received ideas that construct a self in terms of an Other by framing certain categories, or concepts, e.g. like the West & The Third World, as antithetical – as diametrically opposed – by equating the West with modernity & The Third World with tradition. This way of reasoning creates a value system in which one’s position within this framework is weighed against & contrasted with a constructed (i.e. imaginary) Other; the outcome of such a juxtaposition becomes part of one’s self-concept. The concepts of tradition & modernity are not mutually exclusive -  as Majid Tehranian notes in his book Rethinking Civilization: Resolving Conflict in the Human Family distinctions between modes of civilization, communication, and globalization must be considered not as discrete stages but as overlapping layers.

Blackface turns the body into a body of parts; one looks for the facial markers, the white of the eyes, the mouth. Blackface normalizes the viewer as much as it marks Blacks as a departure from the norm. The normal is thus defined & confined to the surface, or appearance, of human beings; the anomalous status is articulated by the process of blackface. Blackface facilitates the process of placing a distance between the self & the freak of nature, in which the topography of the body of the cultural norm becomes naturalized & civilized without risking contamination. The freak of nature is inextricably tied to the cultural norm. In blackface there is no dialogue between a real Black person and another person; there is only a dialogue between an imagined Black person and another person.

Blackface is a motif: a stereotype that is used to evoke a voluntary memory. It is a collage whose parts are acquired from a nowness rather than from a (colonial) past. The now itself is constructed from a set of previously existing pieces. That is why the stereotype has no continuous  identity; the stereotype exemplifies the structure of collective memory. The act of memory constitutes their identity & similarity. This explains why most Dutch people don’t see Zwarte Piet as racist. In the collective memory of most Dutch people the stereotype Zwarte Piet is not constituted as a racist stereotype; their memories have sweet & innocent overtones. However, this obfuscates the fact that it is a racist stereotype.

Zwarte Piet is a complex mix of good intentions with crude stereotypes and it should be discarded since the good intentions do not outweigh the crude stereotypes that are being promoted.