40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
This has been news in the Netherlands for a few days, so why not post it...
The UN human rights body is mulling whether a Dutch caricature called "Black Pete" who accompanies Saint Nicholas during a traditional children's festival is racist, a media report said on Saturday.
A committee of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is assessing responses to a letter sent to the Dutch government early this year, the NRC Handelsblad reported.
Black Pete, or "Zwarte Piet" in Dutch, traditionally accompanies Saint Nicholas at a festival on the third Saturday of November, when he officially "arrives" in The Netherlands in a gift-filled boat from Spain.
The character is typically decked out in a gaudy medieval costume and afro wig, with his face painted black, prompting criticism in recent years of racial stereotyping.
Opponents say the character recalls when Dutch colonists exploited slaves, notably in the Caribbean colonies of Suriname and Curacao.
"According to information we have received... the character and image of Black Pete perpetuate a stereotyped image of African people and people of African descent as second-class citizens," said the letter, dated January this year and published today on the NRC's website.
The letter by four officials of the Geneva-based UN rights body asked for a clarification from Dutch authorities.
"Please indicate to which extent your government has involved Dutch society, including African people... in the discussions regarding the choice of 'Santa Claus and Black Pete' as expression of cultural significance in the country," it said.
Emotions are flaring over the racially sensitive issue.
Amsterdam held a public hearing on Thursday during which 21 complaints about Black Pete were filed asking the Dutch capital to revoke the permit for this year's festival.
Mayor Eberhard van der Laan is to rule on the permit in early November, his spokeswoman Tahira Limon said.
But Black Pete's supporters called for the children's Saint Nicholas festival to go ahead, arguing that it has been part of a Dutch tradition dating as far back as the 16th century, with the Black Petes first appearing around the 1850s.
In a survey of 10,000 people published by the popular broadsheet De Telegraaf today, some 96 per cent asked for a stop to the debate over Black Pete.
Some 66 per cent said they would prefer that the entire Saint Nicholas festival be dropped rather than stripping it of the Black Pete character.
One respondent told De Telegraaf: "The 21 complaints are spoiling it for the rest of The Netherlands."
Source
Opinions?
I call bs. The miss responsible for this UN letter even asked 'why we don't replace him with Santa Clause' (who happens to have arrived only 50 years ago or something like that around here..), and the man isn't even black because he was born that way, but because of the smoke from the chimneys 
Putting a stop to Zwarte Piet/Black Pete because he's black, now that's racist, you silly UN.
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
 thenoobbomb wrote:
Opinions?
I call bs. The miss responsible for this UN letter even asked 'why we don't replace him with Santa Clause' (who happens to have arrived only 50 years ago or something like that around here..), and the man isn't even black because he was born that way, but because of the smoke from the chimneys
Not to mention that Santa Claus is the American copy of Sinterklaas, moved to Christmas instead of december 5th. Besides, how is bringing presents to children a bad thing?
If the UN want to go after offensive traditions, why don't they go and put a stop to [some village in Denmark I believe]'s annual dolphin slaughter? [/i]That's[/i] just nasty business all around, to name just one example off the top of my head.
Though to be honest I do believe the "black from chimney soot" tale is a recent invention to (evidently unsuccessfully) stave off allegations of racism, and that originally Black Peter was a black man and servant to the saint the festival takes its name from.
Then again, Saint Nicholas apparently lived in Myra, which would put him in Asia Minor, and most likely of Middle-Eastern appearance.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Bran Dawri wrote:Black Peter was a black man and servant to the saint the festival takes its name from.
How could anyone, coupled with his appearance, find this racist? 
Bran Dawri wrote:Then again, Saint Nicholas apparently lived in Myra, which would put him in Asia Minor, and most likely of Middle-Eastern appearance.
He certainly looks of Middle-Eastern descent in that picture.
I think that the real story is that Denmark is so culturally naive that they don't understand why blackface is offensive. If doing something for a long time was enough to give it a free pass we'd probably still have Minstrel shows.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why did you sovereign nations allow faceless bureaucrats to take over? I'll note the human rights body is now made up of these esteemed members:
Angola 2013
Argentina 2015
Austria 2014
Benin 2014
Botswana 2014
Brazil 2015
Burkina Faso 2014
Chile 2014
Congo 2014
Costa Rica 2014
Côte d'Ivoire 2015
Czech Republic 2014
Ecuador 2013
Estonia 2015
Ethiopia 2015
Gabon 2015
Germany 2015
Guatemala 2013
India 2014
Indonesia 2014
Ireland 2015
Italy 2014
Japan 2015
Kazakhstan 2015
Kenya 2015
Kuwait 2014
Libya * 2013
Malaysia 2013
Maldives 2013
Mauritania 2013
Montenegro 2015
Pakistan 2015
Peru 2014
Philippines 2014
Poland 2013
Qatar 2013
Republic of Korea 2015
Republic of Moldova 2013
Romania 2014
Sierra Leone 2015
Spain 2013
Switzerland 2013
Thailand 2013
Uganda 2013
United Arab Emirates 2015
United States of America 2015
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 2015
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 Ahtman wrote:How could anyone, coupled with his appearance, find this racist?
You have to remember that Europe has a very different outlook and history than the USA... plenty of the stuff Americans seem to find highly offensive would barely raise an eyebrow in large parts of Europe.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
The Un can't understand why Santa Claus isn't enough.
x 1000
68674
Post by: The Grumpy Eldar
Now we got some total we can find a better term here Please. Thanks. Reds8n from the UN trying to ban it. It's a traditional festivity. They should just butt out.
The idiot had an argument that this county doesn't need 2 Santa Clauses... Seriously this is the OG Santa Clause, unlike the Coca Cola one. Who was just made to gain massive profits.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ahtman wrote:I think that the real story is that Denmark is so culturally naive that they don't understand why blackface is offensive.
Oof, bit much there. They have no experience with the fallout from the transatlantic slave trade. I don't think that's the same thing as naive.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
I would have honestly thought the UN had more important things in the world to deal with...
221
Post by: Frazzled
you mean like the machine gunning of copt weddings recently? nah...
241
Post by: Ahtman
 SilverMK2 wrote:You have to remember that Europe has a very different outlook and history than the USA... plenty of the stuff Americans seem to find highly offensive would barely raise an eyebrow in large parts of Europe.
Indeed, but I doubt Denmark is, as a whole, completely oblivious to history. Even if we exclude the US, it isn't as if Europe has no history with black people. If they want to continue the 'tradition' they are welcome to, but I have trouble believing that it is somehow hard to understand why others would find it offensive.
68674
Post by: The Grumpy Eldar
What has this to do with Denmark..
241
Post by: Ahtman
I typed the wrong thing and then ended up repeating it. It has to do more with this not being revised and rewritten in the same way a paper would be, and even if it were, there isn't the time as people add to the conversation.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Ahtman wrote:Indeed, but I doubt Denmark is, as a whole, completely oblivious to history. Even if we exclude the US, it isn't as if Europe has no history with black people. If they want to continue the 'tradition' they are welcome to, but I have trouble believing that it is somehow hard to understand why others would find it offensive.
"Denmark" (or the Netherlands as the case may be  ) certainly does have a history with black people. It is different to that in the USA. Hence different attitudes towards this particular practice. I don't doubt that someone doing something like this in the US would be lynched (ironically ) for being "insensitive"... apparently in the Netherlands it is pretty much fine; precisely because they have a different history and different attitudes. They, I am sure, can see why some (such as Americans) might find it offensive, but why stop doing it if they don't (apparently also including the black population of the country?)?
241
Post by: Ahtman
SilverMK2 wrote:It is different to that in the USA. Hence different attitudes towards this particular practice.
Being different doesn't mean being oblivious; the Netherlands hasn't been completely cut off from the rest of the world.
SilverMK2 wrote:but why stop doing it if they don't (apparently also including the black population of the country?)?
I'm not arguing they should stop it, it is their tradition and can make that choice, my point of contention is in acting as if it is some great shock that others would see it as offensive. You don't have to be from the US to know that blackface doesn't go over well with a lot of people, and for fairly good reasons too.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Ahtman wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:but why stop doing it if they don't ( apparently also including the black population of the country?)?
I'm not arguing they should stop it, it is their tradition and can make that choice, my point of contention is in acting as if it is some great shock that others would see it as offensive. You don't have to be from the US to know that blackface doesn't go over well with a lot of people, and for fairly good reasons too.
Bolded the important part.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Repeating it doesn't really change anything. The four black guys in the Netherlands feelings about it doesn't change the global history of blackface or the capacity to understand why others would find it offensive.
78111
Post by: necrondog99
Ahtman wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:You have to remember that Europe has a very different outlook and history than the USA... plenty of the stuff Americans seem to find highly offensive would barely raise an eyebrow in large parts of Europe.
Indeed, but I doubt Denmark is, as a whole, completely oblivious to history. Even if we exclude the US, it isn't as if Europe has no history with black people. If they want to continue the 'tradition' they are welcome to, but I have trouble believing that it is somehow hard to understand why others would find it offensive.
What I have a hard time believing is why people go out of their way to BE offended. It's like some kind of weird hobby.
- J
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why does this pic freak me out?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Ahtman wrote:Repeating it doesn't really change anything. The four black guys in the Netherlands feelings about it doesn't change the global history of blackface or the capacity to understand why others would find it offensive.
Again, I am not saying it does. I'm saying that what "the rest of the world" (ie you) feel about it doesn't really change the fact that "the four black guys in the Netherlands" (ie the people who actually matter) are OK with it. I'm sure they would be confused about your lack of capacity to understand that they don't find it particularly offensive.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 necrondog99 wrote:What I have a hard time believing is why people go out of their way to BE offended. It's like some kind of weird hobby.
In this case one need not go out of their way, they just need to have functioning eyes. Having a solid understanding of history helps to, but isn't really needed. Automatically Appended Next Post: SilverMK2 wrote:Again, I am not saying it does. I'm saying that what "the rest of the world" (ie you) feel about it doesn't really change the fact that "the four black guys in the Netherlands" (ie the people who actually matter) are OK with it. I'm sure they would be confused about your lack of capacity to understand that they don't find it particularly offensive.
I understand why they wouldn't find it offensive, and I would thank you to not put words in my mouth, as I never even alluded to such a thing. I would disagree that in a global, or even just European, environment pretending to be completely isolated is a bit silly, and that nothing anyone else says or thinks has no impact whatsoever. This whole thread was started because the UN (a Global organization) made a statement about it, so it seems like the place to discuss it in a broader sense. If we could only discuss it in the limited purview of only the POV of those in the Netherlands then it wouldn't be up for discussion at all, but that isn't the context of this thread.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Ahtman wrote: necrondog99 wrote:What I have a hard time believing is why people go out of their way to BE offended. It's like some kind of weird hobby.
In this case one need not go out of their way, they just need to have functioning eyes. Having a solid understanding of history helps to, but isn't really needed.
So have you ever heard of this tradition before the UN made it an issue? Sinterklaas as we call it is also celebrated in Belgium, but were the only ones catching the flak from the spokeswoman of the UN. Besides we have adapted it in the US, because there people were offended by it. But here it doesnt seem to offend that many people, not even the decendants of former slaves living here. And to use a Dutch argument starting to pop up against the US: isnt it discriminatory to use little people as elfs to santa clause. Or isnt the use of elves to make toys also a depiction of slavery, without the offensive blackface?
Im not entirely sure about myself on the issue, I can see the offensive side, yet there are many traditions people can find offensive. But this all seems a bit biased. Why not put some people of colour from the Netherlands on the board. Why use a Jamaican as a spokesperson, which many Dutch already perceive as biased before finishing the research? Why not someone with Asian or Middle-Eastern roots? Her remarks to Dutch media dont make the situation any better, since we feel we have already been condemned before we can defend ourselves.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
I haven't had much luck with the Dutch or the Belgians. My workplace hire them out by the dozen, as well as other immigrants. They don't mix very well togheter. It's been a wake up call, since I didn't realize how much racism was still very frequent in western Europe.
There's this adorable looking belgian hottie that keeps trying to tell me that gangs of muslim rapists hunt at night in Brussels. A boner is a hard thing to reconcile with horrifying racism, let me tell you that.
78893
Post by: mr_bruno
Because Schwarze Peter has a wife/girlfriend?
I see the need to ban/distort traditions for the sake of hurt feelings has spread to Europe? Alas.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Blackface does not mean the same thing always and everywhere.
221
Post by: Frazzled
There's this adorable looking belgian hottie that keeps trying to tell me that gangs of muslim rapists hunt at night in Brussels. A boner is a hard thing to reconcile with horrifying racism, let me tell you that.
Unless she's accurate of course. DOn't assume not unless there is evidence otherwise.
My view. These countries can tell the UN to bite them, and of course Merry Christmas.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
 Kovnik Obama wrote:I haven't had much luck with the Dutch or the Belgians. My workplace hire them out by the dozen, as well as other immigrants. They don't mix very well togheter. It's been a wake up call, since I didn't realize how much racism was still very frequent in western Europe. There's this adorable looking belgian hottie that keeps trying to tell me that gangs of muslim rapists hunt at night in Brussels. A boner is a hard thing to reconcile with horrifying racism, let me tell you that.
Its mostly politics driving up the rascism in the last couple of years. You have probably heard of Wilders, but most European countries have similar people in politics. Sadly they affect people with their opinions about muslims ( atm). But those are people who have in most cases never even had a prolonged conversation with a muslim. To illustrate, Wilders has a large base of support in our South-East province, which has one of the lowest amounts of muslims that live there. Again, sadly these people seem to accept things they hear from politicians, without them trying to check out the facts for themselves. Its not as bad as people would like you to believe, its more xenophobia that real rascism, which (correct me if Im wrong) seems to be similar to say the attitude of some people in the US towards Mexican immigrants. That Belgian coworker might not be the most representative, you should ask her if she used to vote for Vlaams Belang, that would clear things up.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 Frazzled wrote:
There's this adorable looking belgian hottie that keeps trying to tell me that gangs of muslim rapists hunt at night in Brussels. A boner is a hard thing to reconcile with horrifying racism, let me tell you that.
Unless she's accurate of course. DOn't assume not unless there is evidence otherwise.
She's making it sound as if there's a couvre-feu at dark and any white person caught outside will be beaten up if male or raped if female. She is not accurate. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Disciple of Fate wrote: To illustrate, Wilders has a large base of support in our South-East province, which has one of the lowest amounts of muslims that live there.
I'm trying to find numbers on ethnic and religious groups in Belgium, to have an idea how much of the population is muslim. I keep running into the 3.5% of financial support from the state, but that doesn't give much of an idea. Would you happen to know how much of Belgium is muslim? Its not as bad as people would like you to believe, its more xenophobia that real rascism, which (correct me if Im wrong) seems to be similar to say the attitude of some people in the US towards Mexican immigrants.
Or some French-Canadians against non-franchophones. There's xenophobia everywhere, it's the result of a natural bias. What's more troubling, in what I see from my co-workers, is that voicing xenophobic comments seems to be perfectly acceptable. I mean, I've displayed my disgust for their opinions quite a few times, and they keep on bringing it up. She (and her other compatriots) work in a VERY diverse workplace, yet they don't mind voicing very racist comments out loud only a few meters away from those that would (and should) take offence. Right now in Quebec we have a sort of multi-cultural crisis (built out of nothing, really) over the integration of muslims, around questions of reasonnable accomodations. Do we allow a government employee to render public services while wearing the hijab or the burka? How do we respond to a request by a muslim parent to have their daughter taught exclusively by females? That kind of question. A lot of it is driven by xenophobia, but if a single politician were to slip and make an actual racist comment, he'd be destroyed publicly. One public figure already did, and despite the fact that she's held in a lot of admiration here, her reputation will never recover. That Belgian coworker might not be the most representative, you should ask her if she used to vote for Vlaams Belang, that would clear things up.
It's why I said I haven't had much luck as of yet. That co-worker is representative of the group of belgian workers, at the very least, so (blonde) kids between 20-25. Here it's that specific group which is the most sensitive to ethnic and immigrations issues, sometimes even a little too much. So I was really surprised. I do know 2 couples of muslims that have lived in France and Belgium and moved here because the social stigma was too much. Of course, that's also anecdotal evidence...
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Kovnik Obama wrote:Its not as bad as people would like you to believe, its more xenophobia that real rascism, which (correct me if Im wrong) seems to be similar to say the attitude of some people in the US towards Mexican immigrants.
Or some French-Canadians against non-franchophones. There's xenophobia everywhere, it's the result of a natural bias. What's more troubling, in what I see from my co-workers, is that voicing xenophobic comments seems to be perfectly acceptable. I mean, I've displayed my disgust for their opinions quite a few times, and they keep on bringing it up. She (and her other compatriots) work in a VERY diverse workplace, yet they don't mind voicing very racist comments out loud only a few meters away from those that would (and should) take offence.
Right now in Quebec we have a sort of multi-cultural crisis (built out of nothing, really) over the integration of muslims, around questions of reasonnable accomodations. Do we allow a government employee to render public services while wearing the hijab or the burka? How do we respond to a request by a muslim parent to have their daughter taught exclusively by females? That kind of question. A lot of it is driven by xenophobia, but if a single politician were to slip and make an actual racist comment, he'd be destroyed publicly. One public figure already did, and despite the fact that she's held in a lot of admiration here, her reputation will never recover.
But couldn't you argue for the removal of the burqa and/or hijab on the idea that it's sexist as it dehumanizes women (removes their identity)? 
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm trying to find numbers on ethnic and religious groups in Belgium, to have an idea how much of the population is muslim. I keep running into the 3.5% of financial support from the state, but that doesn't give much of an idea. Would you happen to know how much of Belgium is muslim?
Its about 5% of the population, 400.000-500.000.
Or some French-Canadians against non-franchophones. There's xenophobia everywhere, it's the result of a natural bias. What's more troubling, in what I see from my co-workers, is that voicing xenophobic comments seems to be perfectly acceptable. I mean, I've displayed my disgust for their opinions quite a few times, and they keep on bringing it up. She (and her other compatriots) work in a VERY diverse workplace, yet they don't mind voicing very racist comments out loud only a few meters away from those that would (and should) take offence.
Right now in Quebec we have a sort of multi-cultural crisis (built out of nothing, really) over the integration of muslims, around questions of reasonnable accomodations. Do we allow a government employee to render public services while wearing the hijab or the burka? How do we respond to a request by a muslim parent to have their daughter taught exclusively by females? That kind of question. A lot of it is driven by xenophobia, but if a single politician were to slip and make an actual racist comment, he'd be destroyed publicly. One public figure already did, and despite the fact that she's held in a lot of admiration here, her reputation will never recover.
Its a result of the political culture here. Its a very much accepted fact that is defended by free speech. Pointing out the rascism and making comparisons with fascist parties is a no-go, while saying things which might destroy you politically in Canada are perfectly acceptable (things like calling a hijab a headrag was accepted, even though most found the term extremely offensive).
It's why I said I haven't had much luck as of yet. That co-worker is representative of the group of belgian workers, at the very least, so (blonde) kids between 20-25. Here it's that specific group which is the most sensitive to ethnic and immigrations issues, sometimes even a little too much. So I was really surprised.
I do know 2 couples of muslims that have lived in France and Belgium and moved here because the social stigma was too much. Of course, that's also anecdotal evidence...
Thats an unfortunate group. Most people dont share those views, most Belgians have more problems with the French-Dutch speaking issues than with groups of people like muslims. But it the social stigma could be too much for some I guess, because of the disproportionate amount of attention these xenophobic views receive in the media.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 Cheesecat wrote:But couldn't you argue for the removal of the burqa and/or hijab on the idea that it's sexist as it dehumanizes women (removes their identity)?
Well, it's the subjacent point of those that aren't motivated by xenophobia. Basically, they see any restriction on the wearing of the burka or hijab as an advancement for the feminist cause. The problem there is that there is no way to properly discriminate between women who say they've chosen to wear the burka and actually did as a matter of personal faith from those that say they've chosen to wear the burka but were actually forced into it. On the specific point of wearing the burka while working as a government employee, the rationale from the government to make it illegal is that ostentatious display of religiosity equivalates to unfairness. So they also want to restrict Catholic government employees from wearing a cross on display, or anything else clearly religious. Because it means that they could offer more to those of the same religion, or less to those of others, or would use their position to try to convert you, etc. Obviously, this point has been destroyed by our Quebec Human Rights Charter watchdogs. Ostentatious display of religiosity is not even a sign of religiosity, nowadays.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Manchu wrote:Blackface does not mean the same thing always and everywhere.
Of course, but we shouldn't confuse just wearing black make up with blackface either. It isn't racist like the KKK or BNP is racist, but it is part of a set of outdated iconography that isn't positive. I don't think it is meant to offend, but that rarely effects whether something actually is offensive, and I don't think it is really the UN's place to wag their finger at them about it either. Maybe a better way to put it is that it isn't racist, but it is problematic. It would seem some in the Netherlands already recognized this and started to try and change the background of the character (dark from soot from climbing down the chimney instead of just being a black servant) in the 50's, but haven't changed the image or symbol associate with it.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
So wait... Dutch Santa is basically based off of a real-life old European saint with his real-life slave?
And the Depiction of both has gone pretty cartoony over the centuries, with the Saint becoming Santa Claus-ish and the slave becoming a clown-like sambo which people dress in black-face to represent?
Uh... it is racist. A Religious Cardinal in Red with a bunch of slaves was changed to a Fat Toyman in Red with 'otherworldy' elves for a reason.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kovnik Obama wrote: Frazzled wrote:
There's this adorable looking belgian hottie that keeps trying to tell me that gangs of muslim rapists hunt at night in Brussels. A boner is a hard thing to reconcile with horrifying racism, let me tell you that.
Unless she's accurate of course. DOn't assume not unless there is evidence otherwise.
She's making it sound as if there's a couvre-feu at dark and any white person caught outside will be beaten up if male or raped if female. She is not accurate.
Unless you live there you don't know. I've heard in some areas it is in fact bad, but I don't know. The closest I have been is Paris...
...Paris, Texas.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
nkelsch wrote: A Religious Cardinal in Red with a bunch of slaves was changed to a Fat Toyman in Red with 'otherworldy' elves for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Origins
Further links to original characters
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
nkelsch wrote:So wait... Dutch Santa is basically based off of a real-life old European saint with his real-life slave? And the Depiction of both has gone pretty cartoony over the centuries, with the Saint becoming Santa Claus-ish and the slave becoming a clown-like sambo which people dress in black-face to represent? Uh... it is racist. A Religious Cardinal in Red with a bunch of slaves was changed to a Fat Toyman in Red with 'otherworldy' elves for a reason.
Just to make it a bit more clear, Zwarte Piet is a former slave freed by Saint Nicholas that helps him distribute gifts to children. On the issue that the blackface might be soot, there are several origin stories, one was actually that the chimney soot made their face black. It changed to what it currently is, which not everybody agrees too, but its tradition,, again there are similar ones. What about the depiction of native-americans or the celebration of thanksgiving? Both have negative connotations, what if the UN wanted to remove those? But back on topic, would you rather have the other story that he might represent a deamon that is bound to the saint and punished in this way. That makes it way more racist than people already perceive it to be. I can understand were you guys are coming from, but the question is if we have to cancel everything even slightly offensive just to be pc.
46913
Post by: Floris
So let me get this straight:
Man who frees slaves and asks them to help him spread joy, pays them for their work, lets them join him when traveling the world and bringing joy is bad.
Man who hides elves away in the most inhospitable place on earth, forces them to make toys, doesn't allow them to join him when spreading joy is good.
Glad I understand now.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Disciple of Fate wrote:nkelsch wrote:So wait... Dutch Santa is basically based off of a real-life old European saint with his real-life slave?
And the Depiction of both has gone pretty cartoony over the centuries, with the Saint becoming Santa Claus-ish and the slave becoming a clown-like sambo which people dress in black-face to represent?
Uh... it is racist. A Religious Cardinal in Red with a bunch of slaves was changed to a Fat Toyman in Red with 'otherworldy' elves for a reason.
Just to make it a bit more clear, Zwarte Piet is a former slave freed by Saint Nicholas that helps him distribute gifts to children.
Well, to be fair, it doesn't seem to be the only 'origin story' for Black Pete. In the other one, he is a Devil figure...
68674
Post by: The Grumpy Eldar
Yeah that's basicly it. Now some uninformed idiot from the UN demands that it'll be banned. Because of slavery... wich has been scrapped for centuries in western countries. People seem to stay butthurt about it, but there's nobody alive whom has lived in that slavery... they still use it to whine.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Well, to be fair, it doesn't seem to be the only 'origin story' for Black Pete. In the other one, he is a Devil figure...
No no, in that version he would be a humanified Gargoyle like the ones you see on churches and on the Notre Dame not really a devil.
Well... in fact, Black Peter IS a gargoyle on the Notre Dame.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, to be fair, it doesn't seem to be the only 'origin story' for Black Pete. In the other one, he is a Devil figure...
Yeah I mentioned that a bit further down together with the chimney sweep one. This origin story is just the one that is currently accepted. Imagine the backlash if the tradition was the same but we hung on to the deamonic origin story. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Scrazza wrote:This UN statement is b*llshit.
First off, children grow out of the idea of 'Sinterklaas' and 'Zwarte Piet'. If you take it away from them, the children will not understand and be upset. Children need these kind of imaginary good guys. They grow up with them. Heck, a lot of grown up people are upset as well, it's like taking away half of your childhood memories.
If people of black origin find it offensive, Then it's their problem. Black origin people came to live here, and have to respect our ways of life. I don't feel like we have to change our ways of life, which are ingrained in our society for hundreds of years, just so that a couple of foreigners won't get offended, who have been here for, at the most, two or three generations.
Whenever Sinterklaas comes to town, you see a lot of immigrant kids, including black immigrants, celebrating the coming of Sinterklaas, because they get presents.
I hope you don't take my opinion as racist, which was not meant as such. This is just the way I feel
To be honest, I forgot Sinterklaas was coming in a couple of weeks. It's this news that reminded me of it. And let's face it, it's been a couple of years that we have had to deal with this kind of news.
This might be the best way to describe Sinterklaas and the current view on what the UN is trying to do. I feel its a bit like the whalewars episode from South Park, where it ends on the note off 'great job son, now the Japanese are normal, like us'.
8907
Post by: cadbren
Ahtman wrote: Manchu wrote:Blackface does not mean the same thing always and everywhere.
Of course, but we shouldn't confuse just wearing black make up with blackface either. It isn't racist like the KKK or BNP is racist, but it is part of a set of outdated iconography that isn't positive. I don't think it is meant to offend, but that rarely effects whether something actually is offensive, and I don't think it is really the UN's place to wag their finger at them about it either. Maybe a better way to put it is that it isn't racist, but it is problematic. It would seem some in the Netherlands already recognized this and started to try and change the background of the character (dark from soot from climbing down the chimney instead of just being a black servant) in the 50's, but haven't changed the image or symbol associate with it.
Black Pete goes back before the slave trade. The current manifestation is definitely a form of blackface though and comes from the medieval/renaissance image of the moor as a black man. Likely adopted because it was a real world example of a black skinned person. My guess is that Black Pete has his origins as a black elf from Germanic paganism and is likely related to the German Krampus. There are elements of Odin that are mixed in with St. Nicolas too.
Traditional Mummers plays in Cornwall have a man dressed up as a black skinned person too, also likely of pagan origin and nothing to do with actual black people unless it's a cultural memory of black skinned pirates in some ancient time.
121
Post by: Relapse
 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:Now we got some total from the UN trying to ban it. It's a traditional festivity. They should just butt out.
The idiot had an argument that this county doesn't need 2 Santa Clauses... Seriously this is the OG Santa Clause, unlike the Coca Cola one. Who was just made to gain massive profits.
Careful with that kind o talk lad, it's a politically incorrect way of saying slowed, as I understand it. 
I don't know with Movies like White Chicks, Eddie Murphy in whiteface, and other comedians following suit for comic effect, I really don't think twice either way about it, no matter who is pretending to be any particular race.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6V25aqQblM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dp6V25aqQblM
http://www.snotr.com/video/422/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteface_(performance)
Then there are always performances by black entertainers lampooning white people, etc. I think it's a non issue either way, really, and I'm with Lenny Bruce on his N word monolouge.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
I'm still trying to figure out what is racist about black peter ,(apart from maybe his name ) is he a negative stereotype? Is he putting people of colour in a bad light? Unless having a depiction of black people is racist I don't see what grounds the UN has to declare black pietr racist.
The UN is weird.
68674
Post by: The Grumpy Eldar
cadbren wrote:
Black Pete goes back before the slave trade. The current manifestation is definitely a form of blackface though and comes from the medieval/renaissance image of the moor as a black man. Likely adopted because it was a real world example of a black skinned person. My guess is that Black Pete has his origins as a black elf from Germanic paganism and is likely related to the German Krampus. There are elements of Odin that are mixed in with St. Nicolas too.
Traditional Mummers plays in Cornwall have a man dressed up as a black skinned person too, also likely of pagan origin and nothing to do with actual black people unless it's a cultural memory of black skinned pirates in some ancient time.
They could have been Moors, yes. But definately no elves for sure. We have a horror movie here about the Saint and his chaps. They look like burnt Moors
I might find a video.
Edit: Found it.
If you don't like gorey movies don't watch.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
I'm both baffled and amazed by anyone that can't see how blackface is racist.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I think the offense is due to black face stereotyping black people's physical features as well as being a cultural icon that represents a more racist era, I mean people usually don't get offended for no reason.
67431
Post by: Ninjacommando
Different types of black face.
Notice that the hair isn't Dirty, and that the lips are just the guys painted red
Notice dirty hair, exaggerated lips, crazy looking eyes. an offensive black face
Should the UN look into Ganguro for it being racist to over tanned white folks?
Now if Zwarte piet was actually played by a black man would it be okay? or would it be racist to only allow a black male to play Zwarte piet?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ahtman wrote:Maybe a better way to put it is that it isn't racist, but it is problematic.
Agreed.
8907
Post by: cadbren
Why not? It makes more sense that a pagan tradition survived in heavily modified form than some random foreign group was used in a major folk festival.
We have a horror movie here about the Saint and his chaps. They look like burnt Moors
I have this movie on DVD. It's okay but lacks suspense. The burnt "pirates" were an interesting version of the black petes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ninjacommando wrote:Different types of black face.
Should the UN look into Ganguro for it being racist to over tanned white folks?
Creepy.
Now if Zwarte piet was actually played by a black man would it be okay?
It shouldn't matter who plays him, either you support the character or you don't. He's a traditional part of Dutch culture. I note the UN doesn't give a fig about actual oppression in places like Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe so this attack on a centuries old tradition is ridiculous.
Now this is outragous. Specist elephants mocking pandas.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
They have a similar tradition in parts of Germany where kids go around dressed as the three wise men, and one of them has his face blackened.
I'm not sure how it's perceived by the black population here.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
So let me get this right, black face is automatically racist regardless of intentions?
IMO the people attributing racism to it are the problem. The whole tradition is based on the bringing of joy to children. I grew up with this stuff and can tell you for a fact that kids never even make the connection between actual black people and black pete, I had black classmates who didn't even make that connection.
The problem here is butthurt foreign people trying to force their attitudes on a tradition they know nothing about and have never experienced first hand.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Evidently Othello was racist. Shakespeare, the First Grand Dragon of the KKK!
To Europeans. In the US blackface has a long history of deep racist linkings via minstrel shows etc. Its an ingrained response here.
To Americans, not everyone wearing face paint has the same culture and traditions. Back off a little.
To Canadians. Where's the freaking Tim Hortons I ordered??? 
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
 Soladrin wrote:So let me get this right, black face is automatically racist regardless of intentions?
IMO the people attributing racism to it are the problem. The whole tradition is based on the bringing of joy to children. I grew up with this stuff and can tell you for a fact that kids never even make the connection between actual black people and black pete, I had black classmates who didn't even make that connection.
The problem here is butthurt foreign people trying to force their attitudes on a tradition they know nothing about and have never experienced first hand.
Exactly.
And what would we tell the kids if Zwarte Piet would be made 'illegal'?
'Yeah, sorry, but ehh... Zwarte Piet got killed by the UN.'
33125
Post by: Seaward
I'm still unclear why it has to be a white guy playing a black guy.
Also, I'm pretty sure the Dutch love the UN just as much as other Europeans. Just how big an existential crisis is this causing in the souls of Netherlanders?
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
 Seaward wrote:I'm still unclear why it has to be a white guy playing a black guy.
Also, I'm pretty sure the Dutch love the UN just as much as other Europeans. Just how big an existential crisis is this causing in the souls of Netherlanders?
Talk to any random person about it and there's a chance of around 90% they'll start complaining about the UN.
And the woman in charge if the investigation has already said that she thinks it's discriminating - and she won't change her opinion on that matter. Biased investigation, yay
22783
Post by: Soladrin
thenoobbomb wrote: Seaward wrote:I'm still unclear why it has to be a white guy playing a black guy.
Also, I'm pretty sure the Dutch love the UN just as much as other Europeans. Just how big an existential crisis is this causing in the souls of Netherlanders?
Talk to any random person about it and there's a chance of around 90% they'll start complaining about the UN.
And the woman in charge if the investigation has already said that she thinks it's discriminating - and she won't change her opinion on that matter. Biased investigation, yay
Yep, best way to start an investigation.
And as for why it has to be a white person? It doesn't, I've seen black people do it too.
One of my colleagues does a lot of theatre work, including with this tradition, she once tried to do the whole multicoloured pete thing and immediately got into fights with parents over how she was ruining childhoods. The UN can say what they want, it won't change anything.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Frazzled wrote:Evidently Othello was racist. Shakespeare, the First Grand Dragon of the KKK!
To Europeans. In the US blackface has a long history of deep racist linkings via minstrel shows etc. Its an ingrained response here.
To Americans, not everyone wearing face paint has the same culture and traditions. Back off a little.
To Canadians. Where's the freaking Tim Hortons I ordered???
I think most Europeans understand that blackface is offensive in the US. But it dosn't matter what is offensive in the US. It matters if it is offensive in the Netherlands or not.
A few years ago there was a big stink about black faced morris dancers in the UK. It died down after a while when people pointed out it had nothing to do with race, and infact dated back hundreds of years.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:Evidently Othello was racist. Shakespeare, the First Grand Dragon of the KKK!
.. what ?
To Europeans. In the US blackface has a long history of deep racist linkings via minstrel shows etc. Its an ingrained response here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show
33125
Post by: Seaward
That should probably be at the top of their Wikipedia entry.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well if this is racist, then Othello is racist because of black paint Olivier. Who new Lord Olivier was so evil.*
*Note this is sarcasm. Olivier we miss you!
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:Well if this is racist, then Othello is racist because of black paint Olivier.
It is possible to have a black man, or arab man depending on your take, play Othello is entirely possible nowadays, since this isn't 17th and 18th century Britain. We also rarely have all male productions of Shakespeare anymore either. Just a simple google of "Olivier Othello" will net you articles from now and when it was released criticizing it. It was considered offensive enough in the US that the film only showed for two days in the US at it's release, we can still compare the difference between his makeup and others:
and this is blackface:
Just darkening one's skin is not the same thing. Perhaps many of you have not actually seen or met a person of African heritage. Even the very very dark are not actually black, and they do not have bright red lips.
Compare this:
Or this:
to this:
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
That last picture is already controversial in the Netherlands and most public event are starting or have dropped the earrings and overly curly wigs. The issue at hand is that current generations dont make the connection of Zwarte Piet=person of colour. WE no longer perceive it as such and see it as a fictional character for children. Just to make clear there already have been discussions on racist implications and Zwarte Piet is slowly being adapted. What pisses most people off is the UN interferring in what is essentially an internal matter that has almost no effect on people outside the Netherlands, be honest, have you ever heard of it before the UN brought it to attention. And when we continue the debate for sake of equally changing traditions because of rascism, what about this? Its an Iranian tradition, but the point of why we are condemned on as rascist seems to be quite similar, yet the UN isnt investigating this? Its starting to become of a bit of a running joke on the UN in the last few days, in different forms: UN person 1: So we have effectivly stopped those rascists in the Netherlands, whats next? UN person 2: What about Hajji Firuz in Iran, thats seems rascist too. UN person 1: Woah, woah, woah... Iran? Are you kidding me, that way too dangerous to visit and politically volatile. No, no... lets try something else in Europe. The other ones are quite more offensive (Syria, Somalia etc.) or starting with 'thank god for world peace, now we have time for this important issue in the Netherlands...'. People do see the rascist side in the Netherlands (and slowly adapting because of how its perceived), but the feeling the UN is attacking us as a bunch of rascists is just achieving the opposite effect of turning public opinion against change and entrenching it in its current form. So the only efffect the UN has just achieved is that it has put the slow transformation process back by a couple of dozen years.
8907
Post by: cadbren
I assume you realise that the man in this picture is actually black? As in a black man in blackface.
Blackface was also used when performing certain acts, I think ones to do with negro derived culture. It wasn't seen as appropriate for a white person to perform negro derived songs and music but it was okay if done in blackface.
3802
Post by: chromedog
I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.
Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
 chromedog wrote:
I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.
Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?
Sorry... My bad... Having a moment and put the wrong country. I was talking to a friend about a vaguely related subject (Specifically Danish Christmas traditions, as her mother is danish) at the same time as typing. Apologies and corrected.
5470
Post by: sebster
Personally, I don't really give a gak whether the Netherlands continues to use blackface in a racist caricature or not. If it causes enough offence, then the people who are genuinely offended by this in the Netherlands should get that across and convince enough other people to get the festival changed or dropped. I don't think anything is helped by the rest of us getting offended on behalf of other people who may or may not be bothered, though. Nor is it really the place of the UN to pick this one festival out and decide whether it is racist or not. The UN does plenty of good work in facilitating discussion on racism, but only in the context of raising awareness of the issue in the local population. Picking out a festival and saying 'that's racist' doesn't achieve anything, and isn't really what the UN is there for. That said, I do find it quite fascinating that some dakkaites will honest to God sit there pretending that a really racist bit of blackface isn't a racist bit of blackface. Whether they're doing it out their constant need to complain about the UN or their constant need to complain about PC gone made I don't know, but it is incredible. The UN can't ban this. Surprisingly, the UN has no legal authority over local festivals in the Netherlands. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cheesecat wrote:But couldn't you argue for the removal of the burqa and/or hijab on the idea that it's sexist as it dehumanizes women (removes their identity)?
Not really, because if its banned then the women who feel strong cultural pressure to wear it won't suddenly start walking around in public showing their face, arms and legs to the general public. Instead they'll just stop appearing in public. I think there's a lot of really strong feminists arguments against the burqua, and I think the best ones go beyond just the burqua and use that as just a starting point in showing how unhealthily the female body is fetishised in much of Islam. But talk of actually banning the burqua... that's not a feminist thing, that's a 'we are afraid of Islam and feel the need to jerk them around believing that will somehow make us less afraid' thing. Automatically Appended Next Post: Disciple of Fate wrote:I can understand were you guys are coming from, but the question is if we have to cancel everything even slightly offensive just to be pc.
This isn't one of the 'slightly offensive' things, though, is it? It is a guy dressed in blackface, afro wig and all. I mean, I'm not saying whether this should be banned or not, but it isn't as though there isn't a mile of difference between this and, say, Thanksgiving. Automatically Appended Next Post: Are you honestly ignorant of the racism in Shakespeare? Go off and read the Merchant of Venice, 500 word essay due this time tomorrow.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
 sebster wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:But couldn't you argue for the removal of the burqa and/or hijab on the idea that it's sexist as it dehumanizes women (removes their identity)?
Not really, because if its banned then the women who feel strong cultural pressure to wear it won't suddenly start walking around in public showing their face, arms and legs to the general public. Instead they'll just stop appearing in public.
I think there's a lot of really strong feminists arguments against the burqua, and I think the best ones go beyond just the burqua and use that as just a starting point in showing how unhealthily the female body is fetishised in much of Islam. But talk of actually banning the burqua... that's not a feminist thing, that's a 'we are afraid of Islam and feel the need to jerk them around believing that will somehow make us less afraid' thing.
Yeah, you're probably right if being covered up in public is the norm in your culture you're just going to make the person feel alienated if you remove that right from them, also only a few Muslim-majority countries actually make it mandatory to wear hijab but I'll be honest having seen women in
niqabs in person before I do feel uncomfortable around them.
8907
Post by: cadbren
The numbers of muslim women wearing burquas in western countries is tiny. You might as well ban red shoes with purple polka dots on them for all the effect it will have.
It's an easy way for governments to be seen to be doing something about the more radical aspects of islam. It's like having to put all your stuff into see through bags before getting on a plane. It doesn't actually do anything to keep you safe but many obviously feel better knowing that something is being done.
They can't ban the headscarf that the women wear because a lot of females wear scarves and head coverings. I do think that banning burquas in banks, courts of law, photo id is necessary and is no different than banning people from wearing full face motorcycle helmets which are banned for the same security reasons.
75444
Post by: Allod
sebster wrote:Personally, I don't really give a gak whether the Netherlands continues to use blackface in a racist caricature or not. If it causes enough offence, then the people who are genuinely offended by this in the Netherlands should get that across and convince enough other people to get the festival changed or dropped. I don't think anything is helped by the rest of us getting offended on behalf of other people who may or may not be bothered, though.
IMHO, this is the most practical and mature attitude towards the whole affair.
It's all a bit like with the old Jew-jokes in Germany and Austria: If you want to make yourself a social outcast for telling them, go ahead. Changes in society made those unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of the people, which is much preferable to any kind of legal intervention. In the case at hand, such intervention is not yet on the table, but it already happens FAR too often in Europe.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote:I can understand were you guys are coming from, but the question is if we have to cancel everything even slightly offensive just to be pc.
This isn't one of the 'slightly offensive' things, though, is it? It is a guy dressed in blackface, afro wig and all.
I mean, I'm not saying whether this should be banned or not, but it isn't as though there isn't a mile of difference between this and, say, Thanksgiving.
Well to be fair this isnt one indeed, I never tried to say such a thing, sorry if it could be interpeted that way. But this is a really difficult issue for us in the Netherlands, we dont see the rascism, because the tradition and the imitation have become so detached from real life that almost nobody makes the connection anymore. But people from the outside do, as shown recently. But we were slowly changing it, so this doesnt help the process. Why attack us as rascists, instead of trying to help us understand the rascist aspect, like the original investigation was trying to do.
But just to put my Thanksgiving remark into context. As a foreigner I have only the slightest idea of the concept, so to me it could also be the celebration of the start of genocide, something on which it could be attacked. And to be fair, the throwback to slavery was the reason this was attacked, while it only started in earnest when slavery was already abolished. So it only takes one person placed high enough to draw a conclusion and move in, which seems to be a dangerous trend, because there are so many things that can be seen as wrong with the Netherlands (some actual problems which they should have inspected, like Wilders and the limit of free speech).
The spokeswoman was interviewed a day after the investigation was announced by Dutch media. The things she said in that interview angered people while they were only suprised at first. She makes us seem like a bunch of rascists and her remark that we dont need two Santa Clauses show that she has no idea of our history and the tradition which predates the real American Santa Clause. The question in the Netherlands is if this isnt in some way rascist to the Dutch? Should we just join Belgium or vice versa, because we have the same costums and language? I mean we dont need two of the same countries when we already have one right? These are the only things that it has caused so far, no change, just anger and entrenchment.
221
Post by: Frazzled
chromedog wrote:
I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.
Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?
Both start with a D. You Europeans are all the same to us TexMex eaters. Except Leichtenstein of course.
8907
Post by: cadbren
Frazzled wrote: chromedog wrote:
I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.
Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?
Both start with a D. You Europeans are all the same to us TexMex eaters. Except Leichtenstein of course.
Isn't that where those little guys in the green hats with lots of gold come from?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think thats Ecuador.
67431
Post by: Ninjacommando
Don't know what "orange is the new black" is but thats what people call blackface now? jesus she looks more like a tanning bed victm
5470
Post by: sebster
Cheesecat wrote:Yeah, you're probably right if being covered up in public is the norm in your culture you're just going to make the person feel alienated if you remove that right from them, also only a few Muslim-majority countries actually make it mandatory to wear hijab but I'll be honest having seen women in
niqabs in person before I do feel uncomfortable around them.
I don't feel uncomfortable as much as I feel bad for them. It would be very strange to go through life having such a massive boundary drawn between you and society.
But I just don't see these women being liberated if it was banned, nor do I believe their liberation is at all a motivation among many of the people who argue for such. Automatically Appended Next Post: Disciple of Fate wrote:Well to be fair this isnt one indeed, I never tried to say such a thing, sorry if it could be interpeted that way. But this is a really difficult issue for us in the Netherlands, we dont see the rascism, because the tradition and the imitation have become so detached from real life that almost nobody makes the connection anymore. But people from the outside do, as shown recently. But we were slowly changing it, so this doesnt help the process. Why attack us as rascists, instead of trying to help us understand the rascist aspect, like the original investigation was trying to do.
Yeah, that really gets to the core of the issue. Declaring that it's racist and must end just pisses people off and makes them defensive. Raising awareness of the issue and how ethnic minorities might see the custom, and how it might make them feel is a good way forward... provided its a genuinely open-ended conversation that genuinely considers the possibilty that this really doesn't bother local minority groups.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
sebster wrote: Cheesecat wrote:Yeah, you're probably right if being covered up in public is the norm in your culture you're just going to make the person feel alienated if you remove that right from them, also only a few Muslim-majority countries actually make it mandatory to wear hijab but I'll be honest having seen women in
niqabs in person before I do feel uncomfortable around them.
I don't feel uncomfortable as much as I feel bad for them. It would be very strange to go through life having such a massive boundary drawn between you and society.
But I just don't see these women being liberated if it was banned, nor do I believe their liberation is at all a motivation among many of the people who argue for such.
Well, I feel bad for them as well but as you mentioned before it's pretty much useless to ban burqas as those women come from a society where you shouldn't be showing your body in public and as such will just encourage them to never go out in public and yes, most people probably want
to see the removal of the burqa for ethnocentric reasons rather than because of women's liberation (which wouldn't really liberate them if you banned it in Canada), I was just trying to come up with alternate reasons even if they're quite flawed.
5470
Post by: sebster
Cheesecat wrote:Well, I feel bad for them as well but as you mentioned before it's pretty much useless to ban burqas as those women come from a society where you shouldn't be showing your body in public and as such will just encourage them to never go out in public and yes, most people probably want
to see the removal of the burqa for ethnocentric reasons rather than because of women's liberation (which wouldn't really liberate them if you banned it in Canada), I was just trying to come up with alternate reasons even if they're quite flawed.
Yeah, sorry if my previous post wasn't clear - I was agreeing with everything you said and expanding on it.
75444
Post by: Allod
I think the argument rather goes that by banning for example the burqa, you make your country a less desirable target for further immigration by fundamentalist muslims, at least here where I live.
In my opinion that doesn't touch the core of the problem, but there you go.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
sebster wrote: Cheesecat wrote:Well, I feel bad for them as well but as you mentioned before it's pretty much useless to ban burqas as those women come from a society where you shouldn't be showing your body in public and as such will just encourage them to never go out in public and yes, most people probably want
to see the removal of the burqa for ethnocentric reasons rather than because of women's liberation (which wouldn't really liberate them if you banned it in Canada), I was just trying to come up with alternate reasons even if they're quite flawed.
Yeah, sorry if my previous post wasn't clear - I was agreeing with everything you said and expanding on it.
Oh, OK that's cool with me.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Allod wrote:I think the argument rather goes that by banning for example the burqa, you make your country a less desirable target for further immigration by fundamentalist muslims, at least here where I live.
In my opinion that doesn't touch the core of the problem, but there you go.
Unless the core of the problem is that muslims are immigrating into your country of course.
75444
Post by: Allod
Sorry, I don't follow?
37231
Post by: d-usa
I feel that for a portion of the population, the imigration of Muslims into their country is the core of the problem. But legislation saying "no Muslims allowed" is usually not something that they can get away with. So they pass legislation like the burqa bans under the disguise of caring about poor suppressed women, but are really passing it as an attempt to decrease Muslim imigration.
So it doesn't touch the core of the stated problem (equal gender rights), but still touches the core of the actual problem (keep them out).
75444
Post by: Allod
Ah, now I get it! Apologies, it's early here.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Allod wrote:I think the argument rather goes that by banning for example the burqa, you make your country a less desirable target for further immigration by fundamentalist muslims, at least here where I live.
In my opinion that doesn't touch the core of the problem, but there you go.
That argument is not AFAIK used in France, where a ban is in place, or in the UK, where there is some talk of a ban.
The French ban is basically ineffective and counter-productive, and has obviously failed, which I think any sensible person could have predicted on the basis of the logic that you cannot compel people to be free. Rather like the Swiss ban on minaret towers, it would appear to be a racist discrimination dressed up as good civics.
Interestingly, according to the Channel 4 FactCheck blog, the proportion of the British public favouring a ban has dropped over the past few years.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/britains-niqab-unveiling-facts-factcheck/16232
8907
Post by: cadbren
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Quite different. A burqua is a personal choice, even if it is one imposed due to ethnic/religious association. Minarets though are a form of fence. They say this is a muslim area. Minarets are where the call to prayer for the local community are sounded from, whether that is some guy actually shouting from them or a loudspeaker mounted on them. Particularly in old parts of Europe, having these minarets takes away from the traditional European feel of the towns in which they appear.
They're not necessary for a mosque to function, muslims have repeatedly shown that they can pray anywhere so having minarets serves no purpose other than to say "we're here". Historic towns have a right to protect their historic character.
5470
Post by: sebster
cadbren wrote:Quite different. A burqua is a personal choice, even if it is one imposed due to ethnic/religious association. Minarets though are a form of fence. They say this is a muslim area.
Do churches announce that it is a Christian area, and act as a fence. Because as an atheist I've walked through these areas and never excluded, but perhaps I was missing a bit clue in the vast religious property war raging around me.
Particularly in old parts of Europe, having these minarets takes away from the traditional European feel of the towns in which they appear.
The idea that the concrete shithole that is Geneva should worry that minarets take away from its traditional European feel is hilarious.
8907
Post by: cadbren
sebster wrote:
Do churches announce that it is a Christian area, and act as a fence. Because as an atheist I've walked through these areas and never excluded, but perhaps I was missing a bit clue in the vast religious property war raging around me.
No, but church spires and bell towers do. These things have been part of our culture though for over 1000 years, of course you don't feel excluded because atheist or not, it's still part of your heritage. Spires traditionally were a symbol of the local christian community, they were the tallest structures in most places for generations. I'm also an athiest but I consider the church, or at least the symbols of it, to be part of my culture. Most of the symbols are of pagan origin anyway so provide a link to my ancestors even further back.
The idea that the concrete shithole that is Geneva should worry that minarets take away from its traditional European feel is hilarious.
As I understand it there are other population centres in Switzerland, aside from which, if people don't want an overt symbol of a minority religion in their nation that is up to them. It's not like mosques themselves are banned.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Personally, I don't really give a gak whether the Netherlands continues to use blackface in a racist caricature or not. If it causes enough offence, then the people who are genuinely offended by this in the Netherlands should get that across and convince enough other people to get the festival changed or dropped. I don't think anything is helped by the rest of us getting offended on behalf of other people who may or may not be bothered, though.
Yes I think so..
MotoGP rider Marc Marquez had to apologise for this helmet he wore during the Japanese GP last weekend.. again, not really sure if the people complaining were Japanese (presumably not Spanish, thinking about the basketball team-thing from some years ago at the Olympics)
12313
Post by: Ouze
That story has me conflicted. On the one hand, I want to say that all blackface is bad, because appropriating a cultural identity for a gag as costume is patently offensive*. I think that is probably not in dispute. On the other hand - that's also sort of simplistic. This is not exactly what happened here - she dressed up as a specific character, who happened to be black. Her skin tone wasn't the costume, and her color was not a gag. This is not Ted Danson dressing in blackface and telling racial jokes for an hour.
While it might be telling that in her circle of friends - all of whom dressed up as cast members from the same show - not a single dark-skinned friend was available to play Crazy Eyes - nonetheless I think this falls into a much fuzzier area. That's my opinion, anyway.
Career-ise, she probably shouldn't have gone as Pennsatucky; but I am kind of doubtful that what she did was as offensive as some of what I have read have cast it as.
You know, there was a thread here a while back someone posted - perhaps Reds8n - in which a dark-skinned cosplayer got a lot of grief for dressing up as Asian or white characters. It seems like a fit analogy to me.
*unless it's a professional sports team, then it's just good clean fun and tradition
It is a popular show on cable television, set in a women's prison and based on a bestselling nonfiction story. Her friends and her all dressed up as various characters.
She went as "Crazy Eyes", the woman in the center right and one of the fan favorites. It's actually a really good show, I think you can rent it on blu-ray or whatever now.
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
Strange nobody says something about this in bodybuilding, because it is not "blackface"?
5470
Post by: sebster
Seriously, you see things that way? You see a spire or a bell tower and think 'this area is Christian', and then you feel like you belong there more than you would if you could see a synagogue or minaret? Wow. That's just a mile outside of my frame of reference.
As I understand it there are other population centres in Switzerland, aside from which, if people don't want an overt symbol of a minority religion in their nation that is up to them. It's not like mosques themselves are banned.
Of course it's up to them. Whether or not their decision is right is the question, not whether or not they get to make it.
Anyhow, I love cities. They are such a wonderful way to see how generations of people have lived in that one place. Go to the great cities of the world, like London or New York, and you see a wide variety of architecture, and you can see how that architecture came from the people who lived there at that time. Part of that are the great churches and synagogues that migrant groups built when they moved to the area.
Of course, other people love cities, but unfortunately they are other people who don't understand what it is that makes cities wonderful places. They think that it is just buildings and street that are wonderful in and of themselves, and that they can protect what they love about a city by making sure the buildings that new buildings look just like the old ones. We call these people town planners, or heritage protection boards, or a wide variety of other names, but really we just need to call them idiots. Because they don't understand that what's great about buildings is how they capture the lives of the people who lived and worked in these places.
The best example of this is when we give these people free reign to make a whole new city. Go and visit the cities that were built not because people naturally moved there, but because government said 'there will be a city there and we will give free reign to some planners to design it'. Go to Washington or Canberra, and notice that while the monuments are lovely, the city streets are boring, sterile, artificial. Then go to New York or Melbourne, and notice how every street has life and history in it.
Then consider what's being argued in Switzerland. "Yes you can move here and become part of our country, but there can be no architectural record of your presence, because we want to wrap our city up in a little time warp." Automatically Appended Next Post:  Jehan-reznor wrote:Strange nobody says something about this in bodybuilding, because it is not "blackface"?
Because it isn't being done to impersonate another ethnic group, it's just the very weird conclusion of a strange phenomenom in which people have thought more and more fake tanning products is more attractive.
37231
Post by: d-usa
sebster wrote:
Jehan-reznor wrote:Strange nobody says something about this in bodybuilding, because it is not "blackface"?
Because it isn't being done to impersonate another ethnic group, it's just the very weird conclusion of a strange phenomenom in which people have thought more and more fake tanning products is more attractive.
And to be fair, his face is the whitest thing in the picture...
8907
Post by: cadbren
sebster wrote:
Seriously, you see things that way? You see a spire or a bell tower and think 'this area is Christian', and then you feel like you belong there more than you would if you could see a synagogue or minaret? Wow. That's just a mile outside of my frame of reference.
I would feel more at home where there were traditional european architectural forms than obviously asian or islamic ones. I'm not aware that there is a particular style regarding synagogues, the ones I've seen tend to be pretty bland looking.
Of course it's up to them. Whether or not their decision is right is the question, not whether or not they get to make it.
The decision that is right is the one that best benefits the community in question, not some outsider's interpretation of how other people should live their lives. Holy f*** I can't believe you just said that, that's 1984, big brother garbage.
Anyhow, I love cities. They are such a wonderful way to see how generations of people have lived in that one place. Go to the great cities of the world, like London or New York, and you see a wide variety of architecture, and you can see
how that architecture came from the people who lived there at that time.
You mean fashions in architecture because the people remained largely the same until recent times. Yes London has always had a large immigrant community, but their contribution to the physical form of the city was negligible at best. Building fashions were driven from the top, not by immigrants.
Because they don't understand that what's great about buildings is how they capture the lives of the people who lived and worked in these places.
They capture popular artforms of the times in which they were built, nothing more. Anything else is us projecting our imaginations onto what it would have been like to live in a certain period. Most of the buildings you refer to have been remodelled/decorated internally countless times and certainly don't capture the lives of everyone who ever lived or worked in them.
The best example of this is when we give these people free reign to make a whole new city. Go and visit the cities that were built not because people naturally moved there, but because government said 'there will be a city there and we will give free reign to some planners to design it'. Go to Washington or Canberra,
Well designed cities, easy to navigate, very popular tourist destinations. Washington particularly has gone for a neo classical theme and it's pretty unique in having so many structures of that type in one place that are actually used.
What they lack is the chaos caused by eons of bad planning and ad hoc building. I live in a city like this, it's not that great. Many of the historic centres in Europe had the advantage of having city walls. When these were pulled down they had readymade spaces for ring roads and rail to connect the city - that was sheer luck not planning though.
Then consider what's being argued in Switzerland. "Yes you can move here and become part of our country, but there can be no architectural record of your presence, because we want to wrap our city up in a little time warp."
No, what they're saying is that people are welcome to join them in their city and partake of their culture, not that people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Ouze wrote:
That story has me conflicted. On the one hand, I want to say that all blackface is bad, because appropriating a cultural identity for a gag as costume is patently offensive*. I think that is probably not in dispute. On the other hand - that's also sort of simplistic. This is not exactly what happened here - she dressed up as a specific character, who happened to be black. Her skin tone wasn't the costume, and her color was not a gag. This is not Ted Danson dressing in blackface and telling racial jokes for an hour.
While it might be telling that in her circle of friends - all of whom dressed up as cast members from the same show - not a single dark-skinned friend was available to play Crazy Eyes - nonetheless I think this falls into a much fuzzier area. That's my opinion, anyway.
Career-ise, she probably shouldn't have gone as Pennsatucky; but I am kind of doubtful that what she did was as offensive as some of what I have read have cast it as.
You know, there was a thread here a while back someone posted - perhaps Reds8n - in which a dark-skinned cosplayer got a lot of grief for dressing up as Asian or white characters. It seems like a fit analogy to me.
This is pretty much my feeling on the situation.
Truth be told, when I first saw the photo of Hough, I thought she was some sort of Tanning Bed girl like Ninjacommando did. I didn't immediately associate it with blackface.
Then I read all the articles, and like you, Ouze, I was conflicted. Clearly Hough and her friends were simply doing the group costume and I like to believe there was no bad intent behind it. At the same time, I think it shows an incredible lack of judgement for her, of which she has (apparently) apologized profusely for. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as Black Pete or the Ted Danson blackface or the Spanish Basketball team. I don't particularly think blackface is appropriate at all, but I think blackface is different than dressing up as a black person from a TV show, most particularly with intent. Blackface is intended as a charicature, whereas what Hough did here pretty clearly isn't.
I dunno. Like I said, a poor decision, but I don't think it's in the same realm as Black Pete (clearly an example of the negatively connotated blackface).
75444
Post by: Allod
I just deleted the draft for this post, which was dripping with sarcasm, and instead ask the following: Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about? Have those guys picking on the white girl from the party or that moron from the UN already run out of meaningful grievances to combat?
I also find "all blackface is bad" to be a, mildly put, narrow-minded view that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Allod wrote:I just deleted the draft for this post, which was dripping with sarcasm, and instead ask the following: Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about? Have those guys picking on the white girl from the party or that moron from the UN already run out of meaningful grievances to combat?
I also find "all blackface is bad" to be a, mildly put, narrow-minded view that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't know....when one of the primary purposes of blackface was to create sterotypical charactures such as the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified [ see forum posting rules]" I'd have to disagree with you.
I mean, a person from the United States might argue that your post into itself, using the phrasing "coloured people," could potentially be problematic.
I think a meaningful conversation could be had about how= a costume like Hough's differs from sterotypical blackface, but--and bear in mind I am in no way, shape, or form a PC crusader-- I think in nearly all instances blackface, as it is exemplfied in a character like Black Pete, is racist. Again, whether or not Hough's costume really qualifies as blackface could be debated (is it different from when Chappelle donned his whiteface in his skits?), but I don't know how you could argue that for her, as a public figure, it wasn't a poor decision.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Allod wrote:Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about?
Is this an expanded version of "first world problems"?
In any event, the answer would be the same. Just because you can't fix every single problem first doesn't mean you can't try to address any problem at all, and actual blackface, such as ill-advised college students will sometimes partake of this time of year, go a long way towards dehumanizing people that don't look like they; which is a good step on the road of how we got to those other hundred or more "real" problems you mention.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Ouze wrote: Allod wrote:Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about?
Is this an expanded version of "first world problems"?
In any event, the answer would be the same. Just because you can't fix every single problem first doesn't mean you can't try to address any problem at all, and actual blackface, such as ill-advised college students will sometimes partake of this time of year, go a long way towards dehumanizing people that don't look like they; which is a good step on the road of how we got to those other hundred or more "real" problems you mention.
[/Zimmerman's Law]
34390
Post by: whembly
Now that's just wrong. o.O EDIT: now how do we Zimmerwined this thread?
12313
Post by: Ouze
That was what I was thinking of, yes. This year, anyway.
75444
Post by: Allod
 cincydooley wrote:
I don't know....when one of the primary purposes of blackface was to create sterotypical charactures such as the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified [ see forum posting rules]" I'd have to disagree with you.
Yeah, I get that, and agree wholeheartedly. But is each and every costume or instance of make-up "blackface"? That's a very specific piece of American history, and one most Europeans (just for example) won't even be familiar with. Add to that that "white vs black" racism has little "tradition" outside of the former colonial nations (if only for lack of exposure), and we are in the "he said, she said" situation the Black Pete debate illustrates: your (as in American) perception vs our (as in European) intent. Of course I'm simplyfying a lot here, but I guess you will get what I mean.
I'm not saying that you won't find individuals who wear such a costume as mean-spirited parody; I just refuse the generalisation that anybody wearing such a thing, no matter the circumstances and personal intent, is guilty of using "blackface" in the minstrel sense.
I mean, a person from the United States might argue that your post into itself, using the phrasing "coloured people," could potentially be problematic.
Part of the same problem. I can't say "black" when I mean my Turkish, Arab and former Yugoslav friends because although they have a darker skin tone than most ethnic Middle Europeans, nobody would associate their ethnicities with the term. Also, it would be the term that is deemed offensive in German. I can't say African-American, because they are neither. I can refer to them as non-whites, which is a little Eurocentric, like "non-standard", don't you agree? So I'm left with "coloured", which, again, in the US and South Africa has negative connotations, although it's the term that my friends would use in German when describing themselves.
Tl;dr: context and intent matter a lot.
@Ouze:
No, it's a compressed version of "as long as it's not tangibly affecting you in any way AND not clearly meant to be denigrating (or dehumanizing, if you want to keep the wording) your ethnicity/skin colour/nationality/religion, you're as free to voice your opinion about it as the other person is to wear a stupid costume, and that's the end of the story".
5470
Post by: sebster
cadbren wrote:I would feel more at home where there were traditional european architectural forms than obviously asian or islamic ones.
Yeah, and I'm saying that's miles outside of my frame of reference.
Just out of curiousity, would you feel at home or not if the buildings were from an unusual form of Christianity, like say Mormonism? And would you feel less at home if the churches are of the more modern, functional variety - is it the architecture itself or the amound of comfort you feel with the religion (even though its not your own) that matters?
I'm not aware that there is a particular style regarding synagogues, the ones I've seen tend to be pretty bland looking.
Get out, travel the world. There are some beautiful synagogues.
The decision that is right is the one that best benefits the community in question, not some outsider's interpretation of how other people should live their lives. Holy f*** I can't believe you just said that, that's 1984, big brother garbage.
You're reading something really weird in to my comment. We were discussing the decision in Switzerland, and you said it was their decision to make, to which I replied that of course it's their decision to make, but that we can still discuss whether they made the right call.
It's like if we were discussing whether the pitcher should now attempt a curveball, and you said 'well it's the pitcher's call to make'... well yeah, of course its the pitcher's call to make, but we can still discuss what pitch we think he might be best to attempt. Do you get it now? There's no attempt to declare Switzerland or the pitcher's decision invalid, just a recognition that the rest of us can, and will discuss what we think of their decision, and what we might do in their place.
You mean fashions in architecture because the people remained largely the same until recent times. Yes London has always had a large immigrant community, but their contribution to the physical form of the city was negligible at best. Building fashions were driven from the top, not by immigrants.
Actually, international influence in architecture is a lot more complex than that. The churches of each religion formed their own styles, but they constantly took lessons from each other. St Petersburg wasn't built as it was because of European immigrants, but because the Tsar wanted a European style city. Brutalism didn't take off in Britain because of immigrants from Socialist Russia, but beause British architects wanted to ape socialist ideals about design (ironically the socialists were largely forbidden from using the style themselves, and instead were forced to building 'Stalinist Wedding Cakes').
The point being that cities are wonderful to study because you can point at a building and say 'that looks as it does because of this factor and that other factor', and it reflects the economic and cultural factors of the time.
They capture popular artforms of the times in which they were built, nothing more.
You don't understand. This isn't about just staring at the peak of the Chrysler building and noting what fashion was in place when it was built. It's about New York as a whole, the how any why it became a city of millions, and why Manhattan is townhouses where residents travel by subway and taxi cab, compared to the suburban sprawl of Dallas.
Anything else is us projecting our imaginations onto what it would have been like to live in a certain period.
No, that's simply nonsense. London's tight alleyways and closely packed houses are the product of much of that city being built before cars were a thing. The design of our cities is due to history.
Well designed cities, easy to navigate, very popular tourist destinations. Washington particularly has gone for a neo classical theme and it's pretty unique in having so many structures of that type in one place that are actually used.
What they lack is the chaos caused by eons of bad planning and ad hoc building. I live in a city like this, it's not that great. Many of the historic centres in Europe had the advantage of having city walls. When these were pulled down they had readymade spaces for ring roads and rail to connect the city - that was sheer luck not planning though.
And if you think whether or not a city is great begins and ends with whether or not it is easy to get around then you've simply got no interest in history, in how people have lived, and this is a total waste of time.
For people who are interested in that kind of thing, then it is fairly obvious that while the National Mall is great, the rest of Washington is kind of boring.
No, what they're saying is that people are welcome to join them in their city and partake of their culture, not that people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one.
Beachhead? Clash of cultures is a stupid myth.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Certainly isn't a myth for a lot people.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Seaward wrote:
No, it really isn't.
So you believe in a whites only state? Desegregation of the military?
cincydooley wrote:
Certainly isn't a myth for a lot people.
Because as we all know, simply believing in something is what makes a thing true. That is why humanity long ago discarded the scientific method, because facts are not needed when you have strongly held beliefs.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Ahtman wrote:So you believe in a whites only state? Desegregation of the military?
That's a hilarious leap.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Sebster isn't referring to the generic use of clash of cultures, but the way it is used by certain types of nationalists and others that see everything as a struggle between 'white culture' and all others in which only one can survive. They tend to use military terms, like beachhead, to describe different cultures meeting; everything is seen through the lens of us vs them. If you look at the sentence it doesn't see immigrants as possibly moving to another country for greater opportunity and expanded horizons, but describes it them as "getting a defended position on a beach taken from the enemy by landing forces" meaning they are taking away ground from the owners and infesting the area, trying to get a toe hold. I don't think you believe in a white state or a desegregated military, but when you ignore context of the statement I just made it more plane what you were agreeing with in reality. Context is important, after all.
12313
Post by: Ouze
The best military beachhead:
221
Post by: Frazzled
Where'd he get a STG???
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ahtman wrote:
Because as we all know, simply believing in something is what makes a thing true. That is why humanity long ago discarded the scientific method, because facts are not needed when you have strongly held beliefs.
Ah right. Because that's what I said.
There certainly aren't any culture clashes going on in the world today.
5470
Post by: sebster
If it was both untrue and something no-one believed in it wouldn't be talked about at all. It'd be the phrenology of culture conversations. The point is that a lot people believe it, despite it being nonsense. This makes it, I don't know, the intelligent design of culture conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This isn't about the time Mrs Jones found that the kid working at the hamburger store couldn't understand her very well. It isn't about the time that Hiroto found it hard to adapt to work culture in the country he's just migrated to.
It's about cadbren's statement "people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one". That's clash of cultures - the idea that cultures are in battle for supremacy, the idea that when a group of immigrants move to another country then either the pre-existing culture or the immigrant's culture must perish. It's nonsense.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Tell me more!
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
sebster wrote:
If it was both untrue and something no-one believed in it wouldn't be talked about at all. It'd be the phrenology of culture conversations. The point is that a lot people believe it, despite it being nonsense. This makes it, I don't know, the intelligent design of culture conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This isn't about the time Mrs Jones found that the kid working at the hamburger store couldn't understand her very well. It isn't about the time that Hiroto found it hard to adapt to work culture in the country he's just migrated to.
It's about cadbren's statement "people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one". That's clash of cultures - the idea that cultures are in battle for supremacy, the idea that when a group of immigrants move to another country then either the pre-existing culture or the immigrant's culture must perish. It's nonsense.
OK, thanks for pointing that out cause I was thinking "clash of cultures" meant conflict arising from the interaction of people with different cultural values (which does occur) but it seems it actually means something quite silly.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Culture clash is rubbish, it's bs put out by fear driven media. When you get a neighbour of a different culture do you get on with them or declare culture war and complain about them.
People are people no matter where they come from. My grandmother hated asians until some moved in next door and then all of a sudden the asians next door were "nice asians" , culture clash is fear and ignorance , nothing more.
As a proud member of the most multicultural nation on earth, people from other cultures are awesome, people who talk crap about them are sad, scared individuals. There are good and bad in every culture ....simple.
Also mosques are the most beautiful religious buildings in the world, hands down. If you are worried about having a mosque around i don't know what to say to you, possibly go see a psychiatrist about your irrational fear of people wearing long flowing clothing. .
Also if the UN keeps going like this they will soon ban the Sydney suburb name "Blacktown" which incidentally was basically the location of the biggest tribe in the Sydney basin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
he got an upgrade for the culture clash
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I would say Canada is just as multicultural if not more so than Australia, Canada was the first nation to officially introduce multiculturalism (Australia being the second) and many outsider's tend to view Canada as a very progressive, diverse and tolerant nation (although like all human things
we're still imperfect like many laws regarding First Nations people are dated and clunky).
47598
Post by: motyak
As much as I'd love that to be true, when both major political parties for the most recent election were running primarily on 'keeping the scary boat people out', we can hardly lay claim to that title at the moment. Or in the past with the White Australia Policy. There may have been a brief gap in between the two that we did alright, but we've just started heading straight back down in the past few years, since the 'scary boat people' became such a huge threat.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I had no idea!!
I didn't realize Australia had such a robust Spanish speaking population!
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
cincydooley wrote:
I had no idea!!
I didn't realize Australia had such a robust Spanish speaking population!
You know ethnic diversity and multiculturalism aren't the same thing, right?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Cheesecat wrote: cincydooley wrote:
I had no idea!!
I didn't realize Australia had such a robust Spanish speaking population!
You know ethnic diversity and multiculturalism aren't the same thing, right?
But are very interconnected.
And considering the incredible levels of DIVERSITY in many places in the US, I'd say the multicultural attitudes are very open and welcoming.
I doesn't take more than a cursory glance at most major US cities to see that.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Maybe, but New York City comes across as quite segregated to me.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Cheesecat wrote:Maybe, but New York City comes across as quite segregated to me.
As someone who lived in NYC for 20 years, I can assure you that you're wrong.
5470
Post by: sebster
So you're just giving up on contributing then? Automatically Appended Next Post:  motyak wrote:As much as I'd love that to be true, when both major political parties for the most recent election were running primarily on 'keeping the scary boat people out', we can hardly lay claim to that title at the moment. Or in the past with the White Australia Policy. There may have been a brief gap in between the two that we did alright, but we've just started heading straight back down in the past few years, since the 'scary boat people' became such a huge threat.
Yeah, and the scary boat people has been a touching off point for a whole lot of racism. It's pretty typical that complaints about refugee in-take will get caught up with all kinds of other issues like population pressures and ethnic crime that don't have anything to do with the few thousand refugees we take each year.
Australia is a multi-cultural nation but that multi-culturalism isn't because we are a welcoming people. There is a lot of racism in this country, and I'm not surprised when people tell me we're much more racist than Americans. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cheesecat wrote:Maybe, but New York City comes across as quite segregated to me.
I've never been able to figure out whether, at any given point in time, we're supposed to be aiming for the melting pot or the patchwork. As soon as the melting pot becomes desired, people call it assimilation and talk about it's so much better to have patchwork. As soon as the patchwork becomes desired, it gets called segregation and people want a melting pot.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Cheesecat wrote:Maybe, but New York City comes across as quite segregated to me.
I've never been able to figure out whether, at any given point in time, we're supposed to be aiming for the melting pot or the patchwork. As soon as the melting pot becomes desired, people call it assimilation and talk about it's so much better to have patchwork. As soon as the patchwork becomes desired, it gets called segregation and people want a melting pot.
Well, by segregation I meant the kind where people are separated from each other due to not getting along, not so much the kind where people of a certain ethnicity have decide to create their own little area within the city and are accepted by the rest of the city. Personally I feel that Canada's
"cultural mosaic" analogy is more realistic than the US's "melting pot" as being an American is going to mean something different to each citizen also the "cultural mosaic" doesn't require you to assimilate to the host culture (at least in theory, in practice that may not be totally true) it just let's
you continue whatever cultural practice you feel like (as long as you obey the law).
33125
Post by: Seaward
I thought you were Australian.
5470
Post by: sebster
Cheesecat wrote:Well, by segregation I meant the kind where people are separated from each other due to not getting along, not so much the kind where people of a certain ethnicity have decide to create their own little area within the city and are accepted by the rest of the city. Personally I feel that Canada's
"cultural mosaic" analogy is more realistic than the US's "melting pot" as being an American is going to mean something different to each citizen also the "cultural mosaic" doesn't require you to assimilate to the host culture (at least in theory, in practice that may not be totally true) it just let's
you continue whatever cultural practice you feel like (as long as you obey the law).
Yeah, but the issue is that segregated and patchwork/mosaic are really just two sides of the same coin. When ethnic groups form distinct communities, there's going to be friction as well as a unique cultural point - pick out the good bits and call it a mosaic/patchwork, pick out the bad bits and call it segregation. Just like the melting pot and assimilation are two sides of the same coin.
Personally I think the whole thing is kind of a false argument. You don't have to choose between a melting pot and a mosaic, you want both and neither can really function well without elements of the other. If there's no distinct community to relate to, then it will be less like a melting pot and more like assimilation for new migrants. And if there's no blending of cultures then relations between ethnic groups will have friction and feel a lot more like segregation than a mosaic.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Sounds reasonable to me so I'll agree with you on that statement.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
I am there are many ,many different cultures here, i myself am part spanish (or something, naughty great grandmother bangin a sailor ).
I love Sydney, every trip home i see all the different cultures walking round and think "feth, i love this city". I think we were declared the most multicultural nation in the last few weeks by some intergovernmental body, please don't ask for a citation I heard it in passing.
Not all Australians are racist fethwits, just Queensland and south Sydney , and 2ue (radio station)
On a serious note, I dont get all this segregation/assimilation crap , by the 3rd generation most people ( born from migrants) will be pretty much similar in ideals to most others , so in the end who gives a feth. This is not always true, but true for the majority. Migrants enrich your culture, not "ruin" it.
47598
Post by: motyak
Hey! That's...probably true. My state is a bit of a disappointment.
Probably true, but they do have a very multicultural rugby team, including (well, not anymore, but who could pass up 4x the existing offer to play Union in Japan) one of the only Asian players in the NRL that I can think of. So yeah. Multicultural that!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There is also a compromise between the patchwork and the melting point, in which immigrants take on some of the culture of the host nation while preserving important bits of their own traditions.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Leaving aside sociological semantics, isn't this what happensens in a practical sense anyways?
5470
Post by: sebster
Cheesecat wrote:Sounds reasonable to me so I'll agree with you on that statement.
Well that's no fun Automatically Appended Next Post: Bullockist wrote:Not all Australians are racist fethwits, just Queensland and south Sydney , and 2ue (radio station)
And most of the northern suburbs of Perth. And the western suburbs too, but in a different way.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
After what you and motyak posted I think we can safely say that all australians are racist ...in different ways.
Except of course south sydney due to football, not once but twice.
A few years ago there was an asian sydney fc player ,from the south sydney team,who due to his lazy play style used to recieve encouragement from me in the form of a polite 'move your stumpy asian legs' he didnt seem to listen to my direction, but apparently i'm racist towards members of a team I support.
*shrugs* so yes all australians are racist. Funnily enough once he stopped playing I havent laumched a racial epithet again.
Sebster please explain the racism difference in perth, I am truly intrigued. Automatically Appended Next Post: motyak wrote:
Hey! That's...probably true. My state is a bit of a disappointment.
Probably true, but they do have a very multicultural rugby team, including (well, not anymore, but who could pass up 4x the existing offer to play Union in Japan) one of the only Asian players in the NRL that I can think of. So yeah. Multicultural that!
I wou' ld have to agree with you on queenslanders motyak when i used to work on the phone collecting funds for charity i was really quite unimpressed with the charitable notions of queenslanders.
|
|
