"Ironically Sinterklass and his cringe-worthy blackfaced Zwarte Piet servants would have sided with the racist pro-slavery Confederacy, not the Union."
No, just no. They are freed slaves, freed by St. Nicolas.
The discussion in the Netherlands is just something from the last 10 years. Many people have a very moderate opinion about it, but on both sides there are extremists, which is what the media focuses on.
In both extremist sides there are people calling for violence. That way they disturb normal conversation. Even the Dutch NCTV, the government anti-terrorism organisation, labeled them as extremists, with the mention that they had not used violence up to now.
One of the proponents of Kick Out Zwarte Piet, Akwasi, called out on stage for kicking Zwarte Piet in the face. Many people who are part of the childrens party felt threathened. He was found guilty, but because he said "I was misunderstood" they let it go. This kind of aggressive extremist action actually is counter productive in the racism debate as it is completely unreasonable. It is very common to hear being said that the anti-racism card has been pushed too hard and the lobby is losing its support.
Personally I don't have any issue with changing the look of Zwarte Piet into roetveeg-Piet, which has mostly happened here. Just the conversation is highly aggressive. As an anecdote, when a colored person dresses as Zwarte Piet, he often gets called out for being racist :) All because it has never been a healthy discussion.
"And what's wrong with being extremely anti-racist [...] ?" What is wrong is that extremism can go too far :)
By any measure, the pro-Zwarte Piet protesters are much more violent much more often than the anti-racist protestors who they're regularly attacking. And the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are the ones attacking the police defending the anti-racist protestors, not the other way around.
Zwarte Piet protest group accuses police of failing to protect safety:
>[...] The group has also filed a police complaint against The Hague businessman John van Zweden, who posted tweets on Friday afternoon calling on people to turn up to the protest ‘with tar, feathers and other shit to drive them out of the city.’ [...]
And there are not two sides to the argument about racism. The pro-racist side is wrong, and has a long sordid history of enforcing their racism with violence, and the anti-racist side is correct, and on the right side of history.
>It is very common to hear being said that the anti-racism card has been pushed too hard and the lobby is losing its support.
So you're rationalizing that if only the mean anti-racists weren't so extreme and didn't protest against racism and always play that darned anti-racism card, they'd be able to change the nice pro-racist's minds, huh? I highly doubt it, or that the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are only racist and violent because somebody "pushed too hard" on "the anti-racism card" as you absurdly claim. Their furious butt-hurt from the anti-racist Zwarte Piet protestors spoiling their fading memories of religious childhood fairy tales doesn't justify their continuing violence and racism in the name of Jesus.
>Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion. Tone policing detracts from the truth or falsity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.
>A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture. This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.
You want to argue that one extremist group is less or more violent than the other? Well, you just made my point :) Both extremist groups are scum. In the Netherlands we don't solve things with violence but with conversation. And yes, people do listen. Please do not think we are like the US, we do have healthy conversations and a government that does listen (sometimes :) ). Calling for violence from a public stage, urging people towards violent behaviour has nothing to do with tone policing, it is simply forbidden by law and people will stop listening to you. You might want to read up on the "Poldermodel", which is very much part of Dutch politics and society.
Please do not mix up the US culture and history with that of the Dutch. In the US, colored people who have been for generations in the US get discriminated on skin color. I would argue that discrimination on skin color in the Netherlands does exist, and yes, the change of Zwarte Piet is slowly being done. But discrimination is much more happening on a cultural level, which is even harder to deal with. People with a Moroccon, Turkish or Hindu background don't always find their place easily. And no, by saying that I don't mean that discrimination on skin color is any good.
The story about freeing slaves is just a revisionist rationalization, just like the more recent revisionist rationalization that they're not really black skinned Moores, but just white people covered in soot. They were originally enslaved demons forced to assist their captor.
>The Saint Nicholas tradition contains a number of elements that are not ecclesiastical in origin.[16][17] In medieval iconography, Saint Nicholas is sometimes presented as taming a chained demon, who may or may not be black. However, no hint of a companion, demon, servant, or any other human or human-like fixed companion to the Saint is found in visual and textual sources from the Netherlands from the 16th until the 19th century.[18] According to a long-standing theory first proposed by Karl Meisen,[19] Zwarte Piet and his equivalents in Germanic Europe were originally presented as one or more enslaved demons forced to assist their captor. These chained and fire-scorched demons may have been redeveloped as black-skinned humans during the early 19th-century in the Netherlands in the likeness of Moors who work as servants for Saint Nicholas.[20] Others believe Zwarte Piet to be a continuation of a custom in which people with blackface appeared in winter solstice rituals.[21]
Since we can all agree Zwarte Piet is actually all just fiction, and that it was ok to change the story numerous times as society evolved to be less religiously fanatic and racist, then why are so-called "moderate" people you're defending still clinging to the racist iconography of blackface and big painted red lips and black afros?
If they can change the story from Zwarte Piets being chained and fire-scorched enslaved demons forced to assist their captor, to merely black-skinned freed human slaves, then from that to soot-stained Caucasians, then why are so-called "moderate" people so upset about changing "tradition" yet again?
So what's wrong with being extremely anti-racist and protesting peacefully, instead of only "moderately" against racism, while racists are still violently rioting in the streets of the Netherlands and attacking both police and peaceful protestors?
And why after 10 years of open public discussion are hooligans still shouting racist insults, throwing eggs, pelting police with fireworks, and rioting in the streets in support of Zwarte Piet?
NOVEMBER 16, 2020: Riot police deployed in Zwarte Piet demonstration in Maastricht:
>On Saturday afternoon, a planned demonstration against Zwarte Piet in Maastricht was disrupted by counter-protesters. Tensions at the scene escalated, leading to violence and police intervention.
>The action group Kick Out Zwarte (KOZP) had a permit from the municipality to demonstrate against the blackface character on the Vrijthof (a central square). But when counter-protesters gathered and the atmosphere became threatening, the police mobile unit had to intervene.
>They used horses and dogs to keep the counter-protesters at a distance. The police were pelted with fireworks.
>KOZP spokesperson tells NU that demonstrating at the second scene was impossible. “That place was almost next to the Vrijthof. There were a lot of threats and a lot of violence. People threw things and there was shouting. We, therefore, stopped our action prematurely.”
DECEMBER 4, 2021: Kick Out Zwarte Piet protesters pelted with eggs, oliebollen and firecrackers in Volendam:
>A group of people in Volendam attacked Kick Out Zwarte Piet (KOZP) protesters with, among other objects, eggs, oliebollen and firecrackers. KOZP was protesting against "structural racism" in the village.
>Police escorted several dozen demonstrators back to their buses. The protesters left the village around 1 p.m. under police escort.
>According to KOZP spokesman Jerry Afriyie, they were pelted with "anything and everything," including fruit and oliebollen from the nearby market. Police did not confirm the number of people who attacked the protestors in Volendam.
>While officers kept the groups apart, they were also pelted with eggs and oliebollen. According to Afriyie, some of the windows of the bus were damaged. Some of the people attacking the protestors also threw firecrackers.
And please give me a break with your false equivalence "both sides" white-washing rationalization of blackface and violent racist behavior: The behavior of the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans you're defending with your false equivalence is FAR WORSE than the anti-racist protestors and police in riot gear who they're violently attacking, which is ironic because Zwarte Piet is supposed to punish people for bad behavior.
So why are they violently fighting against anti-racist protestors and riot control police for something they don't even believe in, if it's not actually just about racism?
If the mythology of Zwarte Piet was supposed to teach children to behave well and treat each other with respect in celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday, then it has failed miserably and become a shibboleth and symbol of racism, so it should be disposed of in the dustbin of history.
>then why are so-called "moderate" people so upset about changing "tradition" yet again?
I feel like when people argue about keeping "tradition" it's really more about the short term past, the "traditions" they've seen their whole lives (and thus perceive as "how the world has always been").
Traditionalism is inherently paradoxical. Traditionalists yearn for a remote home or past that lacked the problems they perceive in their own place and time. Yet, the people in that other place and time were probably just living the best way they could figure out to live, and would gladly have accepted many aspects of modern life for just a bit more comfort, health, or safety.
The anti-gay "moderates" love to make the argument that same sex marriage goes against "tradition", when the actual tradition of marriage is that women are considered property, and traditionally not allowed to vote or own land or asked to consent to sex, just like slaves.
I'm not sure how you could be a moderate if you were anti-gay, but the types of people who I think about when I think "anti-gay" probably would be quite happy to own slaves
"[...]The behavior of the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans you're defending [...]"
How am I defending them? I am calling them out as scum. These are the same people turning violent on the police in Rotterdam a month ago because football was not allowed to have public in the stadiums. They are out for the kicks and are looking to amuse themselves in this way.
If you have a good solution for dealing with scum, please share.
No, just no. They are freed slaves, freed by St. Nicolas.
The discussion in the Netherlands is just something from the last 10 years. Many people have a very moderate opinion about it, but on both sides there are extremists, which is what the media focuses on.