Talk:Zwarte Piet

Blackface is POV; black make-up is not

Claiming that Zwarte Piet's black make-up is blackface is not a fact, but a POV. The Low Countries don't have the blackface tradition that countries like the US do. Blackface is a very loaded term in the English language as it comes with all the cultural connotations and sensitivities that are foreign to the Low Countries. "Black makeup" does not carry this load and is neutral and accurate description. In addition, there's no consensus on whether the black makeup is intended to show a sooty or to show a black person. Furthermore, I don't see a consensus in previous conversations, so the claim of a long-standing consensus is invalid. Just to be clear, I don't mind at all that there's a section about blackface; that's valid to include as indeed some people interpret it as such. However, portraying this as a "fact" is POV and OR. Morgengave (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the definition of blackface from the British Cambridge Dictionary: "Dark make-up worn by a white person in order to look like a black person, or the practice of doing this: Laurence Olivier played Othello in blackface." I can think of no source that is more neutral, unbiased, and factual than a dictionary. Furthermore, if you read both the introduction and the history section, or the numerable citations included within them that describe the tradition as blackface, you'll know that the character was originally intended to be a Moor, a person who has black skin. One more thing: no one goes down a chimney and emerges with every bit of their skin covered in soot with their hair suddenly turned curly without even a bit of soot on their clothing. You claim that the Low Countries don't have a blackface tradition like other countries. I'm afraid they do, and that tradition largely centers around Zwarte Piet. Constablequackers (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment reinforces my point: your share your personal interpretation, which is just one point-of-view. This POV should be part of the article, but stating that POV as a fact is wrong. There is no consensus that the black makeup is used to depict a black person. There are multiple attestable interpretations. Also, we shouldn't pursue OR, as you do by using a dictionary definition. We shouldn't interpret - and this includes that we shouldn't use dictionary definitions to interpret but apply the terms as used by the sources directly. It's also easy to find sources that show that blackface is a loaded term. Black makeup is objectively a correct definition (also when using dictionaries) with no such load, and can cover both the POV that it's soot as the POV that it's blackface. You btw won't find a consensus that it's blackface in reliable sources and often these sources include both views. Morgengave (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a POV situation and I'm not stating an opinion. I'm stating facts based on the history of the character and the terms used in the sources and citations you'll find within the article. I've also gone the extra step of providing you with a dictionary definition of the term blackface. I'm sorry that you feel that blackface is a "loaded term," but that's irrelevant here. We have to rely on the information we find in citations and news sources that call the practice blackface. Constablequackers (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation however is your personal point-of-view, not a fact. I am not denying that there are sources calling it blackface (see my earlier comments); I am however saying that there's no consensus that that's the only or the dominant POV. We should indeed rely on credible sources - and not include a personal bias here. Morgengave (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this is *not* my personal interpretation. I have offered a dictionary definition of the term blackface and have referred you to the information in the citations within the article. All say the tradition is blackface. I'm sure you could also find "sources" claiming that the earth is flat, Covid-19 can be cured with horse pills, and climate change isn't real. Those would also be dubious at best. This is a similar situation. Since you seem unwilling to accept the dictionary definition, here is the one from the Wikipedia page for blackface: "Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used predominantly by performers of non-African descent to portray a caricature of a dark skinned person of African descent." Constablequackers (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(I'm not a Wikipedia-pro, so I apologise if I am not following guidelins exactly - I am trying).. And here is the definition of Blackface from a non-English(American) Wikipedia page: "Blackface is de praktijk van het zwart opmaken van een gezicht die in theatervoorstellingen in de Verenigde Staten werd gebruikt om een karikatuur van een Afro-Amerikaanse slaaf op te voeren". Key word being "De Verenigde Staten". Just because it is the definition in the English language countries, does not mean you can carry over the definition to (or rather from) other countries, with a completely different history and culture behind both figures. Citing other countries' definition brings us back to the basic comparison of "apples and pears". Black face = Making fun of black people. Zwarte Piet = Embracing black people. Using the word "blackface" as a direct comparison to Zwarte Piet is nothing but an attempt of trying to sway opinions. You know the history of blackface and Zwarte Piet are entirely different and therefor the use of the word blackface is, at the very least, incredibly misleading. The term blackface should be changed to a more neutral "black make up". The fact that "this is what the English dictionary says" is your only main argument, makes your case very weak. What's more, in the edit you seem to be often be mentioning "we've had this discussion so often and I am right, so stop changing it" - when obviously, you are in the wrong. Also, I am not sure, but I believe "to put on blackface" is not an action one can do - so the sentence is not even correct to begin with. One can become blackface by putting on make up, not by putting on blackface, so there's a re-write on its own already (If I am wrong, I will gladly accept it). And lastly, Zwarte Piet was (and still is) portrayed by an overwhelming amount of black people (also still in the Dutch overseas areas, with predominantly black populations) ( see example of current news item ), there's dozens more examples), nullifying your argument even more, since the definition of blackface is white/non-african people donning black make up. At the very least, this shows how the English definition just doesn't cut it in this situation. I will check back in a few days to see your argumentation why "putting on blackface" is the same as being Zwarte Piet in your eyes and your explanation behind black people also putting on black make up to become Zwarte Piet, still qualifying it as blackface. If not, I expect you to finally remove the references to the stigmatising word blackface from the page to the more neutral "black makeup". 2003:C3:71A:9D00:498F:2EBD:ACB1:94EE (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... Much of what you're saying here is completely false and can be disproved by simply reading through this Wikipedia article. You also contradicted yourself with this statement: "Zwarte Piet = Embracing black people." You just admitted that the tradition is all about portraying black people and centers around it. So you've essentially admitted yourself that the traditional ZP is blackface. But I'll work my way through your arguments despite this Freudian slip. If the traditional ZP is *not* blackface, then why are there so many sources included here in this article that state otherwise? Why is there an entire section devoted to ZP on the Wikipedia page for blackface? It's like you're saying the sky is pink when it's very clearly blue. Please familiarize yourself with the history of this character and with its traditions before you offer up further opinions. It's all right here on this page with dozens upon dozens of citations. As for you strange statements regarding "to put on blackface," one does this in the same way one puts on makeup or puts on a hat. Have a *few* black people played ZP? Sure, but the numbers are minimal, especially in the Benelux. The article you've linked to above mentions *one* person. To answer your question about a black person putting on black makeup to play a black character? Yeah, I suppose that would qualify in the same way that an actual princess dressing up as a Disney princess like Elsa from Frozen would still qualify as dressing up as a princess. One last thing: the English definition of the term blackface *does* fit. It's when someone puts on black makeup to portray a black person. This is a very simple concept and it shouldn't be one that's difficult to understand. They don't necessarily have to be making fun of them (although many ZP actors *do* make fun of black people by using silly Caribbean and other cliched black accents). Take another look at the multiple definitions, citations, and so on if you're still confused about this. The definition you've provided is *incredibly* incorrect for the simple fact that blackface can be found in many countries other than America, isn't used exclusively to portray slaves (even in America it's been used to portray people other than slaves), and, once again, can be found in the Netherlands, Belgium, and other countries in the form of the traditional version of ZP. You pulled it from the Dutch Wikipedia page, which is woefully inaccurate and only briefly touches on the practice in other countries. It really needs to be updated from the sources and information included in the English one. Again, before you cite another opinion here, please read through this entire page in addition to the English one about blackface. It will tell you all about it and bring you up to speed. I also don't mean to be pithy and sardonic, but I've been involved with dozens of ZP debates here over the course of the past decade. I've had to debunk all of the arguments you've presented here many, many times and attempt to educate people about the history of the character. No one ever seems to want to take the time to actually read and learn about ZP or blackface either. I've also had to defend the page from people who have attempted to come in and include statements like "Zwarte Piet is racist!" in the intro with citations from academic journals. I am doing my best to keep this page both neutral and from becoming a complete mess after extremists on both sides of the ZP debate come in and make changes. It has *not* been easy. Oh, and one more thing: the dictionary definition I provided above was from a *British* dictionary, not an American one. Constablequackers (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to avoid potential confusion: the anonymous contributor who recently posted is not me. However, I am still waiting for a true response on the arguments I stated above. So far, I haven't gotten a satisfactory response. Again, I am not against an inclusion of the blackface-POV somewhere in the article (some sources indeed argue it is), I am however against stating this POV as a "fact" in the lead as there are multiple attestable viewpoints as found in reliable media. Be also careful in using dictionary definitions (ref WP:SYNTH). Morgengave (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: Also don't remove a POV-tag on an article before a POV-issue is reasonably discussed and addressed. Assume good faith on why the tag was put on, and be open to the view that there may be a POV. Morgengave (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

All right, I'll leave the POV tag in place for the time being, even if I disagree with its inclusion. After all, it's there because we're debating a single word in a very lengthy article. I don't think that's enough to warrant it. I've written several very long responses above. What exactly is there left to discuss and why do you feel these responses weren't satisfactory? What aspects have not been addressed? I have repeatedly pointed you to the sources within the article that state that the practice is blackface. Meanwhile, you haven't provided a citation that *clearly states* that it is *not* blackface. Constablequackers (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you are misreading what I am saying. Some sources call it blackface (I don't deny this), others don't - and many reliable sources include the multiple origin stories and contemporary interpretations. I am not at all against including the view that some see it as blackface; I am against putting this as a "fact" or the "only viewpoint"; it's just one of multiple. Seen that blackface is a heavily loaded term, the POV-tag is sufficiently justified for this particular word if it's put forward as a fact. Just one source - the Flemish public broadcaster VRT (which is widely seen as a neutral media source) - includes in this article the many viewpoints both historical as current: . This includes the color of the devil, of soot, a contrasting color... The article also differentiates: making a face black - even to imitate a black person - isn't necessarily blackface. Another interpretation however is that it is very much blackface. Morgengave (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point I should ask you how far you're willing to go down this rabbit hole. Because what we're going to be getting into here is Wikipedia rules at their most pedantic. Plus, what you're proposing could create a word soup worthy of a legal document. Should the intro really contain text that reads like this: "The vast majority of journalists, writers, historians, and others who have written about the tradition have come to the conclusion that the practice qualifies as blackface, however, a decreasing amount of writers primarily residing in the Benelux have argued that it isn't because..."? We can't turn the entire intro into a full analysis of the term blackface and the minute amount of cherry-picked nuances and exceptions that appear in this tradition. And should a writer for VRT really be given the same level of consideration as one who's writing for a far larger and more widely read international publication like The Guardian or NPR (or some of the larger Dutch language publications like the Volkskrant)? I'm also skeptical that there's enough of a debate or controversy over the term and its relation to ZP to warrant all this. This is a can of worms and one that I don't think is worth dealing with, especially as the traditional ZP becomes less common. The soot version seems to be taking over. Constablequackers (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it as a rabbit hole or a can of worms - it's not overly complex. It means we describe it as "black make-up" in the lead, then add a sentence in the lead (and/or a few sentences in a separate section) about the controversy, i.e. that some see it as "blackface" which led to rise of the roetpieten. Whether the tradition is changing or not, is not so relevant. A black Zwarte Piet still exists, especially in Belgium and (regionally) in Germany, but it's also not wholy extinct the NLs. It's also not certain that the tradition will ever disappear fully. And in any case, we should also be POV-free in articles about the past. Morgengave (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

But the biggest problem remains what I was saying about consensus. Almost everybody considers this blackface in the same way that almost everybody believes the earth isn't flat. It's arguable that those who say that it is *not* blackface are the flat-earthers of the ZP universe. Why should we give them such a large "voice" here? Why should their beliefs, which are almost entirely false, hold so much weight or be granted so much attention? Constablequackers (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. I don't see a consensus on this talk page, not in the previous conversations nor in our current conversation. Comparing it to flat-earth (?) is just a false argument and rather silly. Blackface is a particular tradition. There's no consensus amongst or within reliable sources that ZP falls under this particular tradition - as shown above. This article should reflect this. I am honestly still struggling to understand what your objection is to calling it black make-up (which it objectively is), then immediately mention that some see it as blackface (which is an important interpretation, but not a fact). This avoids pushing a POV, yet does include the controversy. Morgengave (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Look, this is a closed case. The vast majority of sources state that the practice is blackface with only a few claiming otherwise. If there was still any sort of relevant ongoing debate or conversation about this, there would still be traditional Zwarte Piets all over the place in media, at events, on Bol.com, etc. That isn't happening. Traditional ZP has been largely phased out and replaced with the sooty version. And why? Because it's blackface and not too many people in the 21st century think blackface is still acceptable. You and I can go around and around in circles about this as you continue to try to cherry-pick sources and use specious reasoning to argue that the practice somehow isn't blackface, but it is. So, yes, this is the silly holiday equivalent of arguing with flat-earthers who, for whatever reason, don't want to accept a fact that's long since been proven. Constablequackers (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Constablequackers, you can't close cases because you feel like it. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. This is not a closed case as there is no consensus amongst sources, as I have already shown. Including a wide set of reliable sources is not cherry-picking. Excluding certain sources because they don't fit a particular narrative however is, and that's where we are now. I am confused by your mixing of the phase-out and sense of neutrality. Many things in the world happen because of opinions, perceptions and interpretations; that doesn't mean that these equal facts and they shouldn't be put forward like that in an encyclopedia - they are however important to be mentioned (as I said before, I am in favor of including the blackface view). Also, be careful to not confuse having a personal view or preference on this topic (like that it is blackface and supporting the phase-out - and it's perfectly ok and understandable to support this) with equalizing this to NPOV. Morgengave (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm really beginning to feel like a broken record. Let's try this again. Please answer the following questions:

1. The majority of the sources you're going to find online say the practice is blackface. Some of these sources come from very large, respected, and well-read international publications. Why should much smaller, Dutch language publications that contend otherwise be put on the same level as them? 2. I've taken the time to point you to the sources that all say it's blackface and have even gone so far as to explain to you why it's blackface in the same way a teacher might explain this concept to a young child. Now I'm going to put the ball in your court. Please explain to me why, despite all that, you think this is merely black makeup. Note: please do not rely on specious reasoning or debunked "it's soot from chimneys" excuses that have been widely discredited and have no historical merit. 3. Why do you think this is a debate worth having in the year 2021 when, again, the vast majority says it's blackface? Why is this a discussion even worth having as the traditional Zwarte Piet fades away and has largely been done away with? Constablequackers (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I also feel like a broken record. Black make-up is an objective starting point, then there are multiple interpretations and origin stories (Germanic tradition/color of evil, soot, depicting a black person (and there are both blackface and not-blackface interpretations)). These are all sourceable. (Yes, even soot. Don't forget that it's a fictional character with ever-changing stories, songs and traditions; soot is a sourceable interpretation.) Also note that historically, at least in Belgium, not every ZP consistently had a wig and Renaissance attire (but normally did have black make-up). I am not at all against including the blackface view or giving this a more prominent place (seen the impact it is having on the tradition which is now changing); I am however against saying that this blackface interpretation is a fact (rather than an interpretation) or the only interpretation. That would just be factually wrong. I am in favor of including the sources you mention, but I am against excluding other reliable sources, especially if they go deeper into the topic (international sources don't always go so broad as they focus on the controversy; the topic is however broader than the controversy). About your third point: encyclopedic articles, even about past traditions, should be factual and neutral. Morgengave (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I do understand what you're getting at, honestly I do, but what you're pointing to are a few scant exceptions. No, not all people who have portrayed ZP put on wigs, but the vast majority have. So, again, is that enough to significantly alter the text? Absolutely not. The vast majority were/are doing what is, unquestionably, blackface and the character's origins are undeniably linked to slavery and him being a black person. Going back further into history is besides the point. Yes, ZP's predecessors were demons and monsters, but they weren't ZP. ZP has an entirely different back story. Constablequackers (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As a newcomer/outsider, I try and fail to understand the discussion here. Which main question (for the article) do you want to answer? Is Zwarte Piet a form of Blackface? Obviously true. What is the origin of Zwarte Piet, and what does het represent? A slave? A Moor? A chimney-sweep? I think (POV/OR) that this question has no answer: Zwarte Piet represents none of the above. Zwarte Piet is, like Sinterklaas himself, and other compagnions of Sinterklaas in Europe (Krampus, Pere Fouettard) a fairy tale figure. That fairy tale figure may be inspired by slaves, Moors, or chimney-sweeps, but the figure does not represent them. Zwarte Piet is a stock character https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_character - stereotyped (and therefore obviously discriminatory), easily recognisable, and easy to impersonate (a bit of coal or shoe polish suffices). In this context (and this is extremely important to consider), there is a relevant cultural distinction between The Netherlands (or Europe as a whole) and the United States ca 1850. In the US, black people were a sizeable and relevant minority, and their situation was the subject of intense political debate and a bloody Civil War. In the Netherlands, black people were virtually absent (exact numbers are sourcable I guess, but in 1883 black people were still so exceptional that they were shown on exhibitions https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-F-1994-12-35). Insofar the Dutch were concerned with what happened in Dutch colonies, they hardly thought about black slavery in Surinam - 'Max Havelaar' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Havelaar, the most influential literary work in this context, is about corruption in the Dutch East Indies. 62.112.240.32 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet has nothing to do with the US caracter blackface. The whole Sinterklaas event has nothing to do with US culture so stop projecting US culture history on Europe's culture — Preceding

Blackface isn't just an American thing. It can be found all over the world. You would know this if you read the comments above or the very convenient Wikipedia page all about it. Please do your homework before you post ill-informed comments. Thank you. Constablequackers (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 82.169.212.161 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC) I agree. American idealogical colonialism needs to be called out where it appears. 142.163.194.149 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... Blackface = not just an American thing, folks. It's all over the world. I'll even provide you with a link to the Wikipedia page on the topic, which features a section about Zwarte Piet! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface Constablequackers (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#An_American_or_European_perspective_may_exist Blackface is not just an american thing, but the sensitivity of the topic blackface-slavery-black is typically American. There is a very objective reason underlying this cultural bias: Visible black slavery (or a blakc minority) did not exist in Western Europe, as it did in the US. I guess (POV) that in Europe blackface was loosely linked to exotism (see e.g. Josephine Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Baker). In Europe, blacks were not en masse discriminated: Blacks were basically absent so there was no one to discriminate. It is not that Europeans are morally superior - we/they had other groups to discriminate (e.g. Jews). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.240.32 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not entirely true. The Kick Out Zwarte Piet movement suggests otherwise and protests against police brutality have taken place in the Netherlands and elsewhere across Europe, especially over the past few years. Job and housing discrimination continues to be a problem as well. While black slavery was by no means prominent in Europe, many European based companies were heavily involved in the slave trade and/or operated plantations in the Caribbean. Constablequackers (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The view of KOZP is in itself a POV, which can be disputed. This article is about Zwarte Piet, so let's try not to digress too much. As I tried to state; there is discrimination of black people in The Netherlands. My point is subtle; the whole position of the black minority in The Netherlands cannot be compared to the US situation, and KOZP seems to interpret the Dutch situation from an American perspective. Which may be biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#An_American_or_European_perspective_may_exist . Keypoint for this article: Is Zwarte Piet a black slave (and, by implication, a symbol of Dutch racism against blacks)? That interpretation is 'an interpretation', and one that is not widely held outside groups like KOZP.

With regard to, 'many European based companies were heavily involved in the slave trade'; that is true, but beside the point that I tried to make. In Europe, black slavery was invisible. It was just as invisible as the current exploitation of people in fast fashion sweatshops https://www.euronews.com/green/2020/07/10/exploitation-and-sweatshops-are-at-the-core-of-fast-fashion-it-s-time-to-dismantle-the-sys - less visible even, because modern communication technology did not exist in the 19 century. This is a fundamental difference between the US and Europe until mass migration in the second half of the 20th century: The US always had a visible blakc minority. Such a visible minority did not exist in Europe, and therefore was not a cultural factor. A 19th century Dutchmen would not interpret a black character (Zwarte Piet, blackface, other) in the same way as a 19th centry American would, because of this difference. If one looks to Zwarte Piet from a 19th century Dutch perspective, one sees a fairy tale figure, analogous to Pere Fouettard, accompanying another fairy tale figure (Sinterklaas). Personally, I observe that recent movies about American racism like Green Book, The Help, or Hidden Figures could not be made or set in Europe, because of this difference in visibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.240.32 (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the most common arguments that people typically break out while defending ZP is that Western Europe doesn't have enough historical ties to the slave trade or racist incidents to make the character racist and/or its traditions qualify as blackface. This isn't really true for a variety of reasons. Racism/discrimination, while not on the level of what you'll find historically in the United States, has been and continues to be a problem. The "but what about in America?' argument is a false equivalence that really shouldn't be applied here. Just because things are and have been worse in America doesn't mean that blackface is somehow totally okay on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Moving past that, the most common origin story of ZP is what you'll find in this Wikipedia article: "Zwarte Piet was a former slave who had been freed by the saint and had subsequently become his lifelong companion." Spain's occupation of the Netherlands and xenophobia toward Muslims that could arguably be dated all the way back to the Crusades are two other explanations for why ZP was depicted as having dark skin. While this discussion is interesting, it doesn't solve the core problem of this debate: putting black makeup on your skin to portray the traditional version of Zwarte Piet is undeniably blackface. Constablequackers (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems you are (probably unconsciously) turning to straw man reasonings, or that we are running in circles. You state 'putting black makeup on your skin to portray the traditional version of Zwarte Piet is undeniably blackface.'. Please read earlier comments: for me, the point under discussion is, that blackface has different connotations in different cultures, depending on place/time/etc. I already stated 'Blackface is not just an american thing, but the sensitivity of the topic blackface-slavery-black [people] is typically American.' I also stated 'I try and fail to understand the discussion here. Which main question (for the article) do you want to answer? Is Zwarte Piet a form of Blackface? Obviously true. What is the origin of Zwarte Piet, and what does het represent? A slave? A Moor? A chimney-sweep? I think (POV/OR) that this question has no answer: Zwarte Piet represents none of the above.' See above for further elaboration on Zwarte Piet as exotic fairy tale figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.240.32 (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I quote: 'Western Europe doesn't have enough historical ties to the slave trade'. I think this is (in practice) a straw man argument. The issue here is not the 'lack of ties', but the 'lack of visibility'. Slavery did not exist in Western Europe, and black people were virtually absent. As I noted, that did not imply absence of minorities or absence of discrmination: Jews in Europe had a position roughly comparable to the position of black people in the US. 62.112.240.32 (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy discussing the character's origins, history, and folklore, we really do seem to have lost the plot in this thread. But you did provide a much needed opinion on the blackface question ("Is Zwarte Piet a form of Blackface? Obviously true."). So thank you for that. I guess we can wrap this one up. Constablequackers (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

As long as you accept that blackface traditions and interpretations differ significantly between the two sites of the Atlantic. And that is the truly relevant point. Blackface may be stereotyping and therefore racist; but in Western Europe it lacked the link to slavery or other 'heavy' connotations, connotations it does have in the US. Actually, personally (POV) I suspect it the other way around: Zwarte Piet is black, because for a 19th century dutchman blackface lacks a clear link to recognizable discriminated minorites like Jews or symbols from the Ducth East Indies colonies. Then the exoticism/fairy tale aspect remains. And this is the true tragedy of black people in Dutch history: Their fate was ignored - not important enough to care about, not important enough even to discriminate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.240.32 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Finally off my block and working my way through the list of things I need to discuss. Claiming that Zwarte Piet's black make-up is blackface is in fact a fact contrary to Morgengave's claim to the contrary. The definition is clear, and Zwarte Piet was originally a slave—a black slave—regardless of what revisionists have tried to impose on the character. Placing black makeup on one's face to portray a black person is by dictionary definition blackface. I fully understand how this culturally important character causes problems for modern observers of it, but let us not gloss over the racist history of it. I'm in favour of the efforts to rehabilitate the character (sooty, rainbow or otherwise) but we cannot change history, even when it hurts contemporaries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Very well put. Constablequackers (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

A pity. Several nuanced points were brought forward (not only by me) and there are simply ignored by Walter Görlitz. So let;s reiterate some:

Blackface - 'blackface traditions and interpretations differ significantly between the two sites of the Atlantic'. Zwarte Piet is blackface in the simple factual sense that non-black people put on black make-up to impersonate someone who is black. Further connotations and interpretations are highly culturally dependent, and (at leats until recently) in NL blackface did not have the extremely negative connotations that it has in the USA. Culture bias.

'Zwarte Piet was originally a slave—a black slave—'. This is exactly the point under discussion, and just repeating your view does not make it true. Actually, both 19th century and later literature are extremely vague about Zwarte Piet's exact background. This is especially true of the stories and songbooks aimed at children, which portray Zwarte Piet (and for that matter, also Sinterklaas) as highly 'context-free', i.e. without specific references. They are fairy tale figures. As such, Zwarte Piet is more related to Krampus and Pere Fouettard than to actual black people. Links between Zwarte Piet and slavery were first made by the black minority which developed after 1975 (independence of Surinam), and were rare in public debate before ca 2010. How can Zwarte Piet be asymbol of black slavery if most Dutch people would not recognise him as such? It is just not logical.

Personally (POV/OR warning), I want to observe that, from a 19th/early 20th century point of view, a link between Zwarte Piet and slaves does not make sense. There were no black slaves in The Netherlands (or, for that matter, there was no black minority to speak of). If reference to a visible minority was needed, Zwarte Piet would have been a Jew. If reference to a colonial symbol was needed, Zwarte Piet would have been Javanese. It is highly doubtful that an average 19th century Dutchmen would identify Zwarte Piet as a black slave, as this average Dutchman would hardly be aware that blacks and slavery existed. 62.112.240.32 (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying is 1: not true and 2: was addressed above in our conversation last month. Please review both that and the history of the character, which has been outlined with citations within the article, before you post any further comments. There is no need to go over all of this again. Thanks. I also find it rather curious that you tend to pop up only during periods when Morgengave stops responding and are continuing to write in from an anonymous IP account. Constablequackers (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

1. What exactly is untrue? Is it untrue that US and Dutch cultures are different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#An_American_or_European_perspective_may_exist I think you are interpretign Dutch culture through an American lens - which is a basic mistake to make.

2. I've reviewed those and I do not see unequivocal proof that Zwarte Piet is a black slave. Quite the opposite; I first of all see the absence of an unequivocal origin story, both in the development of Zwarte Piet and 'in-universe'. Obviously, absence of something is difficult to prove, and therefore all kinds of snippets are easily overinterpreted into such an origin story or meaning. If you look to the context, then both Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet are actually detached from reality - in Dutch folklore Sinterklaas comes 'from Spain' although the true Saint Nicolas has never visited that country. Both are fairy tale figures.

With regard to 'I find it curious that..,'; I do not know what you're implying here. I do not known Mr or Mrs Morgengave and I am not responsible for his/her absence or posting schedule. Just for the record; I have 50 years experience with being Dutch and can confirm that until ca 2010 nobody really cared about Zwarte Piet's origin story - Zwarte Piet just was. Zwarte Piet may be racist due to being a stereotype (just as Betty Boop may be a sexist stereotype) - but he is not a slave. 62.112.240.32 (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, if yoyu believe I am Morgengavem then you're a bad reader. Morgengave started tghis section on 8 November with "Claiming that Zwarte Piet's black make-up is blackface is not a fact, but a POV.". I consistently hold a slighlty different view, see e.g. 11 december: "Is Zwarte Piet a form of Blackface? Obviously true. (..) Blackface is not just an american thing, but the sensitivity of the topic blackface-slavery-black [people] is typically American. There is a very objective reason underlying this cultural bias: Visible black slavery (or a blakc minority) did not exist in Western Europe, as it did in the US. I guess (POV) that in Europe blackface was loosely linked to exotism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.240.32 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I missed your points. I did not. In fact, I ignored them entirely, just as you have ignored mine. I would be please to address them (although Constablequackers is doing an admirable job) once you address mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You're reiterating the same talking points that have been thoroughly debunked in the comments above and within the article itself. Again, there's no reason to go over all this again. It's not my job to spoon feed you basic facts about this character and his history, 62.112.240.32, especially when I already did that last month. Constablequackers (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Walter, I honestly tried to address several points raised and bring forward some insight in actual Dutch culture (instead of an American biased interpretation of that culture). If you are not satisfied, please quote or refer(e.g. timestamp) to a core point that was not (sufficiently) addressed. There is a broader relevance to that; the Dutch have a different history compared to US with respect to black slavery. That history is just as tragic (or even more tragic, in some respects), but in a different manner. 2A02:A446:D064:1:B880:EA17:B98F:16E1 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We understand Dutch culture, but thank you for trying to explain it. I am not American and so that's not an issue for me either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we understand Dutch culture just fine. We, unlike yourself, also understand how to log into Wikipedia properly. XD Constablequackers (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

ConstableQuackers, I just noticed your comment above. I don't use anon accounts. I generally assume good faith and I suggest you do the same. I agree long-winded conversations can be frustrating to everyone involved, but I am sure that we'll ultimately get to a satisfying solution that addresses all concerns. Morgengave (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

As there is no consensus in current and past conversations and don't see much changing in the current one, I propose that, when I find the time, I (and/or others) provide a set of reliable sources that bring the nuance to the complex history and interpretations of Zwarte Piet. Then we can review them using the general Wikipedia guidelines on sources. I don't think there can be any reasonable objection to such a way forward. Morgengave (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed. The term blackface is not PoV as it uses a correct English term to describe the action. That is not PoV even if it makes those who celebrate it this way look badly. Also, don't revert to add your opinion; add a new template because you keep inserting an incorrect date format to the article. If you want another RfC on this, go for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The arguments of both yourself and the anonymous editor have been addressed (and debunked) at great length in the comments above, Morgengave. There's nothing left here to discuss. As Walter noted in a much more concise way in his comment: The term blackface is not PoV as it uses a correct English term to describe the action. So please stop placing a tag on the page. This is *not* a PoV and a single word doesn't warrant this. It never has. it never will. And the tag will continue to be removed. Constablequackers (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet is much older. You'll find this figure in books from the 1760s and 1770s and even a note from 1710. This figure is more related to the German bogeyman (Zwarte Man, also a children's game). There was absolutely no connection to PoC or any "slave" nonsense.

Of course, these "creatures" are considered black because they are dark mythic figures from the Western European folklore (https://www.google.de/books/edition/Vaderlandsche_letter_oefeningen_of_tijds/18UWAAAAQAAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=%22zwarte+piet%22&pg=RA1-PA222&printsec=frontcover) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.70.206.102 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet on the picture?

"The earliest known illustration of the character comes from an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman in which he was depicted as a black Moor from Spain."

The picture shows a figure. But where is the source for the claim that this figure was called Zwarte Piet in 1850? Zwarte Piet is an ancient form of bogey man, already mentioned in the 18. century and completely unrelated to the tradition of St. Nicholas. This connection didn't appear before the end of the 19. century. 217.70.206.102 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

In the next few months I will begin to update this knowledge. I developed a study and dissertation on this subject (from Leiden University) that has been under academic embargo for the last 10 years. The idea, representation, and character of Zwarte Piet can be traced back to the early Golden Age, through the existence of actual individuals (evidenced empirically by numerous depictions in royal archives as contextual data, and contemporaneous literature), and finally through a mediated refinement of objectification in the modern world. Openbridge (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

blackface?

Here am I kicking an old hornet's nest. I was about to comment what @Morgengave commented here previously.

This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Synotia (moan) 14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed someone cherry-picked English-language sources using the "blackface" word. You can check the Dutch WP article on this, the word blackface does not appear once. The controversy in the Netherlands is not about the blackface, but about the image of black people it forms in kids' minds.

It's not that I give a shit about this tradition, it's just that it bothers me having an article about a prominent controversy have such Americocentric POV in its lead. Synotia (moan) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but this is a topic that has been discussed at great length here in the past. The short version: blackface is *not* an exclusively American term. You'll find it in plenty of British English dictionaries and it's used throughout the English speaking world (UK, Canada, Australia, etc.). Constablequackers (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Trivia section

Per MOS:POPCULT, the "In popular culture" section does not belong in this article. It is the very thing that the guideline forbids:

"The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient; more generally, if sourcing for a given cultural reference is such that a given article would be able to do little more than briefly mention it, then it doesn't merit inclusion in that article at all."

@Constablequackers reverted my removal of the section, so I'm posting here for discussion. agtx 04:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the MOS:POPCULT rule and, as I'm sure you already know, it's one of the most widely ignored ones on Wikipedia. I'm also of the opinion it's dubious and probably deserves to be ignored. Furthermore the pop culture section here is a short one and I think it's genuinely interesting. It's not doing any harm, so I say leave it be, but let's see what others here have to say about it. Constablequackers (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I can see why it was removed. Of the 5 entries, 1 was from a Dutch show (while there are literary dozens of shows on Sint and Piet each year in the country), all other 4 were from US shows. So basically this is not a media and popular culture section but almost entirely a "presentation in USA media" section which makes it rather skewed and non global given that the phenomenon is not a USA one. Given the problematic selection of media exposure I would say removing is the better way forward. (alternatively some serious scrutiny in media reference in other anglo-saxon countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand have very big Dutch migrant communities) and European (UK, Ireland but also Germany, France and other countries closely related to the Netherlands and hence exposed to this tradition) must be conducted to de-bias the selection at least to some extent. Arnoutf (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet in all of his Pan European forms and shapes being judged and pictured by people not born into this folklore and not even from the European continent makes this article tendentious and can only be be validated as such. Aglaria (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

So it looks like what we have is one response saying to ignore a guideline and one saying that it probably doesn't belong. While people are welcome to their opinions that a guideline is wrong, guidelines reflect consensus. I'm going to go ahead and take the section out. agtx 14:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

"Creature"?

Why is Zwarte Piet a "creature" who has his 'habitat' in Spain, while Sinterklaas is a man whose 'home' is in Spain? These are very comparable articles in the Dutch folklore category, and they link directly to one another. Unless I'm misunderstanding the folklore, this seems inconsistent. Introscopia (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)