The Dutch “Zwarte Piet,” a silenced minority, and John Stuart Mill and John Milton

In the Netherlands, both children and adults have celebrated Sinterklaas for almost two centuries. Sinterklaas is a national holiday and narrates the story of Saint Nicholas, who allegedly did exist and functioned as a patron hallow of children. In November, Sinterklaas arrives in the Netherlands from Spain by steamboat, bringing presents for children with him, which the children will receive on December 5^th. The story of Sinterklaas later formed a model for the concept of Santa Clause.

One aspect of Sinterklaas, however, has become increasingly controversial over the last two years. According to the legend and tradition, Sinterklaas has several helpers, who are called Zwarte Piet(en) (an accurate translation may be Black Pete). During the celebratory months, normal people dress up like Zwarte Piet, which often includes painting one’s face black, wearing red lipstick, wearing gold earrings, and wearing old-fashioned clothes. While the extent to which the identity of Zwarte Piet has its roots in slavery and racism has not been determined or established, the concept itself has sparked tremendous debate and protest in Dutch society nonetheless. Opponents have suggested that Zwarte Piet is racist and that therefore, his skin color ought to be changed. The situation quickly escalated when in 2013, United Nations researcher Verene Shepherd argued that it is in fact racist and that the celebration of Sinterklaas should be abolished (Shepherd 1). It is interesting to study the discourse and rhetoric of the majority in particular, who wishes to preserve Zwarte Piet’s skin color, through a frame of early philosophers on freedom of speech and expression, as it may reveal subtle racism, xenophobia, intolerance, and a collision with the ideal of freedom of expression.

As over the last couple of years a small group of Dutch people opposing Zwarte Piet emerged, an even bigger countermovement rose, strongly condemning mentions of Zwarte Piet being racist and seeking to maintain the Sinterklaas tradition (according to the majority, for some reason, changing Zwarte Piet’s skin color equals changing the entire celebration). This was no small majority: in fact, last year, in October 2013, 91 percent of Dutchmen was against transforming Zwarte Piet’s appearance (nu.nl).

In the early stages of the discussion, opponents of Zwarte Piet were only sometimes represented in media. In interviews, reporters often focused on proponents who then elaborated on how ridiculous the idea of abolishing Zwarte Piet was: some media thus presented a very unilateral view to its spectators. In addition, many (white) people claimed that Zwarte Piet was not racism, thus silencing alternative views and people of color, who are more inclined to experience Zwarte Piet as racism. In terms of racism, a situation like this is highly problematic. Even more problematic, however, is the way in which some proponents have argued that opponents should “return to where they came from” if “they” (note the binary thinking) dare to disturb “our traditions,” or that “they should have no rights.” The arguments and discussion itself as well as the representation of the minority demonstrate racism, xenophobia, and strong intolerance of dissenting opinions and freedom of expression.

However, the situation has slightly changed. An EenVandaag report has found that more and more people join the opponents of Zwarte Piet and advocate change (Heilbron). More discussions have emerged and some counties have taken action, for example altering Zwarte Piet’s skin color (some Zwarte Pieten now have yellow, blue, green, or pink faces, or are painted black not because of a skin color but rather as a result of Zwarte Piet climbing a chimney). These changes and debates indicate progress. Opponents are now being acknowledged and their arguments are represented to some extent. However, unfortunately, that is not to say that intolerance has died out. The discussion has become intensified and violent (recently, a woman was injured during a protest), but rather than attempting to oppress other opinions, there is now a fierce debate going on.

The discussion, as it originated and progressed, simultaneously collides and demonstrates with ideals regarding freedom of expression. It rejects John Stuart Mill’s claim that “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind,” since some proponents of Zwarte Piet seek to silence opponents by contending that due to their minority, their opinion is irrelevant as well (Tedford 13). Other strategies include making derogatory remarks or arguing that Zwarte Piet is inherently not racist, while they are not people of color and thus do not experience racism in this way. Mill has also argued that “they [those who desire to suppress] have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging,” which is exactly what some proponents have attempted to do, both by deciding that Zwarte Piet is not racist and that Zwarte Piet should be maintained (qtd. in Tedford 414). Furthermore, the discussion at some point did not allow for the idea of the marketplace of ideas to prevail, since some opinions were blocked.

However, the discussion also exemplifies ideas as expressed by Mill and John Milton. In his essay "On Liberty" (1859), he articulated three reasons why freedom of speech should exist: namely that “the censored opinion may be true and the accepted opinion may be in error,” that truth needs to be tested in order not to become “dead dogma,” and that there is some truth to all views (Tedford 13). Particularly the first and third reason apply to the Zwarte Piet discussion. The rise of opponents may suggest the strength of their argument and fault of the opponents’, whereas the intense debate and lack of a solution indicate that both sides are correct to some extent. Now that there is more room for discussion, the marketplace of ideas as articulated by John Milton in his work Aeropagitica (1644) may work in this dispute. Milton’s famous quote, “Let her and Falsehood grapple, who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter,” suggests that in an open debate, truth will ultimately win, much like in a free marketplace, where customers decide upon the best product after deliberation (394).  The growth of opponents of Zwarte Piet may demonstrate the metaphor in this discussion. However, only time can tell which truth will prevail.

Works Cited

Heilbron, Miguel. “Cijfers bewijzen: Steeds meer mensen willen verandering Zwarte Piet.” EenVandaag, 16 October 2014. Web. 28 October 2014.

nu.nl. “VN-onderzoeker pleit voor afschaffen Sinterklaasfeest.” Sanoma, 22 October 2013. Web. 28 October 2014. 

Shepherd, Verene. “AL Af. Descent 2012 Cultural rights (2009) Minorities (2005-4) G/SO 214 (78-15) NLD 1/2013.” United Nations, 17 January 2013. Web. 

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing Inc., 2013. Print.

  

A photo showing me meeting Zwarte Piet twelve years ago (photo is my own). The photo clearly shows the way in which Zwarte Piet is supposed to look. 

A Facebook post exemplifying comments I have referred to earlier in this post. The text on the left reads: “Zwarte Piet is not racist: I share this because Zwarte Piet is part of our Dutch culture: do not dare to change our traditions!” The comments on the right agree. The amount of likes and shares imply this is a wide-spread sentiment.