Talk:Zwarte Piet

The good and the bad

Where Zwarte Piet comes from remains essentially a mystery. However, most guesses go in the direction of an evil spirit, accompanying the good Saint. There is little doubt about its roots in animistic pre-christian mythology.

The Sinterklaas myth has certainly many similarities with pre-Christian German mythology concerning Wodan or Wutan, the German 'higher God'. In the beginning of severe winter, Wodan rode with his six hoofed horse over the roofs and dropped "good luck" biscuits in the form of runes (German lettres) through the chimneys.

In the late pre-christian period, good was mirrored in bad (it was among many other religions the core of the Aryan "heresy", an early christian interpretation that lost the battle with orthodoxy). We find that dichotomy in Lucifer, the fallen angel. Good was white and bad was black.

This old story has been re-invented over and over again, for ideological reasons. The birch Zwarte Piet carried was recognised by children before the twentieth children as a common spanking instrument for bad children. When flogging children with rods became "not done", other interpretations were forwarded. However, in France he is still called 'Père Fouettard', or 'Father the Whipper'.

'Anti-racist" interpretations of Black Pete as a negro slave may be called racist, as they interpret all from a context of white versus black. Pete was black, he was evil and he was likely a slave of the good but the core of the myth is far older than the relatively recent slave trade or modern racism (or its Sinterklaas pendant anti-racism).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bonneux (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Racism

Zwarte Piet may have been a racist thing in the past, but you can be sure parents from this time period don't tell their children that zwarte piet was a negro-slave. Thing change over time. The most common story right now is that zwarte piet gets his black face because he climbs down chimneys, and gets covered with sooth. In your effort to create a NPOV article, you have done the opposite. I'm not saying that the existing part of the article needs to be changed. Im saying that there needs to be added a new part explaining this. 62.194.170.62 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet is part of the dutch culture, anyone has the right to look down apon it just as others look down apon many actions americans take. You all need to suck it up and deal with it. Its a part of heritage that has been for years.

Further evidence for the Soot story; ever wondered why we don't let negroid people play Zwarte Piet? It's because originally, Zwarte Piet was white, and he's black from the soot. 213.84.77.218 10:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

'We' don't 'let' negroid people play Zwarte Piet? Hardly. I don't think we have any say in the matter. If black people want to play Zwarte Piet they can, without 'permission' from white people. It's rare, but I have seen negroid Zwarte Pieten - without make-up of course. 84.53.74.196 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen (Suriname originating) ones with make-up too. 88.159.64.210 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one origin of any cultural character. They all change over time and each era sticks a part of those days to the character like gum on your shoe's as your walking through life. Different people grow up with different views, and before television and now the internet connects every part of the world even a small country like the Netherlands or Belgium is quite large indeed. The 'evidence' that was presented on december 22 isn't evidence at all... just a guess made by the writer. But so is the guess made by a user on december 26th, who presumes to know that black people don't play zwarte piet because they are offended by it. I disagree with the statement that black pete has 'long since' been replaced by rainbow colored versions... This hasn't been introduced all that long ago. If I am wrong i'd love to see some evidence of that. --Paddy Fitzgerald 12:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen people play zwarte piet in other imigrant quarters of Amsterdam. These people did use make-up because dark coloured people are never as dark as Zwarte Piet is. 85.144.122.79 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say anything regarding the origin of the specifically Dutch version, but I think it would be a good idea if folks took a look at images the figure known as 'Schmutzli' (which roughly translates to 'The Dirty One') in Switzerland and parts of Southern Germany and Western Austria. He, too, is typically portrayed as 'black', but, as the name indicates, this is understood to be the product of dirt or soot and not his skin color. Also, he is of the same stature as Klaus, appearing more as his 'shadow' or 'opposite'. The only significant differences are the color of his face (ranging from simply soiled with soot to actual blackface), gown/frock (typically brown or black, though usually of the same shape as that of Klaus), beard (typically black), and the nature of the objects he carries. Maybe someone can find literature linking the 'Schmutlzi' of the South to the Black Peter of the North. Aryaman (☼) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"who presumes to know that black people don't play zwarte piet because they are offended by it." - That's the way of all "anti"-racists: Stereotyping the "victim" race in a serious, thought crime, sort of way. They'd hate to think that individuals can embrace non-serious "stereotypes" such as Zwarte Piet, as well as other racial caracatures. --Kurtle (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I assume the OA of this article is Dutch or something, as the constant references to things 'clearly' being stated and 'impossible' to do, and glossing over the controversy of the racial aspects of Zwarte Piet (which are HARDLY recent). As a result, this article across as "There's nothing bad about Zwarte Piet! No, really!" Obviously, in a place like this, we can't say that there IS, but this article as it is leaves a lot to be desired, especially historically. MagentaThompson 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone who knows American culture well, will know that in the US, the blackface image is considered a powerful racist image, at the same level as a burning cross or a swastika. In another culture, it may be associated with the holidays and candy. I'm afraid it's both, depending on the context. --Mzzl 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's idd the same as a swastika, which also in Europe is not considered 'a good thing', but for example in India(?) and other cultures is considered a common sign. I think if the article is well explained, this shouldn't be an issue.

Van der Hoorn 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The swastika was chosen by Hitler as the symbol for the Nazis. At the time he was copying the already existing swastika (which dates back to ancient Greece) but to make it his own he reversed the direction in which the 'spokes' of the symbol point. As such the symbol used by the Nazis and the symbol seen in other cultures are indeed very similar but they are not identicle. fildon 16th of December 2006

Needs work

This article could be expanded substantially. For now, I've settled for separating it from Knecht Ruprecht, an article to which it previously was redirected.

Anyone wishing to elaborate on this subject -- particularly the controversy surrounding it -- may wish to refer to the various outside links provided, as well as to Blackface. Peace. deeceevoice 16:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

-- The Iranians have a similar character called Hajji Ferouz. He is the mascot of the Iranian New Year, and is kind of like a Zwarte Piet. I would be astonished if they didn't have the same etiology.--Aufidius 00:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

-- Is there a word "schminked"? I can't find it online or in a dictionary. The closest I can find is an Eartha Kitt song, "Mink, Schmink" which certainly does not apply here.

I suspect someone's having us on. Scix 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

actually, "schminken" is a dutch verb, it means "applying theatrical make-up". It comes from "schminke", a brand of grease paint 80.60.242.12 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What does Zwarte Piet have to do with Christmas? Why the category christmas characters. The feast of St. Nicholas is celebrated on 5 or 6 december. Andries 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

you should take a look at Companions of Saint Nicholas and Saint Nicholas

-- Isn't Zwarte Piet's face black because of the soot from decending the chimney (that is what I was told while I lived in Rotterdam)? One year the American's at my school were quite upset and there was no Zwarte Piete for the little kids (it was an international k-12 school), the kids were not impressed with the replacements... --SeanJA

-- I too was taught that Black Peter's face was soiled from the soot from the chimneys. The tradition - as I heard it - was that Black Peter would ascend the roof to listen at the top of the chimney to hear if the children had been good or bad and would then leave gifts at the door. -tickjrh

-- I am an American who lived in the Netherlands for three years when I was younger, it was around 1974-1977. Zwarte Piet was portrayed to us as Sinter Klaas' helper, black (not sooty), and the one who did most of the legwork (putting candy or switches in your wooden shoes you left outside overnight). His being black wasn't really remarked upon; everyone's gotta be some color. The one I actually saw was really black, not in blackface, but he was one of the very, very few blacks I ever saw in Holland; I imagine in most cases the blackface is due to there not being anyone genuinely black around to portray him! It's probably more diverse there now 30 years later... -mxyzplk

-- I just removed some weasel words and gave soem links to testimonial and criticism of the negative Zwarte Piet experience. I am a Canadian of mixed Dutch - Jamaican descent and the issue kind of tears me up. It seems like ex-pats and people from North America are the first one's to criticize, yet its true that every country in the world had to work on inclusiveness. As the criticism itself says the problem isn't Zwarte Pie, but whatever role Zwarte piet plays in social exclusion. harperin

-- In regard with latest additions I have relocated the external criticism tags and accompaning text to 'current events' where more external opinions are gathered. Some of those weasel words you removed were definatly not meant in that manner, but rather used to illustrate the diversity of opinions on the matter. By removing the indication that Zwarte Piet it seen as rasism by 'some' the text has become a factual statement that zwarte piet equals rasism, which heightens the audience expectations about the speaker's subject, which is also exactly what should be prevented. It might have been better to define 'some' by adding who these 'some' are. i.a. 'people that connect the appearance of zwarte piet to blackface' and thus excluding those people that do not link this appearance to a racial bias, which was how the previous was originally intended, although it might have been flawed. If the text would remain this way there should be mention of the view that it is not considered rasist after which people the reader can form it's own opinion. --Paddy Fitzgerald 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

'Low Countries' term removed.

It's just old-fashioned! See Low Countries article: " ... is not particularly current in modern articles ... " And the Wikipedia is supposed to be modern, isn't it? :) We don't say 'Rhodesia' either anymore, but Zimbabwe so ... ;) I've replaced it with the more modern term 'Benelux'. -andy 80.129.107.169 14:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Benelux is not the same as the low countries, and sinterklaas is not a holiday in Luxembourg.

---

I'm putting "low countries" back in because the reason it is "old fashioned" is because it doesn't reflect the current political boundaries of the countries it is referring to, but it is still very applicable culturally. I'm in the Netherlands now, where the phrase is used all the time. Maybe its not in vogue, or PC for scholars or something, but it doesn't seem to raise problems for the people it is actually referring to. Whirlingdervish 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Piet Zwart Institute

I figured it must be related, like we would assume a "Claus Santa Institute" would be. In fact, no. Just like this character is "Black Pete", this was the "Pete Black institute" - Piet Zwart is just some photographer. My mistake. Jim Apple 19:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Piet Zwart" is just an ordinary name in Dutch. Andries 19:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Present and Future

The first paragraph implied that "Santa and the elves" may compete or displace "Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet". Wrong holiday! The feest of Saint Nicholas (= Sint-Nicolaas = Sinterklaas in Dutch) is celebrated December 5 or 6. "Santa and the elves" are actually competing with "Kerstman" in the latter part of December. It is also somewhat ironic that it be suggested that the non-PC Zwarte Piet be replaced by elves when the latter have received criticism for being non-PC as well.

The remarks about the future of Zwarte Piet are speculation and should be considered for removal.

-- I reconsidered my remarks about the possible future and agree. Refrased and removed.--Paddy Fitzgerald 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Content comparison with Dutch version

I have been reading through both the English & Dutch version of this article and have tried to add some explanation in the English article which was missing from the Dutch version: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet

The big lines of both stories coincide with the heritage of the Saint and his helper and although the articles are no exact translation, there is no contradiction to be found.

Best regards,

Vivian

26 Nov 2006

Martinet vs. Birch

In the previous version it was mentioned that Zwarte Piet uses a typical Martinet like in france. It was linked to the page of the Martinet, but this item is incorrect. The Martinet is a rod ending in several lashes like a whip. The item Piet uses is a Birch (a 'roe' or 'roede' in dutch). A bundle of twigs, bound at the end looking most like a witches broomstick without the stick. Since the word 'birch' redirects to a page full of the tree type 'birch' I have placed the redirect on the word birching. --Paddy Fitzgerald 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

East India Company

In the article the East India Company is mentioned in relation to slavery in the the 17th century. The East India Company did not take part in slavery. There was however a West India Company that took part in slavery

[personal attack removed by --Paddy Fitzgerald 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)]

That's a rather overblown reaction, considdering that the original commentor was probably just thinking of the Slave Triangle and realised that that was set up by the West, not the East, India Company. Besides the East India Company didn't technically perform wholesale slavery as the local population got small (token) wages for their work (which has always been the difference between the East and West India Companies). 62.251.127.12 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quite an overreacted and demeaning comment that goes against the WP:NPA. Although it should be used sparingly, I believe that in addition to the post not being signed at all, this would be enough. Let's keep it polite in here. --Paddy Fitzgerald 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

multi-colored Pieten

The part describing multi-colored Pieten had been removed as a whole, since the issue of the rainbow Pieten is a 'this year only' event. This might be true (we'll find out next year', but the previous edit describing colored Pieten in general is not a one year event, as shown in the 1999 news article added to exterior links. I've reincluded the part about the colored Pieten in it's broader concept, without the specific mention of this years event. --Paddy Fitzgerald 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to Odin's Raven

There's a theory that Sinterklaas is the christianized version of an older celebration, in which Wodan/Odin was the subject. According to folklore his "ears and eyes" were the raven Huginn and Muninn, which could have evolved into the Black Pete's. I'll try to find online sources for this theory. 81.71.36.212 00:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be removed - there is no reference given, and having read the original source, I'd say the evidence for this link is pretty thin. If subsequently someone can find a source for this theory - and that the theory itself is plausible, you could always put it back in lxowle (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

External Link

The link to the page [1] was labeled with "testimony" and "victimization" which are both not NPOV, and also not even in the article in a sourced way in any case, this is the article author's opinion and perspective and i do agree it needs to be in there so that readers can draw their own conclusions, but the wikipedia page should not be swaying anyone to hold any specific view of this tradition. Also i worry that that site contains a fair amount of advertising, i would have removed the link but like I say though i do not necessarily agree with that opinion (the author of the article seems to be talking about paranoia more than actual victimization), it is necessary to include both positive and negative views of this tradition. Let me know if i'm against policy or something here, it just seemed worded too strongly one way to be maintained. GTMusashi 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to a Canadian ex-pat goes to the top page for expatica.com. It worked a few weeks ago. I'm a newbie, not sure how to fix it so it calls the correct page.

NPOV (2)

I propose to remove the opinionated sentence:

The Netherlands' non-white population in particular finds Black Peter and his representation as child-like and in blackface to be offensive.

The reference attached points to some kind of blog ranting about the alledged racist nature of Zwarte Piet, but failing to give any real supportive facts.

Cheers, 92.108.16.46 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any complaint by an actual black person. Not even on TV. The alledged racist bit seems to be a "making news" cycle where some leftish columnist writes about it, which gives nationalist television (e.g. SBS6 Hart van Nederland) fodder for days. I think this racism remark should be sourced with actual quotes from e.g. formal Dutch coloured associations, and not just refer to annual treatise in populist media.

88.159.64.210 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is one factual error in the article: Under current affairs there is mention of Zwarte Piet 'speaking in a Surinamese accent'. This is not true, unless the person playing Zwarte Piet happens to Surinamese of course. Zwarte Piet speaks regular Dutch. The source article that is referred to makes the same mistake. I suggest to remove both the phrase in the article and the quoted source. The way Zwarte Piet speaks can be checked here for example: http://beta.uitzendinggemist.nl/programmas/1670-het-sinterklaasjournaal But of course one has to understand Dutch in order to understand the accent spoken with. 94.208.18.55 (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur, article seems to confuse Suriname descent of many Dutch blacks and Zwarte Piet. 88.159.64.210 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

I think the tag on the image is confusing. Some people might think that it refers to and alleged shot of the real zwarte piet and the real sinterklass. It is obviously not, and people will probably now it, but still, it sounds awkward. Something like "a picture depicting people costumed as Sinterklass and Zwarte Piet" would sound better, IMHO. 205.211.221.52 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite tag Dec 2009

Tag was added without adding a discussion, so I'll mention it here. Not a good article, probably doesn't need to be rewritten entirely. I've ordered a book on ZP, so when I get it I'll try working on it. Шизомби (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag, which was crazy. The article is fine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing User:Bloodofox's addition of the rewrite tag as "appear[ing] to be vandalism" in your edit summary diff and above as "crazy" because you think the article is "fine" isn't ideal, particularly when Bloodofox's edit summary did supply a reason "Plagued with unreferenced opinions, this article needs to be rewritten from scratch" diff and there's another editor here agreeing that some kind of problem tag beyond the ones that were already present was appropriate. Anyhow, the book I ordered arrived, so I will be trying to work on it soon. Шизомби (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well; that tag grossly exaggerates the problems this article has, though. The 'unreferenced' tag already in the article seems more appropriate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)