Zwarte Piet is Racism

As Christmas approaches, preparations for the holiday season are in full swing. Lights are being hung, trees are being trimmed – and debates about racism are raging.

In the Netherlands, a debate about the racism of Christmas characters has made its way to the legal system. Last week an administrative court ruled that Amsterdam’s annual Christmas parade could go on this year even if it included Zwarte Piet, the controversial character traditionally played by white actors wearing blackface. This overturned a previous ruling that had labelled Zwarte Piet as racist and discriminatory and given the mayor six weeks to decide whether to hold a parade at all.

The big Sinterklaas parade, held every year in Amsterdam, celebrates the arrival of Sinterklaas, or St. Nicholas. In this street party type affair, which is broadcast on television all over the country, St Nicholas arrives with his helpers, slave/servants referred to as Zwarte Piet, or Black Pete. This character is represented by white actors in blackface, with afro wigs, red lipstick, and big gold earrings. Zwarte Piets follow Sinterklaas around, act generally silly, and hand out Christmas sweets to children.

How did Sinterklaas end up with a helper, when other incarnations of Saint Nick such as Santa Claus and Father Christmas prefer to fly solo? In the mid 19th century, a children’s book was published in the Netherlands called “Saint Nicholas and his Servant,” which introduced the character as a Negro assistant or pageboy to Sinterklaas. He did the climbing down chimneys, since Sinterklaas himself was too fat (this, some say, is the only reason for the black paint – it represents soot). By the early 20th century, a standardised Christmas celebration had spread across the country with the black servant, now named Peter, as a permanent fixture.

Many Dutch people say that Zwarte Piet is simply an innocent Christmas tradition. However, the racist undertones of hundreds of white people dressing up in black face and deliberately acting like fools every year are clearly troubling. Activists around the world have protested the practice for years – but every year the Dutch vehemently defend it.

Polls indicate that 91% of the Dutch believe that the Zwarte Piet character is not racist. For a people so progressive on other issues, such as cannabis and same-sex marriage, why are the Dutch so insistent on holding onto this, as Russell Brand dubbed it, “colonial hangover”?

One blogger, quoted in the Guardian, attributed the defence of Zwarte Piet to the phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance: “the brain filters out new information (Zwarte Piet is a racist caricature) that conflicts with what one already believes (I love Zwarte Piet and I am not a racist).” So perhaps what is going on here is a natural defence mechanism. The Dutch can’t get their heads around the idea that their beloved childhood iconography is racist, because they don’t want to think of themselves as a racist nation.

And they don’t have to. But they do, as a nation, have to examine this tradition candidly and honestly, instead of blindly denying every accusation. The recent court rulings are a step in this direction. And although they were conflicted, hopefully they are the start of a process that can ensure that Christmas in the Netherlands is enjoyable for all, not just white people.

Ruth Hirsch