Zwarte Piet 2008

I don't have so much to add to what I've said about Zwarte Piet in the past.

To me, Zwarte Piet is a racist anachronism and should be transformed into something a little less offensive.

It's not difficult to decipher that this 'servant' to a wise white man, with an impossibly black face, big red lips, and nappy hair, is a throwback to the colonial era.

Now, all that remains is convincing 16 million Dutch.

On a philosophical note, 'winning arguments' is not about proving people wrong. Trying to prove people wrong is only a recipe for making them defensive.

The most you can do in a discussion is try to introduce doubt into people's minds about something and perhaps show them that there are other ways of thinking that could also be attractive.

Easier said than done in real life! Anyhow, here's me playing Socrates. I plan to do this from time to time when I meet someone wearing blackface, as the opportunity presents itself.



I had the kid gloves on, and of course we reached no major epiphanies in a short conversation. But it was interesting how quickly everybody became nervous.



So, in the spirit of fair-mindedness, I want to ask myself where might I be wrong about Zwarte Piet and to try to see things more from a Dutch viewpoint.

I was recently talking about Zwarte Piet with one of my Dutch friends _ let's call him "Sander."

Sander repeated some arguments that I've heard in the past, about how he never perceived Zwarte Piet as a negative figure _ rather, Piet was likeable. While Sinterklaas was aloof and unapproachable, Piet was boisterous and friendly.

I guess I would say _ maybe. On the other hand, he's also dumb as a box of rocks; a subservient clown; and there's the danger he might stuff you into his bag.

Another hard-to-answer argument in favor of Zwarte Piet is: yes, it's racist, but so what? Is it really that bad an influence on children? Lighten up!

That's a hard one to answer. I don't believe violent video games hurt kids, so why should I think Piet is so important?
I would say, I don't think exposure to Zwarte Piet, by itself, makes people turn out racist. It's just one negative, offensive model. It's an embarrassment to the people who participate, like calling mentally disabled people "retards."
The world will not come to a halt if the Zwarte Piet tradition continues in its current form _ it would just be a better place without it.


***

My concern at the moment is what to do about my son (2.75 yrs old), and I have to say it's difficult to know what's the right thing.

I mean, demonstratively challenging all the Zwarte Piets around the country on their appearance in front of him is not a viable option _ let alone trying to keep him away from all the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of advertisements.

I don't think I could explain my distaste for Piet to him if I tried, so for now I'm just muddling through, avoiding Piet when I can and focusing on the Sinterklaas part of the story.

***

It seems the debate over Piet has gotten more venomous since last year.

I heard a pretty good analysis from one of Amsterdam's most powerful Surinamese politicians, Hannah Beliot. She said that what's happened lately is that Zwarte Piet has been adopted by the 'know-nothing' elements of Dutch society as a kind of prestige object.
This camp has decided that Piet is a vital symbol for all Dutch culture [even though the tradition is not as old as they like to think] and that they won't "lose" Piet to political correctness or any thing else.

Recently a pair of artists attempted to hold an anti-Zwarte Piet march in Eindhoven, but they were forced to cancel after receiving threats.

Most of the vitriol directed at them was because they were foreigners, deemed incapable of understanding Dutch tradition.

So much for tolerance and 'vrijheid van meningsuiting.' (Freedom of Speech), some other much-praised Dutch cultural virtues.

I hope the anti-Pieters push ahead with plans to make a film about the racism inherent in Zwarte Piet, a topic that in my view is on its way to becoming a taboo in this country.



For people who can't get enough of Piet, I recommend http://zwartepiet-links.blogspot.com as a starting point for more reading.
MORE

Dutch Culture Wars II - KLM the 'appeasers'

(flickr: darkpatator)

De Telegraaf reports that on a KLM flight from Istanbul to Amsterdam recently, a Muslim woman asked if the (Dutch) non-Muslim man sitting next to her could be moved to another seat.

There was another (better) seat open, so they moved him.

That's the story.

You might think: why is it news when an airline does a small courtesy to a woman traveling alone? You'd be missing the nuance. This is pure appeasement, proof that creeping Islamism is on the brink of destroying Dutch society!

De Telegraaf's headline reads "KLM Bows To Muslim Sex[ist] Demand"

The story drew more than 900 comments on De Telegraaf's website _ about a third of them so venomous that they had to be removed. The first comment that wasn't censored, the fifth, reads:

"Yeah, just wait a little longer and we will only be able to do what our Muslim brothers and sisters say we can. We just have to adjust in our own country."

That sets the tone. Comment after comment rails about the impending Islamic state in the Netherlands, the outrageousness of the woman's request, religion is stupid, this is the world upside down, etc., etc.



But just look at the story closely and it falls apart.

(bogers)

The only way we even know it happened at all is that the guy who changed seats, Lex van Drooge, happens to be a politician for the Christian Democrat party in Amsterdam.

More on that in a moment.

Funny enough, it's not clear whether he is sure it happened at all. He says he didn't speak a word to the woman he was next to and at first didn't know why the flight attendant asked him to move. "Later it emerged that this was at the request of my original neighbor with a headscarf," the paper quoted him saying. (A headscarf, the horror! We know what *that* means. What kind of backward people would wear a headscarf?)



But:
-He doesn't actually say her objection was religious _ he just suggests it.
-No other passengers noticed the incident.
-KLM staff say they don't know about it either.

A KLM spokesperson quoted in the story says their seating change policy is that if someone wants a change, flight attendants accommodate them when possible, and otherwise not. (sure sounds true to my experience). No special Muslims policy.

Lex van Drooge is also quoted saying he 'telephoned around' and no one else has heard of this kind of thing happening on other airlines, not even Turkish ones.

I believe the incident did happen in some form, so I'm not questioning Van Drooge's word per se.

But as a critical person you have to look at the situation:

1) Van Drooge is an opposition politician in left-leaning Amsterdam. He has something to gain by playing up this story. It didn't make its way into the paper without his help. (THINK, people!).

(CDA Amsterdam website)

2) Is it not possible that the woman didn't want to sit next to Drooge for some other reason? One person can take a dislike to another without exchanging a word _ it happens all the time.

(bs70)

So maybe she used religion as an excuse for having him moved; or maybe Drooge just assumed it was a question of religion.

***

My main interest in this story is really the double whammy of the incendiary way De Telegraaf cast it, and the nastiness of the reactions by the paper's readers.

On the readers: so many of them are concerned with Muslim intolerance and saying that Muslims should conform to 'Dutch' ways or not travel here.

But this didn't happen on the cheese train in Gouda. It happened on a flight between Istanbul and Amsterdam.

Turn the plane around, look in the mirror, and ask, why is this such a big deal?

Substitute "Catholic nun asks not to sit next to man on flight" for "Muslim woman," and I don't think anyone would have raised an eyebrow.



The defensiveness and over-reaction to a small perceived affront to Dutch culture is a sign of insecurity.

How DARE she tell us what to do! Why do WE have to be considerate to a foreigner in OUR country! Not fair!

Where's the sense of perspective here?

At one Dutch company I know of, they don't serve karnemelk (buttermilk) for lunch when Japanese guests are attending. Accommodating foreigners in this way is not a sign Dutch culture is about to collapse in the face of a Japanese onslaught.

On the contrary, making a small sacrifice for foreign visitors is usually considered 'nice,' or 'being polite'. I wish De Telegraaf's readers would try that thought out for a change.



On De Telegraaf: the use of the words "Bow" and "Demand" in the headline are unfair and indefensible, as far as I can see.

As in the previous two stories, the reporting is one-sided in the most basic sense of the word: no Muslim is quoted, let alone the "complainers."

One final thought on De Telegraaf. You'd think that a paper that was "wrong" in WWII would be a little more careful about slinging around accusations of "appeasement."
MORE

Dutch Culture Wars

(Ellen Vroegh's banished painting)

There's a breed of stories coming out in the Dutch press lately with the theme "man, can you believe how backward those Muslims are?!"

Personally, I have my doubts about how accurate these stories are: they are suspiciously well-suited to a readership eager to be outraged by anything un-Dutch done by Muslims.

The most recent is the story (Telegraaf, Dutch) of how the city hall of Huizen removed the painting above because of complaints from "Muslim men."

A week ago, when there was a heat wave, there was a similar story (Telegraaf, Dutch) that said _ or so the story goes _ several Muslim men asked (white) Dutch construction workers not to wear t-shirts and shorts to work. Too revealing.

The foreman "said there was a complaint from Islamic neighbors. They thought our clothes were too naked and too short." The well-muscled men registered the remark (i.e. and didn't act on it).

-Construction worker Robin Willemsen, as quoted by De Telegraaf.

I guess somewhat surprising if true.

The Telegraaf's wording ("well-muscled men") ensured that the basic tone of responses (23 pages worth on the paper's website) would focus on the sexual undertone here: how Muslim immigrant men must feel worried that their women will be led into temptation by the sight of white male flesh.

Yeah, right.

Here are the two basic types of Dutch construction workers:

(flickr: malingering)

(flickr:geoff coupe)

Neither one of them is likely to pull a lot of Muslim chicks.

What if _ and I'm just speculating here _ one of the workers were taking a leak on the site, and that bothered the locals?

What I'm saying is, as surprising as it seems that Muslims were complaining about men in shorts on a hot day, I sure wish I could hear their side of the story, rather than reading a version derived 100% from the perspective of the construction workers.

More deconstruction:



On the removed painting:
Reading other reports fills out the picture a bit.

NOS writes that actually "several female employees also didn't feel comfortable" with the paintings either. But it doesn't mention what religion they were.

De Volkskrant (via ANP?) says there were actually two paintings, and they were moved from the main lobby. More interestingly, a city spokeswoman is quoted as saying complaints came from "a couple of Muslims, as well as people of other spiritual convictons."



I would add that Huizen is a small, politically conservative town where the Dutch Reform Church (Calvinists) is by far the largest.
I wish I could put a number on how many Muslims live there, but I can summarize it thusly: not many.

If this were just a plain old "some people are prude" story, would we even be reading it?

MORE

Red Light Fashion

(This is a model, opening the door at a fashion studio that was formerly a brothel).

One of the more interesting days I've had at work lately. I don't have much more to add to the AP story, but I wanted to paint the scene a little more.

There were dozens of camera teams out and wandering around in the Red Light, which is pretty much unheard of _ normally filming there is a good way to get yourself a black eye. I sneaked some photos, but it's unethical for me to publish them _ the "working women" are too easy to recognize. I'll just be keeping them in my *cough* private collection for the time being.

There was something very surreal about having fashion models, tour guides (with big white balloons) and the usual "who knows who they are" people that get attached to these kind of events running around amid the junkies and tourists; the streets in this part of town are extremely narrow and if just one person stops walking you get a mini traffic jam.

Plus it was raining the whole time so everybody had umbrellas. Anyhow here are some interesting tidbits from me:



This was formerly the inside of a prostitutes' sex chamber. The women I'm talking to are assistants of the designer who's taken it over. He was standing outside talking to reporters. You can see all his fabric stacked above the table; I believe the silky bench thing is original. It's hard for me to say, but I just bet it's not really the designer's taste.

Then again, I am "the rock against which the waves of fashion break."

Somebody said that about my father once, and I've been wanting to assume the mantle for some time now. Bij deze.

And here's the politician who's driving (or at least in charge of) the crackdown, Lodewijk Asscher:


Some insider junk about the Red Light after the "more"...


I love this photo. The Casa Rosso is one of the sex clubs now slated to be shut down, but the police and doorman still certainly have cordial relations: the cop stops to get a light for his cigarette.

Finally, a sex-room, still with authentic lighting (?). The mannequins are a nice touch.



MORE

Zwarte Piet Reconsidered

I think I can safely say I got more hits on the post about Zwarte Piet than any other on this blog so far. Thanks for all the comments everybody.

I can say that after polling about 50 Dutch people, I found only one who thought Zwarte Piet was racist. He was white, for what it's worth.

Also, I found a German, a Swiss, and a Spanish tourist, none of whom thought it was a big deal, so I guess I stand corrected about the rest of the world rejecting this.

However, (in my opinion) none were able to really answer any of the points I made, they just retorted with "it's a custom, and we don't mean any harm by it."

And it was fascinating the wild theories, many of them contradictory, that people have about Zwarte Piet.

Due to personal reasons (namely, me being sick as a dog) I wasn't able to get any of the Zwarte Piets in blackface on film. Here's this though: a film clip taken at Bijenkorf, the Dutch equivalent of Macy's.




My resolution is to do some deeper research into the exact origins of Zwarte Piet. I want to look specifically at how something the Dutch call "Old Sinterklaas" is celebrated in outlying places like URK and the island of Texel, which will preserve more of the pre-1800 ceremonies due to their linguistic and geographic isolation.
I also want to research a bit more about how Sinterklaas is celebrated in different countries.

And I'd like to do a more precise job of tracing the Netherlands'adoption of the Zwarte Piet image through the years.

Then I'm going to be back next year, making my argument with 10 times the rhetorical verve.

Well, trying to anyway.

If anyone out there hasn't listened to the hilarious clip that Derek recommended, I urge you to do so forthwith (yes D., I've heard 'em before but they're definitely classic). I love This American Life, it's one of the few things other than my family that keeps me bonded with my country of origin.



And what about me? Well, I celebrated Sinterklaas with my in-laws.

There was a Sint but no Zwarte Piet present. Here's a photo of my son playing with a _ well a racist balloon. I guess that captures the ridiculousness of it well.



My son wasn't impressed by Sinterklaas, nor did he notice the balloon, so I guess he's still pure. I'll face Laura's "Parent Dilemma" next year, if I'm still in the Netherlands...

My in-laws, who I think have no idea about the whole debate, gave me a book called "Sinterklaas," by Charlotte Dematons, which is apparently a big hit this year.

Ah, sweet irony.



Here we see Sint lives in a Spanish plantation mansion, while the Piets live out in the servants quarters.



They also do the cooking and cleaning.

Step 'n Fetch it? Or valued co-workers? You be the judge.
MORE

Zwarte Piet is a racist caracature part II -- Thanksgiving edition

(photo: emmaline)

(This essay is a work in progress)

To the good people of the Netherlands, who believe that they are not racist, wrongly, and believe that Zwarte Piet is a harmless, innocent tradition, wrongly, I want to say:

Thank you! I'm American, and I recognize that we owe Santa Claus, the main figure in our primary children's fantasy holiday, directly to the Dutch Sinterklaas. Santa turned Nordic in America, he got fat in America (like so many Americans), and we gave him elves as "helpers" ourselves. But credit for the basic idea goes to the Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam.

In return, we have given you one of our smash-hit cultural exports to use during Sinterklaas: "blackface" and "darky iconography," a racist genre of theater and art that portrays black people as idiots, with exaggerated big lips, woolly hair, and of course, pitch black faces.

You use it on Sint's friend, "Black Pete."



Happy Thanksgiving!

No, Zwarte Piet wasn't always part of your Dec. 5 Sinterklaas tradition, which itself has changed dramatically over the years. Store that fact for later reference.

Zwarte Piet is a mishmash of ideas, but the red lips, woolly hair and blackface part of his "look" was copied directly and indirectly from artistic traditions from the U.S. in the century before World War II.

It was a time when few white people anywhere took black people's feelings very seriously, when colonialism and racial superiority were still credible ideas, and most Dutch people had never even seen a black person.

In the past 50 years, however, thanks to the civil rights movement in the United States and anti-colonial movements everywhere, blackface and darky iconography have become taboo, the visual equivalent of screaming the word "nigger." That's known from San Francisco to Tokyo. But not in poor Holland.




I say poor Holland, because in some ways, it really is too bad for you. You didn't create the problem of racism against black people (though you played your role), and now you've been left holding the bag: black racist iconography caught up right at the heart of one of your most beloved holiday traditions.

But racist it is, racist on its face and racist in its derivation.

On its face: a white man serves as overlord to a group of stupid servants with big lips, woolly hair, and black skin.
The derivation question is more complicated, and I'll return to it.



Simply put, because millions of black people were killed or enslaved by white people in the past four centuries, and millions more continue to suffer discrimination (in the United States AND the Netherlands), putting on blackface, wearing woolly wigs and red lipstick is about as funny as wearing a swastika.



Maybe you wouldn't blame a remote tribe somewhere in the Amazon forest for using the swastika unwittingly.

But the Netherlands is an industrialized, trading nation, not so isolated as to be able to plead mere ignorance.

(kyle horner)

Don't believe it that the rest of the world feels this way? Ask anybody not Dutch. Read up a bit.



It's the same as portraying Asian people as giggling with slanty eyes, or Native Americans as having buck teeth and wearing feathers.

(popular when I was young, no longer in U.S. stores)
(The Cleveland Indians baseball team is still fighting lawsuits about their racist caricature mascot "Chief Wahoo")

Actually, the reality is that you do know Zwarte Piet is a racist caricature, but you're experiencing a psychological 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).

In other words, even though you accept intellectually that racism is wrong, when you are confronted with evidence that Zwarte Piet is a racist tradition, your brain automatically starts looking for ways to reconcile the conflict.

Because it's socially impossible to let go of the belief that racism is wrong, the brain instead attempts to undermine or avoid the idea that Zwarte Piet is a racist tradition.

Here's some examples of how this kind of rationalizing works:

1) Zwarte Piet may be a little bit racist, but it doesn't matter much. After all, comedians make racist jokes sometimes, and that's okay.
2) I'm not racist, and I prove it in cases where it really matters. But Zwarte Piet is harmless fun.
3) Just because Zwarte Piet happens to be black, that doesn't make him a racist caricature.

That last one is correct. If Zwarte Piet were just black, he wouldn't be a racist caricature. It's that he's black, stupid, with woolly hair and big red lips _ that makes him a caricature.

The hardest rationalizations for me to answer are the first two, of the "So What?" variety, which assume that Zwarte Piet is mostly harmless. These often include a counterattack, saying "lighten up" and "stop being so politically correct."

I admit it's impossible to measure how much exposure to a negative stereotype will influence kids. Some exposure is inevitable and probably acceptable, like background radiation, I suppose. Zwarte Piet seems pretty bad, since it comes back every year and you can't avoid it. But maybe racist caricatures like Zwarte Piet are like video game violence _ kids look at them, but they're immune to the message.

(celesteh)
(celesteh)

Maybe. I say, why take the chance? Are we really so lazy when it comes to an ethical question like this? Are the Dutch tolerant, or just indifferent?

When in defensive mode, Dutch people often say, it's only adults who have a problem with Zwarte Piet. That always makes me laugh. That's right, it's the adults who don't want to change. The kids don't care, and would never notice the difference.

To me, the "So What?" argument is a lot weaker in the face of people who say they feel real emotional pain due to the lingering aftereffects of the slave trade. I'm not one of them, but I believe them, and it seems needlessly mean, in my opinion, to throw "So What?" in their faces, in the name of a tradition that's not so old or so strong as some people seem to believe (below). But again, I suppose that's a matter of taste.

You often hear Dutch people argue that foreigners just don't 'get' Zwarte Piet, as if there were mysterious depths to the tradition that we're missing. After nine years here, I think it's the Dutch who don't get it.

Typical foreigner question: Why would an enlightened, tolerant country like the Netherlands indulge in a ceremony that's so insulting to black people?

Typical Dutch Answer: Zwarte Piet isn't even from "black" (sub-Saharan) Africa, he's from Morocco. Or Spain.

Q: Then why is his skin so black, just like in all the "darky" figurines, rather than olive-colored?

A: Because he went down a chimney.

Q: Then why aren't there just smudges on his cheeks to show that he's been down a chimney?

(no answer)

Q: Why are his lips so big and red?

(no answer).

Q: Why is his hair so nappy?

A: Because he's black (after all) and that's how black people really look! (!!) or, Because he's a clown!

(Britain 1895)

Then the Dutch get defensive, attack the foreign questioner on his own national disgraces (Americans are an easy target) and will point out some other irrelevant detail, such as that Piet is actually rich, as evidenced by his clothes, so he can't be a slave or a servant.

What a lot of excuses there are for Zwarte Piet's racist appearance!

It's true there are a lot of traditions mixed together in Zwarte Piet _ just as there are a lot of traditions mixed together in Sinterklaas. The fact that they have changed so much over time should give us hope that Zwarte Piet will gradually be given the makeover he needs.

Sinterklaas wasn't always on Dec. 5 (see: The Reformation) nor is it wholly based on the the Greek Orthodox Άγιος Νικόλαος, but also other, less Christian tales, in which the white horse the Saint rides wasn't called "Amerigo"...

The legend of St. Nicholas (from Lycia, then-Greek, now Turkey) has merged with heathen ceremonies around Europe in countless variations.

But the general picture is: nice rich guy gives presents to kids, accompanied by one of two types of sidekicks: a poor servant (the clown), or a sinister figure (the devil).

The Dutch tradition happens to mix the good cop/bad cop elements, but the Sint either had no servant or a white servant until Jan Schenkman published a book called "Saint Nicholas and his Servant" in 1850. Schenkman dreamed up the idea that Sinterklaas arrives by steamboat (invented 1801) from Spain with a black servant (who isn't even called 'Piet' yet, the name first appears in a book in 1891).

Here are some Dutch images before and after Schenkman.

1852

1854


(Schenkman book illustrations circa 1885 _ see the servant walking behind him?)
(Schenkman)

(1928 _ a full fledged 'darky' Piet)


As the end of World War II, the one Zwarte Piet was multiplied to become many Piets _ I've heard varying explanations, but the basic idea appears to be that the Canadian soldiers who liberated the Netherlands wanted more manpower to give out all the gifts, and you could hardly multiply a saint.

So much for the ancient, immutable tradition of Zwarte Piet.

Now, thinking toward a resolution:

What should the Dutch do about Zwarte Piet? After all, the apologists argue, it's part of our history now. We can't whitewash "Black Pete."

I think the answer should be obvious from all that I've written above. You don't need to purge all mention of Zwarte Piet. What you need to do is, unwind the things about him that are most objectionable, the same way that Sinterklaas dropped his stick over the years as beating children became unacceptable.

Focus on his "Piet-ness" rather than his "Zwart-ness," as the NOS once put it.

So:
No red lipstick. What does it add?
Use black smudges on the face (for the 'chimney ashes') instead of blackface "schmink."
Replace nappy black wigs with any other kind of hair you like. Dare I ask why does he even need the hair when he's got a feathered cap?

The multiplicity of Piets makes your job that much easier. Rainbow Piets? Why not. Throw in crafty Piets instead of dumb Piets. The cunning servant and jester characters have as long if not longer a tradition in Sinterklaas than that of the dumb slave.

Sterkte!

(fabiola74)
(bart)

"Teach your children well."

MORE

Zwarte Piet is a Racist Caricature and Must Be Banned

(photo: sulaco rm)
Did I stutter?

It's not complicated: the picture above tells the whole story, and all Dutch who deny it are suffering from an acute case of what we call "cognitive dissonance" where I come from.

I plan to elaborate on this in full, but for once, I want to invite any contra claims first. Bring 'em on, I'm eager to hear. Tell me all about how Sinterklaas is Turkish and Zwarte Piet is actually rich, and the only reason he has blackface on is because he went down the chimney.

And he's stupid because _ well that's just the way he is.

And this is part of Dutch culture, and I'm being politically correct; and humorless; and we should just accept it like grandpa's farting at a birthday party, because it would be very traumatic to get rid of it.

Wake up and smell the coffee, kids. It's the practical equivalent of the "Running of the Jews" in the Borat movie.

Zwarte Piet is a racist caricature and must be banned.

There will certainly be a part II to this post.

(celesteh)

But that's all for now.
MORE

Princess Maxima: Dutch? No such thing

(Photo: deVos)

Poor Princess Maxima.

First she was named for a Nissan, then she married Dutch Crown Prince Willem Alexander and had a smile surgically implanted on her face.

Now she's gone and said "de nederlandse identiteit bestaat niet," or, "the Dutch identity doesn't exist," _ a remark that's got the country in an uproar.

Well, let's not overblow things. A very few people, mostly Royal House fans, have their panties in a bunch. A slightly wider group think it was a strange or stupid thing to say, and the media have been milking the story for a week now.

Most Dutch people I know have the same initial reaction: 'who does she think she is? telling us there's no such thing as Dutch identity'

Well, Maxima is, of course, a foreigner: she was born in Argentina.

What she probably meant is that this is a multicultural society, with recent immigrants from many places mixing together with 'native' Dutch (native as in Germanic/Scandinavian/Frisian/Spanish/Celt/Pict/Gaullic/Roman) _ who themselves are divided into many categories (Rich/Poor _ Catholic/Protestant/Secular _ Homosexual/Heterosexual _ Randstand/Countryside _ politically right or left: SGP/PVV/VVD/CDA/D66/PvdA/SP/GL/PvdD _ etc., etc.).

So it's impossible to pin down 'identity.' Actually, most universities these days have entire courses devoted to this kind of stuff. A lot of philosophers, especially French ones, are much-talked about. Derrida, Foucault and the ilk.

The trouble is, if you start talking that way, then people quickly point out what an intellectual, privileged, and generally elite viewpoint that is.

Getting back to basics, it's as easy to say what's Dutch as it is to say what's French.

(photo:eMotionBlogster. Maxima with some hoity-toity Dutch nobel who has less work dying her hair).

(bad hair day)

According to newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, the Dutch personality is:
"Thifty; with the famed trader's mentality; a tendency to be pedantic, lecturing with one finger in the air; a lack of respect for authority; and speaking plainly and directly." That's summed up by Thomas von der Dunk, 'culture historian and publicist.'

I like Von der Dunk (the rest of his argument is more subtle) but I disagree with him about the Dutch not respecting authority _ I think hoi polloi in the Netherlands obey institutional power very easily. In my opinion, the Dutch love rules, and trust their government way too much.

But of course, those are generalizations, just like all of Von der Dunks' generalizations. They are true of some Dutch, maybe of many, but certainly not of half, let alone all of them.

If we're going to call this "the Dutch identity," why don't we just throw in all the rest of the cliches, including cheese, clogs, bikes, dikes and windmills, as long as we're at it?

The reality is that, on reflection, Maxima was totally right.

Take Von der Dunk, for instance. I assume that he's 'white,' but he's certainly not immune to multicultural influences: Not many Dutch named their kids 'Thomas' before WWII; Von is German ("van Duytschen bloet," he); and 'der Dunk' _ well, my Dutch friends could probably explain it to me, but I think it points at some dialect, since 'Donk' is far more common.

Maybe he comes from a wealthy family, but I bet he's voting left, given the rest of his arguments made in Algemeen Dagblad, and non-religious.

He can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But what I'm getting at is that everybody comes from *somewhere*.

All Maxima really demonstrated is that this country is a little high strung about its identity right now; and she walked right into the tripwire.

If she had said _ "all Dutch should share the ethos that made this country one of the richest and most powerful in the world in the 1600s. Long live the VOC (Far East Indies Company) spirit!" _ a lot of people would have jumped down her throat too.

Namely, a lot of people with ancestors who were colonized by the Dutch, or exploited by the slave trade. Not to mention more than a few anti-capitalist, anti-globalist types.

How do I know? It happened to Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende a few months ago.

You can think of Dutch society as a "melting pot" or a "salad bowl," but either way the idea that it's some Aryan civilization is untenable. People resist it, but that's because they're dreaming of good old days that never existed, or chasing an illusion.

Ergo:

Non sua culpa Maxima est!

(photo:AlliTm)
MORE

Soldier of Orange / Soldaat van Oranje

This photo (from Wikipedia) is a screenshot of Rutger Hauer in the film, Soldier of Orange/Soldaat van Oranje. The real Soldier of Orange died this week.

Erik Hazelhoff Roelfzema was a man who lived a romantic, somewhat reckless, and somewhat peripatetic life, and was indeed fortunate to survive into old age.

Movies always make things seem more glamorous than they are, but c'mon: smuggling radio equipment into the Netherlands by boat, shuttling resistance leaders back and forth across the English Channel; flying bombing missions with the RAF; earning the highest military honor for bravery in battle; becoming close friends with the royal house; it's an amazing story.

Like the hero of "Europa, Europa" in some ways.

As an appendix, I highly recommend Soldaat van Oranje, which is debatably the best Dutch film there is (though debatably there's not a lot of competition). But Paul Verhoeven is, in my opinion, an underrated director, and this is his best work. Yes, better than "Turkish Fruit," not to mention "Starship Troopers" and "Robocop."

The photo above shows the war hero face to face with the collaborator; but the film itself is subtle. People make difficult choices, and live and die by them.

The ending of the movie is one of the ultimate expressions of the Dutch national character: Rutger Hauer drinks a glass of wine with an old school buddy who basically just sat out the war without doing anything. He says something to Hauer (Roelfzema) like "gosh, did all those things really happen to you?"

A multifaceted question.

I find that Verhoeven would end on that note so typically Dutch. Critical, self-critical, realistic in appraisal of his countrymen. Most of us are not heroes nor villains; and most Dutch who 'just followed orders' in shipping off Jews to the camps weren't either. They just watched as history went by.


Secondarily, I notice that Google has this story hosted on its own site. Is this Armageddon for AP's newspaper customers/owners?

MORE