Facebook's new policy bans blackface and some Jewish stereotypes | Hacker News Reader

Facebook's new policy bans blackface and some Jewish stereotypes

mashable.com

28 pointsthe-dude85 comments

> Dutch outlet NU.nl reported that a Facebook spokesperson clarified to them that the ban extends to Zwarte Piet, also known as Black Peter, a folk character that accompanies St. Nicholas on Christmas.

And here is exactly why it's a stupid idea, different countries have different culture and history.

We also celebrate the exact same event in my place and it's just a part of kindergarten, nothing related about US culture. People needs to be less stubborn and understand that not everywhere is the same as the place they grew up.

Edit: Although I've just learned that the Dutch & German versions look indeed different compared to my place. The massive black-beard ones we have in my place would still be okay for Facebook I believe, but it's the same concept really.

I have talked about the word neger ( Dutch variant of negro ) with all my known black acquaintances and also with some whom I didn't know before.

Nobody had any problems with the word neger. "Of course I am a neger they said, and you are a white guy. So what, just don't call me zwarte ( black ).".

This is in NL.

That's interesting, the word is very taboo in Germany, essentially only used by very old people, relatively far right-wing folks and some Africans (though much, much less so than in the US).

That is interesting, because one of the black (should I call him that, I find "black" polarising) comedians here, Steven Brunswijk, used to call himself Braboneger which is a combination of his province and the mentioned word. However he stopped calling himself that because it wouldn't help his career (which I suppose means: others find it offensive). [0]

[0]: https://www.ad.nl/tilburg/braboneger-laat-bijnaam-vallen-en-...

Don't you think there is a fundamental difference between the casual use of the word and including it in your brand name?

Svarte Piet is arguably a racist caricature, so I can see why it was banned. And no, it’s not just soot on his face, as some people like to claim.

Where would you draw the line? In my place it's more common for him to have a very massive black beard covering 3/4 of his face instead so you can almost only see the eyes, is that more acceptable?

Its root is in mythology rather than anything else.

I’d say the line should drawn on the presentation. If we have hundreds of people on the streets wearing blackface and and red lipstick, that’s not okay. However if he’s presented as this bearded fellow, i see no problem.

And what about the black women from Suriname who for years enjoyed volunteering for the role?

They are turned away by the organizing committee ... tada, because they are black.

Or she could play any other role in the play.

Name one.

I don't have familiarity with the story, but I highly doubt skin color is an important detail for any other character. St. Nick is Turkish after all.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Fo...

This is the kind of representation of this man you have in my place. So yeah while this one is probably okay for Facebook, I understand the point of view of the Dutch and the German ones which are basically the exact same concept but with different visual choices.

Black Pete is a controversial subject for years by now. Given that “some” people might consider it racist, I’m not surprised that it’s no longer allowed on Facebook.

Also note the BLM movement that spread through our country as well, which I think will definitely impact the public opinion for about black pete.

Not saying I agree or disagree; not going to touch that dumpster fire with my opinions.

> And here is exactly why it's a stupid idea, different countries have different culture and history.

Even culture can negatively affect certain groups. Apparently the Zwarte Piet thing is negatively affecting and causing some racism.

There's the entirely ridiculous "Kick Out Zwarte Piet" group, whose behaviour initially made me against whatever they wanted to happen. There's also some practicalities. Normally kids wouldn't recognize the people playing "Sinterklaas" or "Zwarte Piet". The initial proposed alternatives were bad.

Still, saying "culture" as the only reason for being against something? It's not good enough!

I'm Dutch btw.

The entire core of the question is whether when something is not intended to be racist is racist.

For instance: in Iran there is a festivity in which a person with a black face plays a huge role, and it has been declared world cultural heritage. I wonder why there is no discussion about that.

Is that because the Dutch are white and the past is the VOC and slavery? Or because the Dutch are white?

> Is that because the Dutch are white and the past is the VOC and slavery? Or because the Dutch are white?

As a Dutch person I will answer: the first.

The great grandfather's of the black kids getting name called 'Zwarte Piet' because of this tradition were literally slaves. Their grandparents were free but did not have remotely the same chances in life. Often couldn't read/write. Any original culture or family ties they had were completely erased. It wasn't like we allowed them to 'raise their kids' when they were slaves. Their parents had it much better. Went to the same schools, etc. Still had to deal with racism when going out or trying to get a nice job, but not at all with persecution. They still did not having a lot of good role models within their own community yet. And don't think about trying to go to a club or join a fraternity.

The current generation is the first one performing on par with native people within society. With more good role models and succesfull entrepeneurs.

Honestly. Decent folks in the Netherlands already changed the tradition to the chimney style. Small subtle change. Doesn't harm anyone.

The people at this moment who still strongly hold on to Zwarte Piet .. are racist. But the tradition wasn't intended to be. And before the discussions started it wasn't. It is now. Because it's impossible to claim that minor changes to traditions are this important to someone unless the intend is racist. Traditions that were always changing. That have changed over and over again. And the only change that is a discussion is this one.

It's especially dumb because the character is a positive reference to blacks. How will it help anybody if we remove all black people from our traditions and history?

You being serious ???. Big lips ... gold earings ... it the offensive "coon" caricature.

Pretending that people in the nederlands are familiar with a cultural thing from the american continent (in that case, the "coon" caricatures, that have 0 history in northern europe), is an offensive form of cultural imposition.

Wouldn't go as far as saying it is cultural imposition, it is just ignorance.

How do the other characters look like? Do they wear modern clothing and carry books?

Or are they portrayed as well as they where when the tradition started?

Also, what's is bad about big lips? Or earrings?

Zwarte Piet / Black Pete is considered a great person (admirable). This despite the way that the person is shown. IMO it's always funny/humourus that people assume something else, especially it it's followed by various wild accusations. Suggest to read up on what's being celebrated.

Is he? https://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledge_detail/black-pete...

> Enter the modern day Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. Leading up to W.W.II, Black Pete’s job was to investigate which children had been “bad,” and to take them away in his sack and/or whip them for discipline. Today, the dominating image of Black Pete is more one of entertainment for others’ enjoyment: He helps Sinterklaas deliver the presents and no longer acts as the one who brings punishment to the bad children. But the old task of Black Pete is still referred to in a funny matter. Many parents joke and say “I will tell Black Pete to take you with him to Spain!”. Sinterklaas will ask Black Pete to see ‘The Book’, which lists all the right and wrong things a child did. Over time, Zwarte Piet’s character morphed into a group of Black Petes; all considered a Zwarte Piet, but each with different characteristics.

> In the celebrations, Sinterklaas, who is white, is played by a white person. Black Pete is played in full blackface, usually by a white person as well, or by a black person also in blackface. The actors paint their faces black with huge red lips, wear a curly wig and Moorish dress. “They are portrayed as young, and agile, and do much running and jumping around and acting like acrobats,” says Leyla Hamidi of the National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination. Sinterklaas is portrayed as old, wise, mature, calm, and in control. In celebrations and the media, Black Pete is overwhelmingly viewed by children and adults as unintelligent and clownish. These and other characteristics were found to be typical characteristics of Black Pete as well as black characters in general in Dutch children’s books. Berend’s research found them portrayed as dumb, childish, idle, foolish, and strict (for the old version of Black Pete). Berends further showed similar results for the main physical depictions of black people in children’s books and Black Pete imagery – including enlarged red lips, enlarged white teeth, and enlarged and bulging eyes.

How's showing a certain group of people in a ridiculous way helping blacks and showing positivity?

I agree that Zwarte Piet is portrayed as a great person/character. Despite that, the way it's shown is nowadays outdated and is actually harmful. So despite everything being done in a way that is NOT racist at all, in practice it does cause some harm.

IMO the easy way out would still be to paint people, but to paint them in some weird colour.

Note: it took me a long time to get to this, this as "Kick Out Zwarte Piet" is one of the most stupid advocacy groups that I've seen. It almost seems like a hidden advocacy group IMO.

> IMO the easy way out would still be to paint people, but to paint them in some weird colour.

This is what some English / Welsh "Border Morris" dancers do. This page shows a wide mix. There's full black, half black or black shapes, soot-like smudges[1], mixed black and colour, or full non-black colour.

http://projectbritain.com/mayday/morrisdancing.html

Holland was a colonial power - are you actually claiming Black Peter is all Dutch culture and has absolutely nothing to do with black servitude ???.

I guess they are claiming that Black Peter has nothing to do with minstrel shows, that are the reason why blackface is problematic in the USA (and it shouldn't really be anywhere else, in my opinion).

You have the same character in Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland and eastern France, it's just part of a cross-european culture.

Came here to say _exactly_ this.

Racism is awful, but going around with US-shaped visors and using that as the sole/primary criterion of it is not good.

For another example: there is no association between Blackface and racism in Poland. Sure, there is plenty of racism on other grounds, but e.g. a white person putting on black make-up isn't part of it.

It's also not as black and white in the US despite the popular narrative. Blackface was an avenue of opportunity for freed black slaves to gain social visibility while at the same time a way for white people to slowly introduce black culture into the narrative. The practice of comedy at the expense of black slave stereotypes has fallen out of practice because it's no longer culturally relevant, for sure, but "coon" culture had an important role to play in US history. A modern analog might be hip hop. Eminem and other white rappers arguably don black-speak to participate in a scene that idolizes, or celebrates, the struggles of low income, predominately black, communities. But the art tells an important story. And it's great music!

same with nudity, and this puritan obsession pushed by US megacorps...

This is unfortunately going to end badly. We're still in a fairly decent position on the diminishing returns curve for banning offensive content, but it's already a far cry from what people were talking about censoring even a year ago.

The logical extreme for this sort of thing would be the censoring of anything that isn't as bland and boring as a history textbook (for exactly the same reasons). I expect there will be stronger and stronger pushback before it goes this far into the ridiculous, but this will be the general direction that every offence-taking group pushes things in.

The left can't take a joke. The right can't take criticism of orthodoxy.

2+2=5

There is a saying in my country that you sometimes need to let 5 be even. But it mainly a suggestion for a laissez faire approach.

I will probably get more downvoted than answers, but I'll try anyway: could anybody explain why "blackface" is seen as "racist"?

Especially in the context of an event where everybody is wearing a costume.

I lived (among some other continents) in Africa for some years, and you have tribes where people use a "whiteface" in some celebrations. Are we supposed to get upset about their "racism" as well?

Also, how will this in any way help socially disadvantages people, regardless their skin tone, anywhere in the world?

To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other.

It doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it. The problem is people don't actually think about it. Blackface was actually one of the few avenues available to black comedians at a time when they were actually oppressed. None of this fits the post-modernist narrative though so it's ignored because blackface is obviously racist, rite?

The historical links to minstrel shows are valid grounds for the offensiveness.

But sometimes you have to wonder about the validity of the outrage when a case has no links to this whatsoever, and where it is done out of pure admiration and celebration of a person of color.

A few years ago in Australia, a young kid and his mother were nationally shamed when the kid went to a school dress-up day as his favourite footballer, who is a dark-skinned man of Fijian descent [1].

He wore dark skin paint and a dreadlock wig, obviously because he idolises this footballer and wanted to look as much like him as possible.

The footballer then had to comment on the matter, and admitted that he himself had endorsed people dressing up this way in the past, and that even he had to be educated that it was not a cool thing to do.

[1] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/its-a-shame-nic-...

> To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other.

Well, it does distract a bit from the real issues like systematic racism, COVID-19 and global climate chance.

As a Belgian born in the late ’80s, this is both very understandable and slightly bewildering.

I can perfectly understand Facebook’s decision in the context of blackface being racist.

On the other hand, I have fond memories of watching a show for kids (on the public TV station) called “Dag Sinterklaasje”, which featured “Zwarte Piet” (Black Pete) in each of its episodes. This show invariably had a warm, charming and cosy atmosphere.

I completely agree with the decision, it’s just bewildering to realise that progress in social justice (if only symbolic progress) can catch you off-guard and forces you to reconsider parts of your youth.

If it doesn't look like progress, it probably isn't. Since the demographic change of the net, content is actually regressing back to a mean. There are some people that see racism everywhere because they have been told that they are victims. This is no road to anything that can be called progress.

With all the fuzz about FB, I find it remarkable when I engage with millenials : FB is irrelevant to them.

So, what gives?

Instagram isn’t though.

What will make people switch anyway?

They don't care much about security (evident by the recent twitter hack). They don't care much about privacy. They don't care much about functionality.

Increasingly, I don't think people even care about the content or relationship/social aspect of the social media. My dad has like maximum number of friends on Facebook and I really doubt he actually engages with them. His feed is full of bullshit that he sometimes tell me about and is even self aware of a lot.

Why do you use facebook despite that?

He doesn't have an answer. I fear he is just addicted to scrolling when he has nothing to do.

He is also using Facebook and whatsapp because of peer pressure.

A weird phenomenon in india is how easily bullshit spreads on whatsapp. The reason is most people forward without even consuming the content. It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium.

> It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium.

I suspect they find the engagement sufficient. They forward and someone comments. The dinging of the phone itself is exciting.

Isn't the peak in facebook demographics around 30?

Which would be exactly millenials.

In the Netherlands there have been big discussions and protests for and against one of our national holidays called "sinterklaas" (a second Christmas) Where there is a figure called "Zwarte piet" a blackface character that will bring the kids candy's, "pepernoten" and chocolate when they where nice that year.

When the news broke out that FB would start removing these kind of images from there platform both sides of the discussion mostly reacted here in the Netherlands that removing it completely is not the way to go. So i'm wondering how this news is received everywhere else in the world? Here is was the headline of most newspapers and our national television news yesterday.

In Germany we often paint someone black for the christmas story (Holy Three Kings). I think that will also be cancelled because of the failed American educational system.

Of course if you happen to be black, your role is determined if the story gets performed. Such is the weight of oppression...

This is interesting. It'll ban some forms of Morris Dancing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris

https://www.facebook.com/silurianbordermorrismen/

And an example of how far back this goes (from the Wiki page decribing the origins of the custom):

"An event which took place in the autumn of 1450 illustrates well the way in which the often separate activities of poaching and protest could on occasion conflate. On October 1450 a large group of men entered the duke of Buckingham's park at Penshurst in Kent and carried off eighty-two deer. Thirty-two men, nineteen of them yeomen, were named in subsequent indictment which made clear that a good number had escaped by its claim that there had been a total of a hundred present (not a figure to be taken too literally). These armed men had charcoaled faces, wore long false beards and withheld their names, calling themselves servants of the Queen of the Fairies."

Many Morris dancers have switched to different forms of face paint. Some have moved to soot marks, some use shapes, some use different colours.

Whatever the origin of blackface in border morris it ended up as pretty racist, with direct links to minstrelsy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris#19th-century_min...

Is it a global policy? Are they gonna ban pictures and videos of kids signing Christmas carols in my country? Or saying the name of the 3rd biggest river in Africa (in my language)

https://static.deon.pl/storage/image/core_files/2012/1/5/5af...

It seems to me that Facebook instead of battling racism and other problems in the information bubbles that it has created, is doing some kind of straw man.

"Look here we are banning black face!" Don't get me wrong, symbols matter. But this is not even remotely the most consequential thing that Facebook can do to fight disinformation and racism.

They should make a fix for their echo chambers.

More non nonsensical half baked measures from the Zuck.

Too conveniently, it bans a photo of Virginia governor Ralph Northam. It protects him.

The infamous photo shows him in blackface, with his then-girlfriend beside him in full KKK gear. (and uh, did they just have KKK gear lying around the house???)

It doesn't get covered much in the news. He is being protected because of his party affiliation as a democrat. He is still in office to this day. Imagine if such a photo had been discovered with a republican. It would be headline news for months.

> The social network will also prohibit stereotypes about Jewish people running the world or “controlling major institutions such as media networks, the economy or the government.”

Sure, the most well known social media founded by a Jewish person censuring conspiracy theories about Jewish controlling the media will absolutely not fuel the said theories... /s

Another wave of unpleasantness heading over to Voat. At a certain point you just write people off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com