‘Zwarte Piet contested’

Tolerance and the (re)production of the Zwarte Piet tradition in the Netherlands

Laura Wouters 3709574 04-08-2014

A thesis submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in Conflict Studies & Human Rights

2

MA Conflict Studies and Human Rights Graduate School of Humanities Utrecht University

Supervisor: Dr. A. Sanchez Meertens Submitted: 04-08-2014 Program Trajectory: Research and Thesis Writing Only (30ECTS) Word Count: 26.748

Internship at Meertens Institute Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Peter Jan Margry

3

4

Abstract The aim of this research is to gain insight in how the discourse surrounding the Zwarte Piet tradition in the Netherlands has been produced and consumed through Dutch media in correlation with Dutch national identity. Initially it seems that the discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet contrasts the idea of the Netherlands as a nation being commonly associated in the public discourse with tolerance as one of its core values. Therefore this thesis investigates this apparent contradiction. It becomes clear that different forms of knowledge about this tradition exist. These different forms of knowledge lead to heavy debates between challengers and defenders of Zwarte Piet, which in turn leads to the cementing of the boundaries of two imagined communities. Celebrating Sinterklaas including Zwarte Piet is no longer as self-evident as it was before because of the discursive resistance of challengers. The objections to a reformulation of Zwarte Piet are mainly produced as a reaction to the discursive resistance of opponents of Zwarte Piet in its current form and the clashing of two different forms of knowledge. Critiquing tolerance and employing intertextuality are main strategies of discursive resistance to attack Zwarte Piet. It turns out that cultural politics of emotion play an important role in the defence of the figure of Zwarte Piet. Media plays an important role in the framing of the debate. This research contributes to the development of a better understanding of the role of the media in discourse analysis, and how we should research production and consumption, regarding discursive media analysis. Journalists are not outside the discourse. In this thesis we will see that the production and consumption processes are dialectical processes, in which the media plays an important role as the main channel of communication of discourse.

5

6

Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank all my informants that contributed to this research by interviews, readers’ letters or completing questionnaires. Without you this research would have been impossible.

Then, I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Ariel Sanchez Meertens and Dr. Peter Jan Margry. Dr. Ariel Sanchez Meertens, who kept me enthusiastic and interested in this research topic and assured me that this could become an interesting thesis. Your constructive comments were very helpful.

Dr. Peter Jan Margry, who made it possible to do my internship at the Meertens Institute, which exposed me to a different academic environment and gave me the possibility to see my research in a broader perspective of identity and Dutchness. Your advice was extremely helpful in keeping me on the right track.

Then, I would like to thank the whole staff of the Centre of Conflict Studies of Utrecht University for their inspiring and stimulating education throughout this academic year.

I also would like to thank Suzan Saat for her academic and emotional support. Thank you for your feedback, for calming me down in times of stress, and sharing this thesis-writing experience with me.

Thank you to all who proofread this thesis. You provided me with essential feedback.

7

8

Table of contents Abstract ...... 5 Acknowledgements ...... 7 1. Introduction ...... 11 1.1 Background ...... 13 1.2 Relevance ...... 16 1.3 Zwarte Piet, Dutch identity and tolerance ...... 17 1.4 Methodology and theoretical angle ...... 18 1.5 Structure of the thesis ...... 22 2. Producing the Zwarte Piet Discourse: Discursive resistance vs. defending tradition ...... 24 2.1 Is the white hegemony breaking down? ...... 27 2.1.1 Critiquing Dutch tolerance as discursive resistance ...... 28 2.2 A nonsense discussion? / The defence ...... 36 2.3 Changing minds ...... 43 2.4 Conclusion ...... 45 3. Transforming knowledge into truths in news articles about the Zwarte Piet discussion ..... 47 3.1 Frame building ...... 49 3.1.1 Journalist-centred influences ...... 49 3.1.2 Personal ideology and professional values ...... 49 3.1.3 Political orientation of the medium ...... 52 3.1.4 External sources...... 53 3.2 Agenda- and frame setting ...... 57 3.3 Conclusion ...... 59 4. The reception processes of ‘truths’ about Zwarte Piet ...... 61 4.1 Individual level processes of reception ...... 62 4.2 The discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet and its wider socio-cultural implications ...... 65 4.3 Conclusion ...... 67 5. Conclusion and discussion ...... 69 Bibliography ...... 73 Appendices ...... 76 Appendix 1: Interview list ...... 76 Appendix 2: Survey respondents ...... 78

9

10

1. Introduction "Verene Shepherd, the UN investigator who believes that the Sinterklaas celebration should be banned, has been threatened and intimidated from the Netherlands. The United Nations, in an open letter asked to stop the harassment against the woman and her colleague”1.

"A group of at least thirty people stood around me. They were furious. Suddenly they shouted: So you are against Zwarte Piet? Fuck off to your own country!”. “Then I said: ‘Yes, please' That is precisely the point. We Papuans are living in exile in the Netherlands. And I tried to say I'm not against Zwarte Piet, but also came to critique the UN. ‘Really, just ask the people in Delft: I'm crazy about Sinterklaas. There is no bigger fan of Sinterklaas than I am’. But the explanation did not come through. The group scolded at her, and then a man even grabbed her flag". I thought: that’s not going to happen to me". Kaisiepos fled from the crowd, but a man grabbed her, and it seemed he would hand out a hit. "Someone stopped him. I am grateful for it, because that man really had hate in his eyes."2

The existence of the Zwarte Piet3 tradition has never been as heavily, emotionally and aggressively debated as in 2013. In the tradition, Saint Nicholas, Sinterklaas in Dutch, is accompanied by Zwarte Piet, a man with a blackened face often wearing hoop earrings and a brightly coloured suit. Increasingly, the tradition of Zwarte Piet has come to be thought of by some as insensitive and racist (Raboteau 2013: 1). Yet the tradition persists. According to Kozijn (2014:25) Sinterklaas has long historical roots in the Netherlands as a family celebration”. “Since about 1850 a dark helper plays a role in this tradition, which after some experiments with his appearance, would develop into Zwarte Piet after 1900” (Kozijn 2014: 25). Furthermore Kozijn (2014:25) emphasizes that after 1900 there were constant changes, not only in the appearance and functions of Zwarte Piet, but also in attitude and behaviour. In this tradition children are told that Sinterklaas is immortal and comes every year from Spain to the Netherlands by steamboat.

1 Algemeen Dagblad 26-10-13 2 Het Parool 28-10-13 3 For writing this thesis many considerations have been made about the word use. This thesis is a report on a Dutch-spoken discourse, while the report itself is written in English. However, there are some important words to describe this discourse that cannot easily be translated without changing the meaning and content of the word itself. Therefore I decided to keep some concepts untranslated in this thesis, like Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. A different language brings with it different connotations and especially in this case it is really important to see the discourse in its Dutch context.

11

In the weeks before the 5th of December, Sinterklaas holds its annual intocht4 in the company of his helpers, the Zwarte Pieten5. The national intocht can be seen on TV, but will be re-enacted in every city. Between this intocht and the actual celebration on the 5th of December children can put their shoes in front on the stove. Although many people do not have a stove anymore, this tradition is still there and now children are often putting their shoe in front of the central heating. It is believed by the children that Sinterklaas, on his horse, and Zwarte Piet walk over the roofs of the houses at night and Zwarte Piet goes through the chimney to put presents or candy in the shoe of the child which, according to the story currently told, explains the blackness of Zwarte Piet6. Children are told that they have to behave well and should put some hay or a carrot for the horse in the shoe so they will be rewarded by Sinterklaas with the presents. On the 5th of December Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet go to the children´s houses. Zwarte Piet distributes pepernoten7 and carries a bag with presents. After reading the great book of Sinterklaas, in which the behaviour of the child is documented from the past year, the child receives his or her present. In families without young children, the celebration often changes and grown-ups use the opportunity to give each other gifts accompanied by cryptic poems, which make people blush and laugh.8 This tradition has now become a topic of debate which is worth researching. The main purpose of this research is gaining an understanding of how discourse surrounding the Zwarte Piet tradition in the Netherlands has been produced and consumed through the Dutch newspaper media in correlation with the defence of Dutch national identity, and to explain the reasons for, or associations between, the Zwarte Piet debate, the conceptualization of tolerance in the Netherlands, and the defense of Dutch national identity. In this case discourse production means the creation of a certain story, for example in the media about a certain topic. In the case of media discourse analysis this means that when a

4 This is the arrival of Sinterklaas and the Zwarte Pieten in the Netherlands, which is accompanied by several festivities and performances for and through children. 5 http://www.culturescope.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253:feestdagen-en- folklore&catid=81&Itemid=54&lang=nl 6 http://www.culturescope.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253:feestdagen-en- folklore&catid=81&Itemid=54&lang=nl 7 Small spiced gingerbread cookies 8http://www.culturescope.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253:feestdagen-en- folklore&catid=81&Itemid=54&lang=nl

12

certain topic or theme arises and seems to play a role in society, journalists start to investigate this and produce certain stories about the topic. Subsequently readers of these stories consume this discourse. Discourse production and consumption is however not just restricted to the media. Everyone can possibly produce a certain discourse, which can be consumed by people who hear the story.

1.1 Background According to Kozijn (2014:25), the public debate on the alleged racist character of Zwarte Piet reopened in 2008. In 2013 the debate seemed to be heavier than ever. A group of activists raised their voice clearly in 2013. Different action groups started initiatives to make their opinions clear. Twenty-one people decided to submit official legal objections against the intocht of Sinterklaas in Amsterdam. As a result of the debate about whether Zwarte Piet is racist or not, some people proposed alternatives to the celebration of the tradition. Amsterdam Municipal Council member Andrée Van Es argued that Zwarte Piet does not have to be wiped out, but a smudge of soot on his face instead of a completely black face should be considered9. Another alternative that was given is the omission of the wig. It is also argued by many anti-Zwarte Piet lobbyists that Zwarte Pieten should become multi-colour- Pieten. However, these proposals for alternatives have been received with some resistance. Many Dutch people argued actively against a reformulation of the tradition of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. About every Dutch citizen has heard of the Zwarte Piet discussion and most people have formed their opinion. A majority of the Dutch rely on their tradition and would prefer to see nothing changed. On Facebook, the pro-Piet Pietitie (a petition to retain the current figure of Zwarte Piet) was liked by 2.2 million Dutch people in a short time. John Helsloot (2012:1) argued that this debate can be seen in the light of cultural aphasia, with which he refers, quoting Ann Laura Stoler, to “the cultural inability to recognize things in the world and assign proper names to them’, especially in matters relating to the colonial past in Western societies”. This causes misunderstandings and problems in society. Is the majority of Dutch citizens unable to recognize or understand the problems opponents have with the figure of Zwarte Piet? In 2012 only seven percent of all respondents in a survey10 commissioned by the municipality of Amsterdam argued that they did experience Zwarte Piet as discriminatory.

9 Het Parool, 03-12-12, ‘Wethouder van Es: Tijd om afscheid te nemen van Zwarte Piet’ 10 Bureau Onderzoek en Statistiek Gemeente Amsterdam (2012), ‘Hoe denken Amsterdammers over Zwarte Piet?’

13

Fifty-three percent of all respondents do not experience Zwarte Piet as discriminatory themselves and could not imagine that others have experienced it as such11. "Many challengers of Zwarte Piet see the link between Zwarte Piet and the history of slavery as an indisputable fact (Kozijn 2014:39). The power relationship between Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet reminds the challengers of Zwarte Piet, of slavery and also of the underlying societal power relations between whites and blacks in the Netherlands today (Kozijn 2014:39). The pro-Piet campaign was not free of precarious responses, as is illustrated in the quotes at the beginning of this introduction. The debate is thus a relevant, conflict-related hot topic in the Netherlands, which is worth researching. It is a highly emotional, sensitive and important phenomenon. Though this has not always been the case, the debate surrounding Zwarte Piet did not suddenly appear in 2013. It is possible to trace back the start of discussions on the appearance of Zwarte Piet to the 1930s. In 1930, according to a Surinamese man, called Frans Vroom, people already associated a black man with Zwarte Piet (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005:252). In 1968, the first time a clear argument against Zwarte Piet was made, M.C. Grünbauer developed a Witte Pietenplan (White Petes plan) in which she argued that it was no longer justified to celebrate Sinterklaas in its current form, including Zwarte Piet. She already linked it with the Dutch history of slavery. Grünbauer argued that slavery was abolished for more than a century already, but that there still is a tradition that presents the black man as a slave, who serves a white master on a horse or throne. She argued that Zwarte Pieten should become Witte Pieten (White Petes) to change these power differences. Some people responded understandingly to her statements, others argued that her proposal was a soft, sentimental, exaggerated idealism of black and white hassle (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005:253). Though Grünbauer’s objection did not result in the colour change of Zwarte Piet, it did bring about some changes to the tradition. Zwarte Piet was no longer depicted as a creepy person, and the roe, used for flogging, as well as the bag in which naughty children supposedly were put to take back to Spain, were no longer used to threaten children with. Zwarte Piet attained a rather clownish character. These changes that were encouraged by television broadcasts found great resonance (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005:253). Sometimes people experimented with alternatives, but these were just incidental happenings. For example in 1971 during a political meeting in a cafe, a ‘Swartclaes’ (a black Sinterklaas) performed on stage together with his white-painted Surinamese helper to

11 Bureau Onderzoek en Statistiek Gemeente Amsterdam (2012), ‘Hoe denken Amsterdammers over Zwarte Piet?’

14

implicate that the current role pattern of hierarchical difference between black and white should change. These incidental happenings were often said to be manifestations of the political left (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005:253). In Suriname Zwarte Piet became a contested figure. In Suriname they used to celebrate Sinterklaas including Zwarte Piet and used to sing the same songs, but in 1980, after the coup of Bouterse, celebrating Sinterklaas was banned because Bouterse saw the celebration as an unwanted symbol of colonialism (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005:253). The first organized protest against Zwarte Piet took place in 1981 in Utrecht, organized by the Solidariteitsbeweging Suriname (Solidarity Movement Suriname). Several protests followed, but these protests only seemed to influence the celebrations on a small scale, in private celebrations (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005:259). The actions at the time did not lead to concrete results. Ronald May, chairman of the Solidariteitsbeweging Suriname (Solidarity Movement Suriname) states: "the word ‘Zeurpieten’12 was already then frequently used to describe this movement and local politics thought the debate was nonsense (in Meershoek 2013:1). May believes that the fight against Zwarte Piet at the time was a vehicle to draw attention to the bad position of Surinamese and Antillean youth in the labour market (quoted in Meershoek 2013:1)" The discussion was started to gain more attention for, in May’s words, ´more serious matters than Zwarte Piet’ (in Meershoek 2013:1). May argues that the Netherlands was a forerunner in multicultural thinking, but that has totally changed in the past decade (in Meershoek 2013:1). May emphasises that it is sad that the responses to protests and the arguments are exactly the same thirty years later (in Meershoek 2013:1). May concludes that apparently the debate in all those years has hardly progressed (in Meershoek 2013:1). This statement will be critically assessed later in this thesis. Although May claims that nothing has really changed, Hoving tells us that the arrival of Sinterklaas in Amsterdam in 1993 was different than in the years before. Besides the ‘ordinary’ Zwarte Pieten, there were also Pieten with faces painted in different colours, though none white. “These coloured helpers meant a cautious, albeit ambiguous, public recognition of the fact that the figure of Zwarte Piet was not uncontroversial” (Hoving et al 2005: 259). This, however, did not find resonance in society and moreover, people argued that although the Pieten were now multi-coloured, they were still dark, and acting stupid under the leadership of a wise white man. Therefore this idea did not get a follow-up (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005: 259). Once in a while protest actions took place, but often

12 whiners

15

these protests were ignored or downplayed by the majority of Dutch people (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005: 259). For example in 1998, Bram Van der Vlugt, who played Sinterklaas on television said: ‘"If they think Zwarte Piet is discriminatory… well, if you do not understand that, there is not much to explain…” (Helsloot in Hoving et al 2005: 264). Every year a small discussion took place among some intellectuals and some activists, and in some places they have decided to reformulate the appearance of Zwarte Piet. This, however, has not changed society nor gotten much resonance and, furthermore, the changes are usually reversed the next year. In 2013, the debate was very intense and many fierce comments and insults were made. In some situations the appearance of Zwarte Piet was adapted, as in Amsterdam where the Zwarte Pieten are not allowed to wear golden earrings anymore. The discussion, however, is definitely not over yet.

1.2 Relevance Although at first not everyone may regard this issue in the Netherlands as a relevant topic in the field of Conflict Studies, I argue that this phenomenon in the Netherlands has similarities with protracted social conflicts. Using the definition of Mitchell (1981:17), a situation of conflict is “any situation in which two or more social entities or parties, however defined or structured, perceive that they possess mutually incompatible goals”. In the case of the Zwarte Piet discussion it seems that the Pro-Zwarte Piet ‘camp’ and the Anti-Zwarte Piet ‘camp’ have mutually incompatible goals: one camp wants to leave the tradition of Sinterklaas, including Zwarte Piet unchanged, while the other camp wants to abandon, or change the tradition. I claim that the Zwarte Piet debate can even be regarded as an intractable conflict. Coleman (2000:432) defines intractable conflict as “a complex web of latent and manifest issues that are difficult to analyze and understand, and respond to.” It can also be described as a process, not just a single violent episode, of competitive relationships that extend over a period of time, and involve hostile perceptions and occasional military actions13. Military actions are not assumed to happen in the near future, but hostile perceptions are present, reflected in offensive remarks and death threats. I argue that it can be seen as a hegemonic struggle between political forces. With this political struggle I refer to Fairclough, who argued that a struggle between political forces can be seen as partly a contention over the claims of their particular visions and their representations of the world to having a universal status” (Fairclough 2003:45). In this case, the vision that Zwarte Piet is experienced as racism cannot be understood by the majority of

13 www.beyondintractability.com

16

the Dutch, while the opponents of the current figure cannot understand why the majority of the Dutch do not see the problem.

Besides the relevance to the field of Conflict Studies, this thesis could have great social relevance by creating a deeper understanding of the conflict which could be a start for a better discussion and eventually a solution. This thesis also aims to fill a theoretical gap regarding discourse analysis. The clear line Fairclough draws between consumers and producers of discourse is not always as clear as it may seem. In this thesis I aim to show how this line can be blurred, and how to deal with this blurred line.

1.3 Zwarte Piet, Dutch identity and tolerance Questioning Zwarte Piet is widely felt as an attack on Dutch national identity (Helsloot 2012:13). According to John Helsloot (2012:13), following Eric Wolf, “because of that, Zwarte Piet has grown into a key or master symbol of Dutch society, ‘a way of talking about’ the Netherlands”. It is believed that any attack on Zwarte Piet is the death blow to Dutchness (Helsloot 2012:13). The Dutch identity has already been a subject of debate in the last decades and people fear a loss of identity. There exists some disagreement about what this Dutch identity actually consists of, but, there is consensus about some aspects. Tolerance is often mentioned as one of the main features of Dutch national identity. In a parliamentary debate in 2007 Prime Minister Balkenende claimed that: “the Netherlands is in its origins a country of tolerance and respect. People therefore deserve respect for their beliefs, faith and identity” (in Smeekes 2011: 170). Pim Slierlings, Director of SIRE14, also sees tolerance as a fundamental part of Dutch culture and identity and as a tradition that distinguishes the Netherlands internationally. According to Slierling "tolerance is not only the foundation of any democratic society, [...] through the centuries tolerance has really become part of the Dutch identity15”. SIRE commissioned Research Bureau Team Vier to carry out a quantitative research on tolerance in

14 SIRE: Stichting Ideele Reclame. SIRE is an independent foundation whose aim is to raise underexposed social issues to the public, to discuss, set these issues on the agenda of citizens, opinion leaders and decision makers. (http://www.sire.nl/over-sire) 15 SIRE, ‘Nieuwe SIRE-campagne: Tolerantie®. Daar knapt heel Nederland van op.’ (versie 3 oktober 2012), http://www.sire.nl/nieuws/nieuwe-sire-campagne-tolerantie%C2%AE-daar-knapt-heel- nederland-van-op (5 mei 2013).

17

the Netherlands in 2012. This research showed that 66 % of the Dutch citizens consider tolerance as a core value of Dutch culture16. The idea that tolerance is one of the core values of Dutch society in first instance seems to clash with the current discussion, that is surrounded by heavy emotions, and in which comments such as ‘”if you don’t like it here, go back to your own country’”17 are made without embarrassment. Thus, the positions taken in the Zwarte Piet debate appear to be extensions of discussions on identity: about who and what is considered to be Dutch. The connections between identity, the discourse on tolerance, and the discourse on Zwarte Piet will be discussed in this thesis. I aim to expand empirical knowledge about the discursive processes and the societal and ideological underpinnings that frame the Zwarte Piet discourse in the Netherlands. The linkages between the debate and the discourse on tolerance have not explicitly been addressed before.

1.4 Methodology and theoretical angle This research is part of a bigger research project at the Meertens Institute, with the provisional title ‘De Nederlandsheid van Nederland’ (The Dutchness of the Netherlands). This project examines the “rediscovery of Dutchness”, the re-appointment, promotion and commercialization of what is experienced as ‘real ’Dutchness. These are new forms of cultural essentialism, returning to a supposed group identity (that of their own group or other groups) into a single, reified and defining culture.18 The research includes a series of sub-projects or case studies. In previous researches, researchers related the recent manifestations of cultural essentialism to feelings of 'cultural loss': the fear in many European countries, they will lose national identity in the current processes of globalization and transnationalism19. However, as Ralph Grillo20 writes, such general statements only lead to partial understanding. They show inadequately how the different processes of globalization, dependent on national or local context, always appear in different forms and are ascribed different meanings. Ethnographic, concrete, interpretive case

16 SIRE, ‘Nieuwe SIRE-campagne: Tolerantie®. Daar knapt heel Nederland van op.’ (versie 3 oktober 2012), http://www.sire.nl/nieuws/nieuwe-sire-campagne-tolerantie%C2%AE-daar-knapt-heel- nederland-van-op (5 mei 2013). 17 Het Parool, Fotograaf schrikt van grimmig Zwarte Piet-protest, 27-10-13 18 Meertens Instituut (2012) Herzien voorstel pilot-onderzoeksproject Nederlandsheid

19Meertens Instituut (2012) Herzien voorstel pilot-onderzoeksproject Nederlandsheid 20 In: Meertens Instituut (2012) Herzien voorstel pilot-onderzoeksproject Nederlandsheid

18

study research is needed .21 That is the aim of this bigger research project of the Meertens institute, where my research will be a part of. To research the complicated phenomenon of the contested Zwarte Piet tradition and to fill the gaps that were identified in this introduction, the following research question and sub questions were developed: How has the discourse surrounding the Zwarte Piet tradition in the Netherlands been produced and consumed through Dutch media in correlation with the defence of Dutch national identity, despite the latter being commonly associated in the public discourse with tolerance as one of its core values?

1. How did the discourse production surrounding the Zwarte Piet debate take place? 2. How does the process of the production of truth surrounding the Zwarte Piet discourse take place in newspapers? 3. How does the reception process of truths surrounding the Zwarte Piet discourse take place?

The main and sub questions raised underlie the design of this research. The aim of this section is to account for how the research has been undertaken and to explain the considerations made regarding the data collection techniques. The mass media plays an important role in this research because in modern democratic society the media functions as the main channel of communication of discourse (Fog 1999:1). For this research articles produced by three Dutch newspapers were analysed: NRC (a national newspaper), Het Parool and Limburgs Dagblad/ Dagblad de Limburger (Limburg-focused newspaper). These three newspapers were selected because of the variety in focus. Het Parool is focused on Amsterdam, Limburgs Dagblad/ Dagblad de Limburger is focused on the province of Limburg and NRC is a national newspaper. This allowed me to check for geographical differences. News articles by journalists are addressed, but also readers’ letters that were sent by consumers of the newspapers were analysed. Up to now the role of the media has been underexposed. Production and reception processes are often theoretical concepts, and my aim is to apply these concepts to this specific case. Is the discourse on tolerance helpful in explaining the Zwarte Piet debate? Could it give insight in why this topic is so heavily debated at the moment? Could it help to explain why there are many people objecting the reformulation of the Zwarte Piet debate? Could it explain how a tradition becomes a marker of national identity? This thesis does not aim to make broad generalizations about the behaviour of social groups in Dutch society, but, by looking into the production and consumption process of three

21 Meertens Instituut (2012) Herzien voorstel pilot-onderzoeksproject Nederlandsheid

19

influential newspapers, it aims to create a better understanding of how certain discourses are produced and consumed whilst being intertwined with other discourse formations, and thereby influences people’s behavior and way of thinking. Case study research is often critiqued for its specificity because people wonder how you can generalize from a single case. I agree that conclusions about the frequency of phenomena cannot be drawn from the results of this research, as I only can speak for the 21 informants I interviewed, and the limited data- set of surveys, readers’ letters and media-articles. However, this case-study can be generalizable in a different way. As is stated in Yin (2002:11) “case studies are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes.” In this case generalizations to theoretical propositions about discourse production and consumptions could be possible. The research is embedded in debates on identity, the conceptualisation of tolerance and truth-production in discourse, especially in correlation with media reports. Unfortunately, this research of only five months could not address all factors of influence of the public discourse. I decided to focus on media discourse production and consumption. The political discourse production and consumption could not be addressed. The data collected for this thesis consists of both naturally and generative occurring data. A part of the research consists of media text analysis. These news reports can be considered naturally occurring data. I held three in-depth interviews with the journalists of each of the three newspapers, who had written about the Zwarte Piet discussion to gain a better understanding of the production process. Furthermore, I held nineteen semi-structured interviews with writers of readers’ letters to Het Parool. I also asked some writers of readers’ letters to complete a survey. These last three forms of data can be considered generative data. In order to ensure that my research would not be too biased, I decided to interview in-depth both proponents and opponents of Zwarte Piet who wrote readers’ letters. First my research question was just focused on how the objections to a reformulation against Zwarte Piet were produced and consumed, later on I realized that this cannot be researched separately from how objections to the current Zwarte Piet were produced and consumed. During my research I have also been asked a few times to give my personal opinion on Zwarte Piet. I always felt like I had to be really careful in my statements. I always tried to stay far from a decision whether Zwarte Piet is or is not racist, and what the future Zwarte Piet should look like. By now I still did not make a decision about that myself, I just gained understanding of both standpoints. Doing research in my own country was an interesting experience, because I could really talk about the issues in-depth with my informants, because we both spoke in our mother tongue which made doing discourse analysis possible. I found it interesting to critically assess my own society. It was completely different from my earlier research experience abroad.

20

Researching ‘at home’ seemed not to be necessarily easier than researching abroad. It turns out to be quite difficult to objectively describe a tradition you are so familiar with and have lovely memories of.

The research has been carried out from a discursive approach. “Research with a discursive approach studies the narrative reconstructions of reality and analyses how these stories have come about (Demmers 2010:135). The underlying assumption of discourse analysis is that social texts do not “merely reflect or mirror objects, events and categories pre- existing in the social and natural world, rather they actively construct a version of those things” (Jabri 1996, 94). Using the discursive approach, this research aimed at finding out how stories about the current figure of Zwarte Piet are reinforced, ritualized, resisted, and policed, and ultimately institutionalized and turned into ‘truth’ and tradition in Dutch newspapers (Demmers 2010:135). Because in this thesis the social world is approached through the lens of discourse I will not approach the context as a given. All arguments in the debate derive from different contextual discourses. Different people highlight different aspects of contexts that surround or influence this debate. Although it might sound logical, in other discursive analyses it is sometimes forgotten or neglected. Contexts are not objective ‘facts’, they are subjective accounts of participants in a discourse. Contexts are actually the outcome of a discursive practice. The contextual background section that is incorporated in this introduction is however not an arbitrarily chosen context but arose out of interactive background building informed by the interviewees. Fairclough (2003:47) argues that “for any particular text or type of text, there is a set of other texts and a set of voices which are potentially relevant and potentially incorporated into the text” (Fairclough 2003: 47). In my research I refer to texts in its broadest sense, not just literally quoted written or spoken texts, but also theories and concepts that are referred to. This borrowing of ´texts´ asks us to think about why the author or speaker is choosing this particular literary or social text, how they are including the text in their own text, and to what effect the text is re-imagined by the author or speaker; or, in other words, how the new text is shaped by the ‘old’ text. Looking at intertextuality can also unveil deeper layers of a debate. This debate might be about more than just Zwarte Piet. Zwarte Piet related texts may draw upon other macro level discourses. In order to investigate this issue, power implications should be taken into account. Fairclough (1989) argues that other theories dealing with discourse “merely describe, but do not explain, unequal socio-linguistic conventions relating to concerns of power,” except for Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Therefore I chose to approach this research from a CDA

21

perspective. The element of power relations are important aspects of both the discourse on Zwarte Piet and the discourse on tolerance. As the American philosopher Wendy Brown argues, tolerance is a discourse of power: “it plays an important role in the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in the liberal society” (Mepschen 2009: 122). CDA takes a critical view of society and focuses on how power and ideology are expressed in language use, thus making it particularly suitable for investigating the underlying ideologies or assumptions that are made in discussing the phenomenon of Zwarte Piet. Why are so many people in the Netherlands objecting the reformulation of the tradition of Zwarte Piet, even though they know that others feel offended? Discourse does not operate in a vacuum. It always overlaps with other discourses and there is a continual process of transformation within any given discourse which leads to the “birth” of new discourses and the “disappearance” of other discourses (Langlo 1999:21). The object of study may not necessarily change, but what is regarded as “true” knowledge about the subject may change (Langlo 1999:21). “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth that is, the types of discourse it accepts and makes function as true” (Foucault 1980:131). The media is one institution that can be part of this regime of truth and can have a role in the continual process of transformation. In a Foucauldian sense ‘truth’ is “properly formed knowledge spoken by the right subject at the right time in the right way in the right circumstances.”23 In this research the process of truth-making will thus be analysed.

1.5 Structure of the thesis The second chapter of this thesis will focus on the production process of the public discourse on Zwarte Piet. Both the arguments of the challengers and the defenders will be addressed. It will be demonstrated that the hegemony of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet is attacked. The chapter demonstrates that critiquing tolerance and intertextuality play an important role in discursive strategies of resistance. Furthermore this chapter will elaborate on the emotional attachment of defenders to Zwarte Piet. Finally, the chapter will demonstrate that discourse can cement the boundaries of imagined communities. The third chapter will address how knowledge about the Zwarte Piet tradition is transformed into truths in news articles. It turns out that journalists cannot be seen as truly objective news reporters. Framing by journalists plays an important role in the truth- production process.

22 Mepschen, P. (2009) ‘Tegen Tolerantie’

23Workshop Peter Tamas 27-01-14 Discourse Analysis: Analytic Framework

22

In the fourth and final empirical chapter the reception process will be discussed. The mechanisms that are responsible for accepting something as truth will be examined. Additionally, the feedback loop from audiences to journalists will be addressed, which shows that it is impossible to draw a clear line between discourse producers and consumer. Finally this chapter will also discuss the wider socio-cultural implications of the Zwarte Piet debate. This information is put together in the conclusion where an answer to the research question is formulated. Every chapter starts with a quote that illustrates the complicity and diversity of the debate. These quotes show that for everyone Zwarte Piet has different meanings, different backgrounds, and also different contexts to argue from.

23

2. Producing the Zwarte Piet Discourse: Discursive resistance vs. defending tradition

“Zwarte Piet, Pieterman, or Pietje Pek are popular names for the devil. During the Middle Ages a devil shackled in chains was a popular performance. The popular belief emerged that Saint Nicholas shackled the devil in chains and carried the devil with him. Then the black devil (black with soot from hell) had to serve him, he had to slide the gifts along the walls of the wide chimney, that connected the spirit world to the world of the mortals, and he had to threat the naughty children with a ‘roe, a bundle of twigs.24”

On the website of the project ‘Zwarte Piet is racisme’, challengers of the current Zwarte Piet figure posted a Zwarte Piet bingo. It is developed as an instruction for these challengers. The instruction tells: “So you know Zwarte Piet is racist and you say it at a birthday party or a gathering. It’s a given that you’ll hear all the arguments on the red bingo card. If you need to counter these arguments you just turn to the corresponding arguments on the yellow card.”25

24 Anonymous, Reader’s letter Parool 25 http://zwartepietisracisme.tumblr.com/ The concept of the bingo is developed by Arnold Lubbers and the instruction text is a version of Wendela de Vries’ instructions on using the card. The counterarguments come from the many conversations Quinsy Gario had and the literature he read on the subject and the discussion itself.

24

This section of the thesis will address how these discourses are produced. Different forms of knowledge about Zwarte Piet exist. The discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet consists of a dynamic debate between challengers and defenders of the Zwarte Piet tradition, and there are also many people steering a middle course between these two positions. In this section the interaction between the different forms of knowledge are described and the discussion will be theoretically embedded. Firstly, dominant ideologies regarding Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet will be addressed. The second section will elaborate on the discursive strategies of resistance against the status quo. Subsequently, the defence against this discursive resistance will be discussed. The last section consists of a discussion on steering a middle course in this debate and people who change their views. The order of the sections is not necessarily a chronological order, but all these dynamics are part of a dialectic process. Although the Zwarte Piet discussion is not completely new, the celebration of Sinterklaas never really lost its matter of course. The Dutch tradition of Sinterklaas “comes from a time when whites did not need to consider what non-whites thought of it, partly because the racial balance of power was more uneven and partly because the mass media didn't carry its images as readily or vividly from contexts where they were 'comfortable' to ones where they were not”26. Sinterklaas can be seen as a tradition that is taken for granted for the majority of the Dutch. You could even argue that it can be seen as part of an ideology. Ideologies can be explained as conventions embedded in discursive practices that either produce or transform relations of dominance (Fairclough 1992:87). Fairclough argues that texts and socio-linguistic conventions incorporate power differentials, that they arise out of, are the outcome of, and also themselves give rise to power relations and struggles. The story of Sinterklaas that is currently told to children incorporates certain power differentials; Sinterklaas is the boss who is helped by black servants. These power differentials might have arisen of existing power relations at the time this story evolved, and, according to the challengers of Zwarte Piet, this story still gives rise to unequal power relations in the present. Dominant ideologies can become widespread and fixed whether they are logical or not. The dominant ideologies become “common sense assumptions” which “function to sustain unequal power relations” (Fairclough 1989: 33). These `common-sense' assumptions, are the ideologies that are imbedded in their recurrent, every day, familiar, taken-for granted, discoursal nature. They can legitimize the existing different social relations with their power differentials (Fairclough 1989:33).

26 Bashkow in National Post 14-12-2013

25

Fairclough (1989: 2) argues that it is important to investigate how the opacity of the relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor providing power and hegemony. Opacity means that the linkages between discourse and ideology might be unclear to those involved. In the current story about Sinterklaas power relations and a hierarchical divide can be detected between Sinterklaas and his helper Zwarte Piet. However, whether this is a factor providing power to white people is disputed. Many people involved in celebrating Sinterklaas including Zwarte Piet are not aware of, or deny possible hierarchical consequences of Zwarte Piet in the present. They argue that they do not feel superiority over black people because they are celebrating the story of Sinterklaas with Zwarte Piet which might include hierarchical relationships. “Celebrating Sinterklaas does not lead to negative views about black people. What research supports this assumption? I have worked with minor asylum seekers, as a volunteer, I have fantastic Surinamese colleagues I sometimes drink a beer with, and Sinterklaas would negatively impact my perception about them? How can you claim such flabby nonsense?”27 Many people even argue that they never related Zwarte Piet to a black person. “I have never had the idea, and also my children never compared him somehow with black people.”28 In the last decades the celebration of Sinterklaas is seen as self-evident. It seems to be logical that everyone celebrates Sinterklaas, including Zwarte Piet, at the 5th of December. In the last decades Zwarte Piet was not experienced as something that was contested. It seemed that everyone accepted the celebration as it was. This is one form of knowledge about Zwarte Piet: he belongs to a tradition that ‘we’ celebrate every year in the Netherlands, which is experienced as fun and which ‘we’ have good memories of. In 2009 a list of hundred Dutch habits and traditions was produced by the Centrum voor Volkscultuur en Immaterieel Erfgoed (the centre for popular culture and intangible heritage), by using public votes. Sinterklaas and the pakjesavond (the evening that Sinterklaas is ‘going to the houses to give presents’) at the 5th of December ended up at number one on the list. 29 On May 15 2012, Netherlands ratified the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage30. The convention was created by UNESCO to respect and maintain specific cultural manifestations of a community and to let other communities take knowledge of it and get to understand them (Margry 2013: 8). In international press it became clear that other communities however, expressed that they do find the celebration in its

27 Paul, reader’s letter Het Parool, 20-10-13 28 Ed, Interview, 01-04-14 29 Trouw, 05-01-14, Interview met Ineke Strouken 30 http://www.volkscultuur.nl/nationale-inventaris_40.html

26

current form problematic. The Sinterklaas celebration that was proposed for placement on the national inventory became a highly explosive issue.

2.1 Is the white hegemony breaking down? Celebrating Sinterklaas at the 5th of December was for the majority of the Dutch citizens like an unspoken norm in the last few years. On television all the children are prepared for the arrival of Sinterklaas, shops and schools are decorated, and on the 6th of December everyone at school asks you if you received any presents from Sinterklaas. Although the dominant discourse about Zwarte Piet has strong normative effects, discourse has always a ‘productive’ side (Nentwich and Hoyer 2013:258). Discourse always contains its antithesis, which opens up space for agency. The creative capacity to resist and subvert normative discourses must not be underestimated (Nentwich and Hoyer 2013: 258). The same techniques that generate discourses and their potentially normalizing effects, in this case the construction of the celebration of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet as a traditional, self- evident, innocent event, are also deemed to generate resistance (Nentwich and Hoyer 2013: 258). According to Nentwich and Hoyer (2013:258), “resistance becomes possible through the opening of marginalized discourses, making them available as a source from which to fashion alternative realities”. Marginalized discourses can also get heard, which can lead to serious alternatives for the dominant discourse. As a response to the ratification of the UNESCO convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage by the Netherlands, Barryl Biekman of Stichting Nationaal Monument Nederlands Slavernijverleden (Foundation National Monument Dutch Slavery) decided to write a letter to the United Nations “to create awareness so that the Netherlands could abolish the Black Pete figure out of their Saint Nicholas event”31 This can be seen as an discursive strategy of resistance. It became clear that the Sinterklaas celebration, with Zwarte Piet, was not unanimously perceived as natural, as was assumed by the majority of Dutch people. Zwarte Piet can also be seen as a figure that expresses a ‘natural’ subordination of a black person to a white person, which reminds of slavery. This is a completely different, opposing form of knowledge about Zwarte Piet. Meriläinen et al. (in Nentwich and Hoyer 2013: 258) emphasizes “the possibility of resistance through making use of the contradictions, weaknesses and gaps between alternative subject positions: where there is a space between the position of subject offered by a discourse and individual interest, a resistance to that subject position is produced”. In this case resistance is possible because there exists a gap between the idea of Zwarte Piet as an

31 Letter of Barryl Biekman to Chief Communication Unit Intangible Cultural Heritage Section 22-02- 2013

27

innocent figure, and the individual interest of not wanting to be bullied by being called Zwarte Piet, not wanting to be reminded of slavery, or not wanting to be discriminated in general and not wanting to be seen as a second-class citizen. Furthermore, according to Van Lans (2000:16) second generation immigrants are more proud of their identity of being different than the dominant society dictates, in contrast to their parents. ‘Respect’, instead of acceptance has become the general demand made by immigrant youth (Van Lans 2000:16). In the case of Zwarte Piet, people start to speak up and make clear that they find the tradition of Zwarte Piet unacceptable. People seek to remove the obviousness of Zwarte Piet. The hegemony is challenged. Resistance can thus be considered to provide space for self-determined action and alternative subject positions (Nentwich and Hoyer 2013: 258). Practising resistance bears the power to challenge and change dominant world views (Nentwich and Hoyer 2013: 258). There is thus a possibility of resistance because there is a gap between alternative subject positions and at the same time second generation immigrants speak up. Resisting dominant discourses has often been described as distancing oneself from normalizing discourses that the self feels disconnected or excluded from or even threatened by (Carroll and Levy in Nentwich and Hoyer 2013:258). People resisted the current figure of Zwarte Piet and developed discursive strategies of resistance. Discursive strategies of resistance encompass all forms of discourse which give expression to feelings of opposition, resentment and resistance. Discursive acts of resistance are foremost counter reactions, through text, against oppression, discrimination, stigmatization and marginalization. As was shortly explained in the introduction, discourses are texts with social meaning, they do something to society, and so discursive resistance can do too. Discursive resistance can have social and political implications. Discursive strategies of resistance can be expressed through talk, speech, narratives, symbols and imageries. The most obvious forms of discursive strategies of resistance are: protest yells, banners and speeches. However, discursive strategies of resistance can also be very subtle. When people resist normalizing discourses, they may draw on multiple oppositional practices including humour, irony, satire, scepticism, cynicism or alternative interpretative repertoires, or they may simply voice disbelief about the norm and its implications (Nentwich and Hoyer 2013: 258). In the resistance against Zwarte Piet many forms are used, such as organized protests during the arrival of Sinterklaas, letters to the United Nations, newspapers and the Dutch government, official (legal) objections, speeches and discussions in talk shows and other discussion forums.

2.1.1 Critiquing Dutch tolerance as discursive resistance Critiquing tolerance in the Netherlands is a common practice that is used as a discursive

28

strategy of resistance in the Zwarte Piet discussion. The idea of the Netherlands as a particularly tolerant country is questioned through the debate on Zwarte Piet. The self-image of many Dutch citizens is undermined because ´their´ tolerance is critiqued. For example, Mercedes says: “I do not see any tolerance in the Netherlands. It is always mentioned in relation to history, but now I find there is very little tolerance. Furthermore I do not think tolerance is a positive concept at all. I mean I would describe tolerance as ‘you accept the other person while you also ignore him.” Nick argues that this debate shows that we might not be as tolerant as ‘we’ think we are. “We may think that we are very tolerant and that we are not racist, but I think that the fact that the emotions ran high, especially among those who wanted to keep it as it was shows actually how sensitive it really is and you can downplay it all and say it is not so bad, but actually you cannot because it is very sensitive, so that just means that it is a very valuable debate”.32 Don, one of my informants argues: “Dutch identity has become more of a question mark. I think the question was less relevant a few years ago, but now, also because of the polarization of society, certain groups are set against each other and you notice that this question must surely be asked again: is there a Dutch identity? I think it was there but I think there is a redefinition necessary because of developments in recent years and the feeling of many people that they do not belong to that identity, and yet we do all live in the Netherlands, but the feeling that they do not belong is getting stronger. So I think a redefinition is required”.33 When asked him what a redefinition should look like, he replied: “I am not the one who should be doing that [creating a redefinition]. I think we should do that as a society. But I think we will only be able to do that when we can recognize- and I am not just talking about a group- but we have to recognize that we are not as tolerant towards each other as we always say we are. We always say the Netherlands is a very tolerant and multicultural country, but, in recent years, you see that there are certain things popping up. So you do increasingly see that the Netherlands is not as tolerant as we thought it was”34. Nevertheless, tolerance is very often mentioned as one of the main features of Dutch national identity. Tolerance could be considered as ingrained in the social imaginary of Dutch people. With social imaginary I refer to Charles Taylor (2001). He explains social imaginary as “what enables, through making sense of, the practices of a society” (Taylor 2001:1). This social imaginary is an unconscious representation that people have about their social life, belonging to and interaction with others, expectations that are normally met, and the deeper

32 Nick, Interview 01-04-14 33 Don, interview 15-04-14 34 Don, interview 15-04-14

29

normative notions and images that these expectations bring about. (Taylor 2001: 1). Attacking tolerance, therefore, turns the world upside down.

In the research question I assumed that the discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet contrasts with the idea of tolerance as one of the core values of Dutch society. Therefore, it is important to critically assess tolerance in the Netherlands. As becomes clear from the existent literature, tolerance is not an unambiguous word and is surrounded by an academic debate. The word has many different connotations and meanings to people. It would be wrong to maintain the image that until recently the Netherlands was an exemplary tolerant country and that it recently has become ‘intolerant’ and has fallen victim to a ‘backlash against multiculturalism’(Maussen and Bogers 2010:35). In practice tolerance is each time confronted with its own specific challenges, which are met with their own specific answers (Maussen and Bogers 2010: 35). Nowadays tolerance is attacked by discursive resistance. After a few incidents of frustration, discrimination, and heavy debate between different societal groups, of which the Zwarte Piet debate was one, people argued that the definition of Dutch identity should perhaps be revised: the Dutch are not as tolerant as is sometimes assumed. Tolerance can, however, be conceptualized in different ways. Adam Seligman’s classic theory argues that “tolerance presents us with a double burden. It demands that we accept the presence of that which we find objectionable and in doing so, it demands that we suffer our own discomfort at this presence” (Seligman 2008: 2891). It is thus essential for this conceptualization of tolerance that there is a problem with the other, an insurmountable difference, characteristic or behaviour that cannot be ignored and, therefore, someone should decide whether it should be stopped or could be tolerated. In the debate about Zwarte Piet we can speak of an insurmountable difference: a group of people wants to change the Zwarte Piet tradition, and cannot not cope with keeping the figure as it is, while others want to celebrate Sinterklaas, including Zwarte Piet, as they have always done, without a change. One of these groups has to decide to tolerate the other’s demand. What is remarkable is that to tolerate a ‘different other’, the ones that are tolerating have to feel that they have the power to decide whether something will be tolerated or not. The people or issues that have to be tolerated are dependent of the tolerators to do what they would like to do. This is remarkable because in first instance, tolerance seem to aim at freedom and equality, and is often perceived as a positive characteristic. Maussen and Bogers mention five different conceptualisations of tolerance because they argue that the classical definition of tolerance does not always seem to be practiced. The first conceptualisation is the need to tolerate minorities, secondly there is principled tolerance,

30

thirdly pragmatic toleration or ‘condoning’; fourthly there is multicultural recognition and last but not least Dutch liberal intolerance (Maussen and Bogers 2010: 29-35). The conceptualisation that is used most of the time is dependent on time and place and is dependent on social development in society. As Maussen and Bogers explain, the need to tolerate minorities means that “the values, beliefs and norms of the majority are represented as normal, whereas those of minorities are seen as deviating and as inferior for moral, religious or cultural reasons.” They argue that diversity becomes problematic when minorities claim recognition for their position in society and demand a more equal say in affairs of the state (Maussen and Bogers 2010: 29). According to Maussen and Bogers, a second conceptualisation of tolerance considers tolerance “as a matter of reciprocity between established minorities”. The aim of this form of tolerance is “a society wherein these different views can be visible and institutionalised, whilst keeping sufficient distance between them to allow separate communities to develop themselves” (Maussen and Bogers 2010: 30). A third conceptualisations of tolerance is ‘condoning’ or ‘pragmatic toleration’, which is described as consisting of a declaration in advance, that under certain specific conditions offenders against a particular norm do not need to fear punishment (Maussen and Bogers 2010:32). “The guiding concepts in a fourth approach to the handling of diversity are recognition and equal respect for cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences in a society of immigration which involves full recognition, respect, normality and equality as values” (Maussen and Bogers 2010: 33). The fifth and final approach Maussen and Bogers mention, maintains that “true toleration can only be achieved when it is very clear where the boundaries are between the tolerable and the intolerable, and when different groups and individuals spell out very clearly where they stand and what their differences are” (Maussen and Bogers 2010: 34). While most informants define tolerance as the fourth approach, they recognize that the practical implementation of this concept does not always work out, and is not always desirable for everyone. As Seligman argues, it “demands that we accept the presence of that which we find objectionable and in doing so, it demands that we suffer our own discomfort at this presence” (Seligman 2008: 2891). Because people do not like discomfort they will try to find a way to move beyond this discomfort. The notion of abolishing Zwarte Piet has been a source of discomfort for many Dutch citizens. We see that “the values, beliefs and norms of the majority, in this case celebrating Zwarte Piet, are represented as normal, whereas the ideas of minorities are seen as deviating and inferior. This year, the minority clearly claimed recognition for their position in society and demanded a more equal say in this affair, which

31

led to the heavy debate. We could say that in this case, in practice the first conceptualization of tolerance is more applicable. Many people also argue that in general ‘people’ value tolerance as in the fifth conceptualization of tolerance. But when it personally affects them, however, they deviate from this conceptualization. This was clearly visible in the Zwarte Piet discussion. Abolishing Zwarte Piet meant that people personally had to deal with the discomfort of not being able to celebrate Sinterklaas in the way they wanted. Critiquing tolerance in the Zwarte Piet debate is thus an important strategy of resistance. ‘Dutch tolerance’ is not always attacked directly, but sometimes more indirectly through using intertextuality.

2.1.1.1 Critiquing Dutch tolerance through intertextuality In the discursive resistance against the prevalent norm of Zwarte Piet as an ordinary, uncontested innocent figure, another important strategy that is employed is intertextuality. In the introduction I already argued that I take intertextuality in its broadest sense. I analysed which texts or relevant processes are referred to in the resistance against the Zwarte Piet debate and how this is done. When looking at intertextuality in the readers’ letters and in the interviews it becomes clear that most people see deeper layers behind the Zwarte Piet debate. Intertextual references that are often used and seem to be important are the references to processes that took place in the Second World War, the way the past is dealt with, and the current situation of racism in the Netherlands. In a readers’ letter of the National Platform Slavery Commemoration references to other symbols of racism in the Netherlands were made to enforce the argument of the National Platform Slavery Commemoration. They argue that: “besides the racist cultural and historical tradition "Pakjesavond", the GOLDEN CARRIAGE (De Gouden Koets) is the same kind of symbol that functions to remind amongst others African people in the diaspora of their place, their role and position in the Dutch society. (..) The fact that once again our King and Queen stepped in the golden carriage this year illustrates again the vision and attitude of the Dutch Parliament, that people of African descent are still a relegated 'kind' of people. A human race that is unworthy of equal rights and opportunities because of their origin”35 Referring to these kinds of happenings makes clear that, according to resistants, the issue is bigger than just Zwarte Piet. It is also common to refer to the way minority issues in America are dealt with. For example Machiel argues: “…and then later that about Antillean friends, (referring to the

35 Readers’ letter Stichting Nationaal Monument Slavernijverleden, 16-10-2013

32

remark of prime minister Mark Rutte36), I was in the U.S. when that was an issue, but from an American perspective it is… maybe very heavy Rednecks who are secretly member of the Ku Klux Klan could say those things but no American dares to say such blunt things.” The National Platform Slavery Commemoration also refers to America: “The American Minstrel Shows in the USA are prohibited because of the views on, and the characteristic (racial) features of, the black man (the profile, the attributes used and stereotyped verbal and non-verbal expressions). And therefore Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands is looked at with horror: in the U.S.A, Canada, the UK and Republic of Suriname”37. Referring to America also reveals a painful issue, because how can a tolerant society as the Netherlands do worse than America regarding racial issues? There are more processes that are important to refer to in the light of this debate. Mercedes, one of the writers of a readers’ letter to Het Parool and founder of ‘Keti Koti Tafel’, a ritualized dialogue table where there is room to discuss the commemoration and the abolition of slavery, and also supports the creation of dialogue about Zwarte Piet, explained why she thought the debate became so heavy in 2013: “I think that the awareness of the younger generation is greater than that of our parents, and me. My mother also said something at that time [against Zwarte Piet] and my brothers and all of us did , but never really articulated it and it was not a topic at a birthday party or something , and this generation is much more aware of our history, our history of slavery, a lot more than our parents , and they are much more assertive in their everyday experiences with racism, and they are, much more than previous generations , able to make that link [between Zwarte Piet, discrimination and slavery and to speak out together, to articulate and name it”.38According to Mercedes, the development of the black community is thus a relevant process to understand the current commotion about Zwarte Piet. Mercedes attributes the change to the development of the black community and their everyday experiences to racism. Mercedes´ partner Machiel adds to her story: “Those are important things, I think, the engine from the black community itself. […]There were also a number of other external factors: The National Ombudsman and the Council of Europe who basically all said the same thing : the Netherlands must do more against the racist tendency in society, and then this was further strengthened by the fact that politicians and columnists and media routinely laughed

36 "It is an old Dutch children's tradition, Saint Nicolas and Black Pete. It is not about a green or brown Pete and I cannot change that. I can only say that my friends in the Netherlands Antilles are very happy with the Saint Nicolas celebration, because they don't have to paint their faces. When I play Black Pete, I am for days trying to get the grime off my face” – Mark Rutte 23-03-14, reaction to a question of a Dutch-American journalist at National Security Summit 37 Reader’s letter Landelijk Platform Slavernijverleden 38 Mercedes, Interview 04-04-14

33

this issue away, slowly created a breeding ground for black and progressive , self- critical white people to say: ‘now it should stop, we should not just do it again, we cannot say that they are dramatizing’”. Saying: ‘we should not just do it again’, implies that something like this happened earlier. Machiel continues: “For example, I think of people with a little sense of history in the Netherlands, who realize that it also has taken quite a long time, thirty or forty year after the war that the Netherlands dared to acknowledge the fact that the amount of Jews who have been taken away in the Netherlands belong to the largest proportions in Europe. So the Netherlands does not have such a good history for that matter. We do not have a good history in facing that past. We sometimes use the German word Vergangenheitsbewältigung, managing to overpower your past, coming to terms with your past. I think Germany has been really exemplary after the Second World War, but the Netherlands not at all. Our politicians, for example, not at all.” Machiel links Zwarte Piet, and the discussion about him, to a tendency of racism and even to things that happened in the Second World War by referring to the national Ombudsman and the Council of Europe. This puts the discussion in a certain perspective. As Dienke Hondius (2009:41) observes, in the Netherlands a kind of uneasiness is felt to talk about racism. In Western Europe, one of the legacies of the history of the Holocaust is, according to Hondius (2009:41) the anti-racist norm. It is a norm that says that racial difference does not matter. She argues that “racial difference, the concept of race, the word race is consciously ignored: race may not have any space in public discourse” (Hondius 2009:41). In the Netherlands, a significant black presence is in 2014 only thirty-five years old (Hondius 2009:41). “Only now are the Dutch beginning to acknowledge the history and the legacy of four centuries of empire, the involvement in and profiteering of the slave trade and slavery in the colonies. In 2002 and 2005 the first monuments to recognize Dutch involvement in slavery were unveiled. Also the research and education about the history of involvement in slavery is relatively new. And still it seems that there are areas that remain too sensitive too change for most white Dutch” (Hondius 2009:42). Another important intertextual element that is often referred to in the discursive resistance is the Dutch identity. Meershoek laughs about this weird connection, he wonders why ‘we’ see Zwarte Piet as part of our national identity: “I find it very strange, almost laughable that we see someone that is painted black and wears a black wig as part of our national identity. If that symbolizes our national identity, what does that say about us? It is very strange. Do then take the windmills [as symbol of Dutch identity], or start to wear wooden shoes again if you would like to use old habits, just take something very Dutch”. In this way the Dutch identity is questioned. It seems that referring to identity makes the debate more emotional. The Dutch national identity has already been a sensitive topic in the Netherlands for a few years. It seems that it is questionable whether a Dutch national identity

34

exists and if it does, in what form. Queen Maxima, at that time still princess of the Netherlands held a speech on 24 September 2007 for the Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (Scientific Council for Government Policy) in which she argued that THE Dutch identity does not exist. She argued that the Dutch identity is too complex to grasp in one cliché: “The theme of identity is on the mind of a lot of people in our country. Not only among scholars and politicians, but basically everywhere. It affects us all. So it is important that the WRR studies this issue in depth. A complicated task because there are so many dimensions. About seven years ago began my personal quest for the Dutch identity. I received help from numerous experts. I had the privilege to meet various people. I saw, heard and tasted much from the Netherlands. It was a wonderful and rich experience for which I am extremely grateful. But the Dutch identity? No, I have not found it. The Netherlands are: large windows without curtains, so everyone can have a look. But also adhere to privacy and cosiness39 . Netherlands are: only one cookie with each cup of coffee. But also great hospitality and warmth. The Netherlands are: sobriety, moderation and pragmatism. But also the communal expression of intense emotions. The Netherlands are too multi-sided to capture in one cliché 'The' Dutchman does not exist." 40 The speech caused great concern and discussion. A research following the speech showed that 65% of the Dutch citizens believe that there does exist a Dutch identity (Frijhoff and Van der Vlies 2008). The idea that a national identity is not obvious is felt as threatening, a serious problem. Questioning Zwarte Piet is also widely felt as an attack on Dutch national identity (Helsloot 2012:13). According to Helsloot (2012:13), “because of that, Zwarte Piet has grown into a key or master symbol of Dutch society, ‘a way of talking about’ the Netherlands”. It is believed that any attack on Zwarte Piet is the death blow to Dutchness (Helsloot 2012:13).

39 In Dutch: gezelligheid. There is no good translation of the Dutch word gezelligheid, but cosiness comes closest. 40http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/nieuws/toespraken/2007/september/toespraak-van-prinses-maxima-24- september-2007/

35

The discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet becomes thus connected to the more general discussion about Dutch identity and the vagueness or ambiguity it is sometimes surrounded by. All the intertextual elements mentioned in this section seem to contrast with the idea of the Netherlands as a particularly tolerant nation. Referring to Dutch identity, the Second World War and racism in general attract the attention of the rest of society, because identity, the Second World War and racism are very sensitive issues in the Netherlands. In the next section the reaction of the defenders will be discussed.

2.2 A nonsense discussion? / The defence Accusations of racism are sensitive in the Netherlands because of the associations with the Second World War. No one wants to be associated with the horrible things that happened then. Now the celebration of the beloved tradition of many Dutch citizens is connected with, the racism and discrimination in WWII by the challengers of Zwarte Piet. Denying forms of racism may be part of a well-known overall discourse and interaction strategy namely that of positive self-presentation or keeping face (Van Dijk 1992:179). Accusations of racism are played down. “Denials may be a move in a strategy of defence, as well as part of the strategy of positive self-presentation” (Van Dijk 1992:180). However, denial also has a counter-productive side. As Don indicates, “I found out that the biggest problem of the whole discussion was the denial. That moved me, because I just gave normal substantiated arguments and those were swept away so easily. Nearly every time, there was a structural denial and that causes two things: first, that the other party does not see what the problem is, and second, if you continue to deny, that also brings up emotions to me. That is the problem people refuse to acknowledge, and that creates the anger of the opponents, but that also means that we cannot move forward, because it starts with recognition”41. Deniers do not only deny the incriminated act itself, but also its underlying intentions, purposes or attitudes, or its non-controlled consequences. This could lead to reactions like: ‘It was not meant to be a racist expression’, ‘you misunderstood me’ etc. (Van Dijk 1992: 180). Often people do not set out to be racist42, however, this does not mean that things cannot be experienced as racist. Sometimes it is even argued that the Dutch society is a post-racial society. Because most Dutch people are convinced that ‘we’ are tolerant, racism seems to be a non-issue. It indicates that people are convinced that others are not discriminated against in the Netherlands, or at least are not discriminating themselves.

41 Don, Interview, 15-04-14 42 Ira Bashkow in National Post 14-12-13

36

According to several speakers at the book presentation of ‘Dutch racism’ a post-racial discourse is a way to circumvent talking about racism, dealing with racism or stopping racism, as this discourse rejects the existence of contemporary racism. They argued that a more suitable term would be disavowal. The difference between denial and disavowal was described by Isabel Hoving, who argued that denial is the pure denial of the presence of racism. According to Hoving however, this is not actually the case in the Netherlands43. Many people argue that a form of racism might exist BUT… People claim a certain form of innocence. Those people reason: ‘Yes, it might be racist BUT it is a very beloved children’s party’ or ‘Yes, it might be racist, BUT now I too feel discriminated against’ or ‘Yes, it might be racist, BUT then we should stop with all celebrations and bank holidays as those festivities might be racist as well’. The post-racial discourse is similarly mentioned as a discourse that might underlie the current situation of debate. Post-racialism is “a term used to describe a society or time period in which discussions around race and racism have been deemed no longer relevant to current social dynamics”44. People argue that they, or the Dutch do not even see colour; everybody is equal here and blacks and whites are treated equally. ‘Why else would they want to live here, right? Discrimination on the labour market? That happens to everyone, also to blonde people, you know’.45 A way to avoid negative impressions, according to Van Dijk (1992:180), is to play down, trivialise, or generally mitigate the seriousness, extent or consequences of one’s negative actions. From a few readers’ letters it becomes clear that people do not understand the problems others experience with Zwarte Piet. It seems unimaginable that other people can feel discriminated against by the figure of Zwarte Piet, and people cannot imagine that it really reminds others of their slavery past.

“Why should Piet be black? Yes, here we are again, everyone thinks: the posturing about Zwarte Piet and the idea that the nice friendly jovial guest must be called racist. Piss off with that whining. Sinterklaas is a nice and quant children’s party and you should keep your hands off it and otherwise fuck off!”46 The discussion is called posturing and whining, it is not taken seriously.

43 Book presentation 11-02-14 of Essed, P. and Hoving, I. (2014) ‘Dutch Racism’ Amsterdam/ New York: Rodopi 44 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=post-racial 45 http://africasacountry.com/10-excuses-most-dutch-people-make-for-racism/ 46Anonymous, Reader’s letter Het Parool, 22-10-13

37

In another readers’ letter people that are having the discussion are downplayed as immature: “Any discussion of "Zwarte Piet and Sinterklaas" is a discussion of scatterbrained and immature types regardless of race. Anyone who interferes in this traditional event is in my opinion not sensible. That a set of ‘coloured people’ feels discriminated against tells us everything about the intellectual ability and their immature affect”.47 “It is actually a trivial topic, it's just one night, it's a children's party. No one takes it too seriously. Everyone laughs at Sinterklaas who arrives in an old bedspread and that Zwarte Piet with his jokes. How can you therefore feel discriminated against?”48 “I partly understand that there exists real pain. But you have to go on. I mean, does it really remind you of your slavery past? Maybe they should go in therapy en masse. Should we offer that to compensate.”49 Often the discussion is also trivialised as a nonsensical discussion by referring to other rituals and celebrations, or by referring to the difficulties white people face or have faced in the past. For example Dorothy in her reader´s letter argues: “It is ridiculous that people, who we accepted with love in this country and are cared for, now go against our rituals and celebrations, how dissatisfied you can actually be, to even contemplate that our Zwarte Piet ridicules black people. I also feel discriminated against, as a white woman because the Saint is always a man, like his black servants. Also worldwide the bishops of the Roman Church feel they are ridiculed by the meaningless old man on a white horse that rides over the rooftops. Incidentally, the Lapps also announced that Christmas absolutely cannot take place anymore. This simple man with his limited vocabulary is a mockery of the Sami people! Finally, historians have reported that the Christmas story of a baby in a snowy scene with a virgin mother and an aged father, with some loud singing angels, shepherds and kings around it is too absurd to be read to children any longer. Foreigners are welcome in the Netherlands, but you have to accept our habits and customs and our ancient stories that have nothing to do with these ridiculous feelings of discrimination.”50 Someone else, who answered my survey, said: “My own father was a slave of the German occupiers and was forced to work in what was then called Czechoslovakia. He has had a very hard time there and I am the next generation, but I am definitely not going to hold the whole German nation liable for the suffering of my father”51 The man quoted above does not understand why ‘the next generation’ is holding him responsible for what his ancestors did. His father experienced difficulties too. The sufferings of the ancestors of the people arguing against Zwarte Piet are

47 Anonymous, Readers’ letter NRC 48 Dorothy, interview, 04-04-14 49 Karen, interview, 10-04-14 50 Dorothy, reader’s letter 09-11-13 51 Herman, survey, 14-04-14

38

not much different according to him, and therefore, is no need for discussion. The discussion ran aground on saying that it was a nonsense discussion, or, the origins of Zwarte Piet were heavily debated instead of the underlying problems challengers of Zwarte Piet wanted to discuss. In their arguments, people often refer to a version of the history of Zwarte Piet, or his alleged origins. In newspapers and readers’ letters the origins or the genesis of the Zwarte Piet figure is very much contested. The implication of these origins are contested to an even greater extent; is it, or is it not, a form of racism. The different versions of the origins of Zwarte Piet used by proponents of Zwarte Piet are invoked to determine that Zwarte Piet is not racist and that should be the end of it. However, many challengers of the Zwarte Piet tradition get the feeling that they are not taken seriously. This creates an idea of community among the challengers. "Every year the same confrontation”, a readers’ letter writer argues, “it is a time when black Dutch draw closer to one another and make jokes within the community about the stupid whites, who are obsessed with this stupid celebration. Whites who never try to understand them and they will never understand the whites. One feels a priori excluded, especially in the period of the celebration".52 Discourses can become a site of resistance, where identities are produced and transformed in creative and unpredictable ways (Smithson 2005 in Nentwich and Hoyer 2013: 258). In the Zwarte Piet discussion, the discourse is a site of resistance where two imagined communities are set: the (white) community of people defending their beloved tradition, and the (black) community of opponents of Zwarte Piet, who would like to see him changed. 'Imagined communities' is a concept of Benedict Anderson (1991). According to Anderson (1991:7), an imagined community is imagined because the members cannot all know each other, but somehow do feel a bond. An imagined community is imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group. The boundaries can be constructed on the basis of different characteristics. The boundaries of the imagined communities in the Zwarte Piet discourse have become set and less fluid. Even though it is often hard to say when people do or do not belong to a certain community, it is becoming more difficult to cross boundaries. In an interview with Henk, a defender of the Zwarte Piet tradition, he tells me about a wish to get invited to Pauw and Witteman, a Dutch talk show on TV. Henk explains, “I will never get invited to the television program of Pauw and Witteman, but if I ever get the chance, I would at some point try to lead the discussion, so I can say: ‘you know why I love skating in winter?’ ‘Yes, there are all sorts of things why you could like it.’ ‘But there is one

52 Anonymous, reader’s letter Het Parool

39

thing why I especially like it, and that is because I then am among my own people’. ‘What are you saying, mister Henk?’ ‘Well, because I am among my own people then, I feel the same when I am in the Concert Hall, when I'm in the Stopera and the City Theatre, then I suddenly am among my own people’. ‘But Mr. Henk, who are they, your own people?’ ‘That are exactly the people you are thinking of right now, Mr. Witteman. I do not have to explain that to you, do not ask me unnecessary questions, I am insensitive to those questions’”. Something that enforces this feeling of an imagined community is the emotions that are connected with Sinterklaas. Many interviews and letters revealed that the celebration of Sinterklaas is a childhood memory associated with strong, happy emotions. In several interviews this was demonstrated. For example Brigitte argues: “It is a very nice party and a very intense celebration and it gives a bit of happiness in the dark month of December and it is about solidarity and sociability, and commitment to each other. I also felt it myself, although my kids have more or less outgrown the celebration I felt like: well, you cannot just throw that away. I would be very sorry if it would be abolished”53. Another informant argues: “Sinterklaas was "holy" for me as a child. I believed more in Sinterklaas than in God. My feelings were of excitement, curiosity, greed, sociability, respect and a little fear”.54 In another interview even someone that is now challenging Zwarte Piet argues: “Recognizing that something is wrong with the children's party, where everyone, including me, has had years of fun with, that is difficult. It implies that we have been doing wrong for years, I think that is a difficult pill to swallow. If we acknowledge that it is wrong, something that brought so much joy, something that is part of Dutch society, we actually admit that something is fundamentally wrong with the Dutch society”.55 Moreover, many people disclose that it is not just the celebration that they have good memories about, but that it is especially the figure of Zwarte Piet that is seen as a hero. “I really have a connection with Sinterklaas, all my life I watched Sinterklaas, in the past at the Weteringse Schans, and it is now ingrained in us that it is a fun party [...] Zwarte Piet really has a special place in my heart, so it works positively for me, I like Zwarte Piet, you know?”56 Also Wouter argues that Zwarte Piet is fun. He argues: “I would like to write homage to Zwarte Piet, and I think everyone in the Netherlands would. We love him. We have embraced him in our childish innocence and he is deeply rooted in our hearts and that is why it hurts us so much, if our love for him is doubted or he is labelled a racist phenomenon. Remember that the origins of our relationship with him are early, childlike love. To me that is

53 Brigitte, interview, 30-04-14 54 Jaap, survey, 17-05-14 55 Don, Interview, 15-04-14 56 Karen, Interview, 10-04-14

40

still true, and I'm almost 60. The criticism touches us therefore to the depths of our soul and confidence”57. “I dare say that generations of children (and you should think about millions) adore and respect Zwarte Piet and that he is clasped in their hearts forever, even if they are mature and already know that it is a fairy tale with absolute certainty. Every year, again and again, I have watched the arrival of Sinterklaas and his helpers with pleasure, who are apparently more popular than the royal family or anyone else, given that hundreds of thousands take every effort to catch a glimpse of them. In my view, therefore there is no reason for people with dark skin to be afraid for any negative association, because we, Dutch, have loved Zwarte Piet for a long time.”58 The fact that Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet carry so many emotions and positive feelings, such as luck, love, and excitement, makes this discussion very complex. According to Sara Ahmed, emotions are cultural practices as well. She argues that emotions can lead to collective politics and social alliances; this social power is exhibited through politics and social movement, and can even work to create national identities (Riedner 2006:703). Cultural politics of emotions creates others by aligning some bodies with each other inside a community and marginalizing other bodies. Naming something lovable, joyful, happy, etcetera, generates a certain set of effects which then adheres as a joyful, lovable object. The repetition of a sign of happiness for example creates value through repetition. Repetition of signs designates which bodies belong to the imagined community of the nation and which bodies are abject to it. To name something as lovable, as joyful, or as an object of luck, generates a series of social and emotional values that can define the inside and outside of the community. Emotions become involved in the very negotiation of boundaries between selves and others. Others are brought into the sphere of a threat to Zwarte Piet’s and our existence. A quote of one of my informants clearly illustrates this: “…then you obviously stab an incredible number of people needlessly in the back59, ‘What do we have here? Those people just arrived in this country, what do they have to say, they touch our traditions’, that kind of outrage and aggressive feelings come up.”60 People are stabbed in the back, because ‘others’, ‘newcomers’ are touching ‘our’ tradition. The others are a threat to the feelings ‘we’ experience with this tradition, which leads to anger, outrage, and aggressive feelings. The idea that something is taken from ‘us’ by ‘others’ has been enforced by the comments of Verene Shepherd of the

57 Wouter, reader’s letter Het Parool, 29-11-13 58Herman, addition by e-mail after reading a draft version of this thesis, 05-07-2014 59 Originally in Dutch: “dan trap je natuurlijk ongelooflijk veel mensen nodeloos op hun ziel” 60 Henk, Interview, 08-04-14

41

United Nations and other international attention that advocated the abolishment of the Zwarte Piet figure. Another informant, named Pieter, insists that because the arguments of defenders of the Zwarte Piet tradition are mainly based on emotion, “people cannot get beyond just saying: ‘Yes, but it is our party, it is ancient folklore, a tradition’. ‘Yes, but then just change it’. And that is perhaps because feelings and emotions that have risen from your birthplace are sometimes very difficult to argue with. It is a feeling that you have, an intuition, or a ‘well it is always like this because it is fun for the children, why are they making a problem of it, we do not make associations with slavery’ and that is difficult to catch in a phrase. And thereby, it becomes emphasized that the proponents of Zwarte Piet, cannot go beyond saying ‘what a nonsense, what are you talking about, why are you attacking us’. I think that is the point. (…) They just feel it, it might be just a form of fear”.61So the defence merely works through emotions, which enforces the creation of an imagined community, a community of people who have happy memories of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. Before the discussion about Zwarte Piet started, I personally never thought of Zwarte Piet as insulting, discriminatory or racist. I always celebrated Sinterklaas including Zwarte Piet. I too have good, happy memories of the Sinterklaas celebration. When the discussion received media attention, it also triggered my interest. It was interesting because my own experiences were completely different from the experiences of opponents of Zwarte Piet. Personally, I had not taken a standpoint in this discussion. I always loved the celebration of Sinterklaas, but I also felt that discussion and negotiation about this tradition should be possible. The research confronted me with several different arguments, which in my opinion contain both strong points and weak points. This is why I found myself agreeing with arguments of both camps. When I seriously started analysing my data I still was not able, nor wanted to choose a side in this debate. I prefer to give my analysis of the situation, so as to create a deeper understanding of both opinions and the current situation. I thought I could be an ‘objective’ researcher. At one point during my research, however, I got the experience of feeling attacked because of my white skin colour. This happened at the conference ‘Racism in the Netherlands’62, where Zwarte Piet was also discussed. A discussion arose about the remark Geert Wilders had made63 asking his

61 Pieter, Interview, 30-04-14 62 In the context of the International Day against Racial Discrimination RADAR organized on March 21, 2014 the Your Power-Our-Power Award ceremony and conference with the theme: Racism in the Netherlands. 63 On 19-03-14 Geert Wilders, party leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), chanted to a room full of supporters: “Do you want more or less Moroccans in the Netherlands?” On which the people in the room replied with: “Less!” On which Geert Wilders then replied: “We will arrange that”.

42

supporters whether they wanted more or less Moroccans in the Netherlands. When the crowd answered: ‘Less!’ Geert Wilders said: “We will arrange that”. A couple of people that were present at the conference had taken the initiative to press charges against Geert Wilders, and this was discussed during the conference. Someone argued: “We know what they are like, they will not do anything with it anyway”. It seemed that she meant ‘white people’ with ‘they’ and ‘coloured people’ with ‘we’. Someone else, coloured, also got this feeling and responded: “We should stop pigeonholing” At that moment I thought to myself: ‘But I am white as well.. Am I like that too? No I am not!’ Mentally I immediately started the defence. I decided to just write this down. Later I realized that this might actually be what happens in the Zwarte Piet debate. People start to defend themselves when you attack (part of) their identity. It also made me realize that you, whether you like it or not, are ascribed certain behaviour or characteristics because of your skin colour. The community that is formed in the Zwarte Piet is only more difficult to define. It is not just about skin colour. As, Henk said, he likes to be among his own people. If someone would ask who his own people are, he answers with: They are exactly the people you are thinking of right now”. There is a kind of image of that community, but there are no clear definitions of the boundaries of the community. However, the boundaries can become strong and closed, while at other times they can become more relaxed and open.

2.3 Changing minds The division between the two ‘camps’, or the two imagined communities, is clearly perceptible in the readers’ letters newspapers had received at the time. In those letters the debate was not always taken seriously, which resulted in a heavy emotional discussion that went beyond the alleged origins of Zwarte Piet. Slowly, however, people realized that this discussion encompassed more than just the outward appearance of Zwarte Piet. People saw that this debate led to heavy, emotional, and sometimes openly racist reactions. This made some people realize that they should take the debate more seriously.

“Three years ago, I still fought for the preservation of Zwarte Piet on Facebook: ‘Let's not whine about Zwarte Piet, he is so cool and my childhood hero and it belongs to children.’ Very true! I looked at it from my childhood and my nostalgic feeling. Not a grain of racism, but unfortunately, that argument no longer holds.

43

A few years ago, I, as Liedjestovenaar [singer] went to make music at nurseries and schools in Amsterdam. I do remember very well the first Sinterklaas celebration that I had to learn the songs by heart and learn all the couplets in quaint Dutch. Studying the texts required some flexibility of my mind, to read from a different historical sense of time, but, after a great Sinterklaas celebration for parents & children I was totally into this old Dutch traditional feast. The kids I sing for come from all over the world. During the Sinterklaas celebration, the parents were also invited to also introduce them to our 'Dutch Santa Claus and Black Petes’. I was proud with my guitar, my Zwarte Pieten cap and collar, ready to start with the song ‘Sinterklaas come in with your servant’ at the moment Sinterklaas and the Pieten would walk in. While I was singing, I looked a bit around and noticed some amazement on the faces of the non-Dutch parents. After the song, an English lady asked me; "Who are they?" Still proud of our cosy old Dutch tradition, I told this was the Dutch Santa Claus with his Black Petes. ‘Why are they so black?’ ‘Because they come through the chimney, bringing presents’. ‘Yeah, logical right?’ I then immediately caught myself I had that thought, to justify it. Besides the whole Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet scene now she also looked very puzzled at me. (…) I was asked to translate the texts I sang and could not put it in better English than: ‘About Santa Claus with his black servant’ ‘The stick which is used to beat a child when it is naughty’ ‘The bag of Santa Claus, in which he puts naughty children’ ‘Even though you are black you seem to mean it well’

Only then I started to realize. Strange, perhaps, but at the moment you take a step away from your conditioned mind, you realize it is not okay. A black servant, a birching rod.

I went to ask my dark fellow Dutchmen what they think of the Sinterklaas celebration, and yes, many experience discomfort and they do not participate in this traditional feast. If there are people who feel uncomfortable about it, why would we be so tenacious to hold on?”

As shown above, it is not completely impossible to move between the boundaries of these imagined communities. There are people who are ready to listen to the other part, willing to

44

think about the arguments, and sometimes willing to change their opinion. What they regard as true knowledge about Zwarte Piet may have changed.

2.4 Conclusion This chapter explained how the public discourse production surrounding the Zwarte Piet debate took place. It is clear that the ‘hegemony of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet’ is attacked. Celebrating Sinterklaas including Zwarte Piet is no longer as self-evident as it was before due to the discursive resistance of challengers of Zwarte Piet. This discursive resistance consists mainly of critiquing Dutch tolerance. Sometimes Dutch tolerance is directly connected to the Zwarte Piet debate and is directly attacked, sometimes this is done rather indirectly by making use of intertextuality. There is referred to the Second World War, racism in the Netherlands in general and Dutch identity. This touches the heart of the defenders of the tradition. It upsets the defenders of the tradition on an emotional level.

The objections to a reformulation of Zwarte Piet are mainly produced as a reaction to the discursive resistance of opponents of Zwarte Piet in its current form. This is explained by the emotional attachment people have to Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. In the discursive resistance people refer to the tolerant Dutch identity, claiming it to be an inaccurate depiction of the Dutch as a nation. This attack on the Dutch identity leaves the defenders vulnerable. They feel that they are losing something inherent in their uniqueness as Dutch. The positive self-image of the Dutch is under attack and the value that people attach to this makes the debate more emotional. This form of politics of emotion leads to the enforcement and cementing of the boundaries of two imagined communities. The discourse creates two different imagined communities. Therefore, I wondered whether these imagined communities and their attitudes towards each other undermine the notion of tolerance as one of the core values of Dutch identity. It is clear that different conceptualizations of tolerance exist. When there are no issues that personally affects people, people strive for recognition and equal respect for cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences in a society of immigration which involves full recognition, respect, normality and equality of values. However, when people experience discomfort from this equal respect and recognition, the practical conceptualization of tolerance moves to ‘everyone can live here freely, but the values, beliefs and norms of the majority are represented as normal, whereas those of minorities are seen as deviating and as inferior for moral, religious or cultural reasons.’ The conceptualization of tolerance thus changes dependent on the processes that play in society and when people experience discomfort, the conceptualization of tolerance is changed.

45

The discussion has a polarizing effect, as the people that disagree about this topic seem to form two separate groups. However, this does not mean that everyone in the Netherlands belongs to a certain camp and has chosen a specific side. Nor does it mean that there is no room for the re-evaluation of one’s opinion. The next chapter provides an analysis of the role of the media in the production process of discourse.

46

3. Transforming knowledge into truths in news articles about the Zwarte Piet discussion

“Zwarte Piet is not a negro, but an Italian chimney sweeper. Googling on "spazzacamini" (chimney sweeper) provides evidence. In earlier times, Dutch children could face males on the roof that were jabbering a foreign language, who shouted through the chimney and had black faces. The parents made them believe that that were Sinterklaas helpers who had already arrived to check if the children were nice. There is a chimney sweep museum in Santa Maria Maggiore, which shows the chimney sweepers who travelled around Europe and created a special bond with the Netherlands.64”

To analyse the truth production process, I decided to make appointments with some journalists to ask them about their considerations during the production process of certain stories in media articles about Zwarte Piet. Patrick Meershoek from Het Parool very enthusiastically answered my e-mail and invited me to come to the editorial office of the newspaper. When I arrived Patrick Meershoek gave me a short guided tour through the office. I realized that I actually arrived in the room of ‘truth production’! In this modern room certain observations can be transformed into facts. I started my interview a bit nervously. I was going to interview a journalist! A guy who is usually the one asking the questions. And I was supposed to ask questions about something that is usually considered as self-evident; I was supposed to deconstruct truth. How does this truth come about? Certain ‘knowledge’ or arguments will easily be considered as true by certain audiences, while other ‘knowledge’ or arguments will not be accepted as such. Mark, one of my informants, noticed that in the media very few civilized, intelligent anti-Zwarte Piet lobbyists talked about the issue, but only loudmouths. “And because of that you are further regarded as rioters (…). I think that is disappointing of the media.”65 The arguments of the “loudmouths” are not regarded as truth, while, according to the informant, if intelligent, civilized people had participated in the debate, the Zwarte Piet opponents would have been taken more seriously. How comes certain knowledge considered to be true? There are many factors that influence the process of truth-making. Some persons are perceived as more legitimate speakers than others, and their statements will sooner be considered as truth. Van Dijk argues that the media has an important role to play here. As Van Dijk (1987:202) indicates: “in the context of complex industrial societies, and when other information is lacking, social information processing is largely based on discourse and communication. It is

64 Anonymous, Reader’s letter Het Parool 65 Mark, Interview, 06-05-14

47

assumable that media plays an important role in the distribution and acceptance of certain ideologies (Van Dijk 1987:202). When referring to media in this chapter I refer to newspaper articles by journalists. However, also readers’ letters, especially the ones that are published in the newspapers can be seen as media. According to Agner Fog (1999:1) mass media has an important role in modern democratic society as the main channel of communication. She argues that people rely on the news media as the main source of information and the basis on which they form their opinions and decisions. Fog (1999:1) believes that any selection of messages in the mass media will have a profound effect on the entire society. So media reporting is a responsible task. How does newspaper media deal with this? While Fairclough’s framework of discourse analyses is a good foundation for the analysis of the media discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet, it is however not entirely complete. Fairclough’s model for media analyses misses a critical part of explanation. Norman Fairclough distinguishes between the consumer and the producer of a discourse. He advocates for a more holistic method of discourse analysis than previously employed, by using a three dimensional framework to explore the linkages between what Fairclough calls micro-level practices and the broader societal environment. Fairclough (1992:232) proposes an integrated analysis of three discourse levels namely text, discourse practice, and social practice. In the discourse practice level Faircough (1992:232) distinguishes again three factors, namely, the production processes, consumption processes and circulation processes. To start we can distinguish between producer and consumer of a written text by looking at who actually had the pen in his hand, and wrote the text and who read it. So journalists can in that sense be seen as discourse producers, and readers can be seen as consumers. To try to understand the complicated process of truth production, some insights from framing theory are borrowed66. Dietram Scheufele (1999) developed a process model of framing, in which he identified four key processes that should be addressed in future research on framing and the media. He distinguishes frame building, frame setting, individual level processes of framing and a feedback loop from audiences to journalists. In this chapter frame building and frame setting will be elaborated on. Individual level processes and the feedback loop will be discussed in the next chapter. According to Gitlin (in Scheufele 1999:106), frames largely unspoken and unacknowledged, organize the world, both for journalists who report it and, to some degree, for people who rely on reports. Frames serve as the bridge between larger social and cultural

66 Making use of Scheufele’s theory

48

reals and everyday understandings of social interaction. Framing has to be conceptualized as a continuous process where outcomes of certain processes serve as inputs for subsequent processes (Scheufele 1999:114). Framing continuously influences the truth-production process.

3.1 Frame building The first process that can be distinguished is frame building. Scheufele (1999:114) mentions four sources that influence the frame building process: journalist-centred influences, personal ideology and professional values, political orientation of the medium, and external sources.

3.1.1 Journalist-centred influences The first sources that can influence the frame-building process are journalist-centred influences, with which Scheufele (1999:115) refers to the idea that journalists actively construct frames to structure and make sense of incoming information. Also when reporting about the Zwarte Piet discussion a framework has to be constructed to structure all the incoming information. Sometimes this framing is a subconscious process, sometimes the journalist is quite aware of the framing, for example because the journalist has a certain field of topics that he is supposed to report about, which automatically creates a frame. This was the case for Johan Van de Beek, columnist for Dagblad de Limburger/ Limburg Dagblad:

“Because I am mainly dealing with problems, or issues such as social cohesion and civic strength I relatively write a lot about identity, especially Limburgian identity and what people consider as their own and what they regard as alien and whether they do experience the alien as a threat or not. For about two years, I have done research for these newspapers to establish possible explanations for the sudden popularity, especially in Limburg, of populism under the leadership of Wilders. It [Limburg] is also the only province where the PVV has come in governance and they [the PVV] have achieved that primarily by playing the identity card and that is fascinating, so that is basically my area of expertise. So I am not a specialist in the field of Zwarte Piet, but I can see very clearly the relationships between the Zwarte Piet discussion and the identity debate”. Johan Van de Beek, therefore, frames the Zwarte Piet debate as an identity issue. Whether this frame is something the journalist personally creates or whether it is a frame that ‘was already present’ is debatable and shall be discussed further on in this chapter.

3.1.2 Personal ideology and professional values Variables such as personal ideology or professional values also play a role in creating the frame (Scheufele 1999: 115). Johan Van de Beek attaches great value to objectivity. He argues: “I think, that is my belief, that a journalist should base his reports on facts. And that may sound very corny, but I became a journalist after seeing All the President's Men in the

49

cinema, which is about the Watergate affair that eventually led to the resignation of the President of the United States, which all started with two journalists who truly attempted to find out what no one really wanted to be published. In that film there is a moment that I always remember because it is a guiding light for me. At one point those journalists have a puzzle of about 1000 pieces from which they only have about 100 pieces and they put these pieces on what they assume are the right positions. They think they know what must have happened although many pieces are still missing. They fill in the gaps with assumptions. ‘And then they go to their chief, and say: ‘we think this and that happened and we are going to examine that’ and their boss replied: ‘I'm not interested in what you think, I am interested in what you know’. That is a huge difference. That is my basic principle; a news report should be based on facts. The journalist needs to do research like a scientist, just like you, and based on those facts draw possible conclusions. And those conclusions must always remain subject to criticism, and should be adjusted when later events seem to draw the picture differently. So that often means you should not go along in the maelstrom of madness, should not go into the media hype, but must build in more rest and postpone judgement before you come to conclusions”.67 Van de Beek’s personal ideology and professional values indicate that he is focusing on fact finding and is willing to change his frame and his judgements when research demonstrates the initial account was wrong or incomplete. However, because he argues his reports are based on facts, he creates an illusion of objectivity. Facts can never be just facts, but will always be an interpretation of observations. I also had a conversation with Bas Blokker, journalist for the NRC, about his professional values and personal ideologies. I asked him about his opinion on Zwarte Piet and how he would personally describe the figure. He answered: “If I had to describe him I would say he is black, like a Negro is black. He also has frizzy hair, and I do not know any better than that was Zwarte Piet, for me that was never a discussion. But it is very simple for me: as a journalist I do not have an opinion about that, but as a citizen I do. There are many journalists who write from their own opinions. I have to respect that, but personally I do not do that. When I call someone for a news report, I never go along with people and say 'Oh, I am so sorry for you ' or 'what a shame ', I'm just looking for things that are new and interesting. So I do not think Mrs. Shepherd should have minded her own business, nor do I find it surprising that white Dutch who have celebrated Sinterklaas for centuries, think 'please leave us alone’. I think times have just changed. It is no longer a small group of white Dutch people who live here, it is a large mixed population, especially in Amsterdam. So I think it is very wise that Mayor Van der Laan wrote: ‘everyone’, he wrote,

67 Johan Van de Beek, Interview, 18-04-14

50

‘has respectable arguments', so you should respect each other. Personally, I support that argument, as a citizen. So I can say someone exaggerates when he or she bursts into tears in the courtroom if he or she hears Zwarte Piet will not be prohibited, but I do not know how it feels. When I hear someone say that someone’s child is systematically bullied by being called Zwarte Piet, I can imagine that is not nice”. When I asked him whether it is difficult to remain neutral in reporting about such a discussion he argued: “No, I do not think so. Not at all. It is often difficult for people to accept that you do. I received a very emotional phone call from someone from the National Platform Slavery Memorial, a very active lady who also was the one that wrote a letter with her complaint about Zwarte Piet to the UN. She blames me that I do not bring her emotions in my story.” Therefore, for this journalist, an important professional value is to remain neutral or objective. This will be discussed more extensively in the next section on frame setting. However, I wondered if these opinions ‘as a citizen’ do not influence the frame building of the journalist. Can you really switch between the journalists and the citizen? I tried to discover if this might influence the way you select your informers, or the way you select the specific topics you are going to write about. This is, however, difficult to establish. Bas Blokker told me he had once written an article for NRC of 19-10-2013 in a section that consists of six paragraphs that each take two minutes to read. For this article he selected six different items: one about a school that celebrates Sinterklaas in the traditional way, one about a school that celebrates Sinterklaas in a modified way, one about tradition, one about an exposition called Wit over Zwart (White over Black), one about the organisation committee of the arrival of Sinterklaas in Amsterdam, and one about the outside world (about the VN’s research on Zwarte Piet). So I thought there must be a reason why he selected these six items. After asking how he had decided to write about this issue and after a few questions objectivity in reporting, it still was not clear to me why he had chosen these six items. So I tried again by asking: “how did this article come about?” So he started: “I was asked by the chief of the Saturday special. And then the article emerged in dialogue, I have been thinking what I would do with my own experience as a journalist and I suggested to him that form of six short paragraphs: two about schools , one about tradition, one on Wit over Zwart, one about the organisation of the arrival of Sinterklaas, and one about the United Nations.” L: “So how did you come to that selection?” B: “That is just thinking. I cannot say .. I particularly wanted those two schools, I liked it so much and I knew that if I would call the two schools, I would get sensible people on the phone – and that was indeed the case- because they have to think about it all the time, what should I do with my children, what should I do with the parents of the children, so they have

51

been thinking about this issue a lot longer than other people in the Netherlands. And they told me some really meaningful things, so I knew I would include those two in any case. A paragraph about tradition naturally belongs to this, I could get that from the encyclopaedia so to speak. And I called someone from the Wit over Zwart-exposition and the UN.” After a few of these attempts to get to know how this selection process functions, the best answer was: “That is just thinking” and “it naturally belongs to this”. I decided to accept that he probably just does not have a clear explanation for this. Even though the selection of topics journalists make can have a severe impact on the evolution of the discourse surrounding this issue, it is difficult to explain what these selections are based on.

3.1.3 Political orientation of the medium A third factor that could influence the frame building process is the selection of frames as a result of factors like the type or political orientation of the medium (Scheufele 1999:115). As becomes clear from an interview with Patrick Meershoek68, the frame building process is definitely dependent on the orientation of the medium, and on its target audience. When I asked Patrick Meershoek if all readers’ letters are published he answered: “It is balanced. Of course it is a debate that is sensitive. There are about 20 arguments that are repeated constantly and original arguments become scarce. Often there is referred to history. We try to highlight as many arguments in the newspaper but especially the ones that are different, new. What we do not publish in our newspaper are the letters with: ‘Go back to your own country’. De Telegraaf and the Algemeen Dagblad, the popular press, turned it a bit into a PVV (party for the freedom) thing69. Evidently, Meershoek, or Het Parool does not want to give voice to the more extreme comments, and does not want to make its articles a stage for the extreme-right. Consequently, they frame the discussion as an issue where discussion can be conducted openly, and where insulting is not ‘allowed’. By framing the discussion, you could argue that the discussion is raised to a more serious level. Furthermore, Meershoek explains that he does not have to join the discussion or comment on readers’ letters. The readers of Het Parool can accept his position as an objective journalist. He argues that this might be different for other newspapers. “Luckily,” Meershoek continues, “we do not have readers that immediately start to scream. Amsterdam is a city where there is much room for debate. So that is nice. In Amsterdam they held a survey last year , about the phenomenon of Zwarte Piet, following the statement by the Deputy Mayor. Then it turned out that 90 % say Zwarte Piet should remain. You know these facts as

68 Patrick Meershoek, interview, 03-03-14 69 Patrick Meershoek, interview, 03-03-14

52

journalist of a newspaper but, we like to poke a bit and we can afford that because we have a good group of readers. So, even though people do not like to read it, we can still write anti- Zwarte Piet stories or let anti-Zwarte Piet people have their say without it having immediate consequences. When you are a big popular newspaper like De Telegraaf or Het Algemeen Dagblad, and I think that it also applies a bit to regional newspapers, you have to be cautious. This was also noticeable in De Telegraaf. A columnist immediately responded fiercely against the entire discussion. Conveniently, as subscribers enjoy reading these things. But that is because the big newspapers have to please their readers. We have some more room to take a different position, an Amsterdam-position. Even though 90 % is pro-Zwarte Piet , the issue is quite different here than outside Amsterdam. It really is an ‘Amsterdam discussion.” According to Meershoek newspapers experience a certain pressure to go along with the readers because newspapers have a commercial goal. According to Patrick Meershoek Het Parool has a better position to steer the debate, to change the discourse, while other newspapers are constrained due to commercial considerations, to adopt the voice of the majority of their target audience.

3.1.4 External sources A fourth and final source Scheufele distinguishes, that can influence the framing process are external sources, like for example political actors, authorities and interest groups. This also shows that journalists cannot automatically be seen as the only discourse producers. Frames suggested by interest groups or political actors can be adopted by journalists and incorporated in their coverage of an issue or event (Scheufele 1999:116). This using of other´s frames closely relates to intertextuality. As was already explained in the introduction, intertextuality can be defined as "the property texts have of being full of snatches of other texts, which may be explicitly demarcated or merged in, and which the text may assimilate, contradict, ironically echo, and so forth" (Fairclough 1992:84) Journalists also ´borrow´ (parts of) texts, and even complete frames from interest groups, political actors or other discourse influencers. The context people refer to in their ‘discourse’ can also be seen as a form of intertextuality. They might not literally cite or refer to a specific written or spoken text, but they do refer to a certain process as (ir)relevant, an argument that they have probably heard before from researchers, activists, artists or other participants in the discourse. From the few newspaper reports that were selected for this research it becomes clear that in every news report intertextual elements are used. So it may seem that the newspaper just gives voice to external discourse influencers. NRC of 24 October 2013 refers to a text by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, in which the Commission claims that the situation in the Netherlands is not promising. The discussion about Zwarte Piet is

53

framed as an issue of intolerance. The columnist of this article states that: “This discussion is not about Zwarte Piet anymore. It is, however, about the question of how long we will, according to Dutch tradition, keep laughing at or harass people who are unwilling or unable to adapt completely to our habits”70 By saying this she implies that it is common in the Netherlands to laugh at people and to snap at people that are unwilling or unable to conform to the demands of the majority. She calls the ability to be a modern, open, tolerant society into question. By referring to this text by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and by framing the issue in this way, the columnists also implies that the Dutch should take this issue more seriously. She calls the argument of proponents of Zwarte Piet who say ‘En blanke vla dan?’ (And what about white custard then?) witty. The columnist also considers it to be a misconception that the origins of Zwarte Piet are relevant. She refers to texts of Wim Pijbes and Elmer Kolfin, who both argued for different versions of the origins of Zwarte Piet to prove that the figure of Zwarte Piet is or is not racist. Furthermore, the columnist includes the situation in America in her text. She argues that in Washington, where there has been a discussion about the local football club called the Redskins for years, even an extreme-right columnist advocated abolition, because he argued that when meanings change, people have to accept that. In the NRC column she thus refers to other texts to enforce her argument, and to set the frame. She frames the discussion into a discussion about the situation of intolerance in the Netherlands. By referring to the situation in America, she argues that the Netherlands is lagging behind America. Another example is a news report of 19-10-2013 in Het Parool which is largely based on the text of Annie Fletcher from the Van Abbemuseum. The text refers to an exposition of the Van Abbemuseum of 2008 about nationalism and identity. The museum organized a protest march against Zwarte Piet. In the article Fletcher is cited: “I find it shocking that it appears impossible to question the phenomenon of Zwarte Piet without immediately getting scolded”.71 By referring to this text, the discussion is linked to nationalism and identity, because in the Van Abbe museum this link had already been established. The debate indirectly becomes framed as a loaded debate about Dutch identity, and immediately also the tolerance of the Dutch is questioned, because she argues it is impossible to question a Dutch tradition.

70 NRC Handelsblad 24-10-13, Acht misvattingen in Nederland, column Margriet Oostveen 71 Het Parool 19-10-13, ‘Toekomst van Piet steeds minder zwart’, Patrick Meershoek

54

The same text also refers to Paul Schnabel, who calls the Sinterklaas celebration “one of the most vital components of our national identity”72. According to Schnabel, “Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet as intangible cultural heritage are firmly rooted in the Dutch soul”73. Paul Schnabel is called a ‘kenner van het vaderlandse denken’ (expert on the patriotic thinking). In the article ‘Tegen Zwarte Piet? Rot dan lekker op naar je eigen land’ (‘Against Zwarte Piet? Fuck off to your own country’) Tilly Kaisiepo is given voice. Kaisiepo is the woman that was attacked at Malieveld in The Hague, during a demonstration against a reformulation of Zwarte Piet. People thought she was an activist asking for a reformulation of Zwarte Piet, when in fact, she was not. In this article the debate is framed as an aggressive, very emotional discussion that can even lead to violent outbursts. By referring to the text of an innocent lady that was attacked, the heaviness of debate is emphasized. In an article in Het Parool74 is reported on a debate organized by Jonge Democraten (Young Democrats), the youth organization of political party D66. All guest speakers that are referred to in this text argue for reformulation of Zwarte Piet. Quinsy Gario and two academics are cited. The academics can too be seen as discourse influencers. One of the academics, Markus Balkenhol, develops a frame to cover this issue, because he claims that “this debate is actually about the subordination of the black community”. He looks at the current symbolism and argues that Zwarte Piet is unmistakably linked to slavery. The other academic, historian Louise Muller frames the discussion in a historical perspective. She argues that although originally Zwarte Piet may have been an Islamic trader from Sudan who had a partnership with the bishop of Myra, this image changed in the 19th century when it was the heyday of racial theories. Zwarte Piet became naturally the servant of Sinterklaas. Another remarkable intertextual element is a discussion about fireworks. In news reports at the end of 2013 a new discussion arose, namely the discussion about whether or not it should be prohibited for individuals to use fireworks. In NRC, the link with Zwarte Piet was made in the headline of a news report. The headline was: “After Zwarte Piet now also fireworks under pressure”75, which implies that this discussion on fireworks has similarities to the discussion on Zwarte Piet. The resemblance is that both the fireworks on New Year’s Eve and Zwarte Piet are traditions that are ‘taken away from us’. This is also a very implicit way to suggest that both traditions are part of something that is ours, our identity.

72 Het Parool 19-10-13, ‘Toekomst van Piet steeds minder zwart’, Patrick Meershoek 73 Het Parool 19-10-13, ‘Toekomst van Piet steeds minder zwart’, Patrick Meershoek 74 Het Parool 13-11-13, ‘Piet was man van aanzien, gelijkwaardig aan Sint’, Patrick Meershoek 75 NRC Handelsblad, Na Zwarte Piet ook vuurwerk onder druk, 24-12-13

55

These are just a few examples of intertextuality in news reports. What is remarkable is that the links to national identity and tolerance are not explicitly made by the journalists or columnists themselves, but this is done by referring to texts of external sources. Because these elements are included it becomes clear that the discussion should not be seen as a nonsense discussion (anymore), it expresses the heaviness of the discussion and frames it as not just a discussion about Zwarte Piet, but a discussion about more complicated issues as identity and tolerance. By using the words of others, journalists create a kind of illusion of objectivity. Although journalists attach great value to objectivity, “news work is an active process that at the very least acts as a filter, gatekeeper or agenda setter” (Mirchandi and Tastsoglou 2010:50). Mirchandi and Tatsoglou (2010:50) built on Tuchman who characterized news “as a negotiated enterprise” which “transforms mere happenings into publicly discussible events." They argue that in the process of describing an event, a media discourse is created that defines and shapes that event. The journalists have to make choices in what they report and what they do not report on. As I illustrated earlier, the selections are often made on the basis of ‘logical thinking’ or ‘gut feeling’.

Mirchandi and Tastsoglou (2010) argue that subconsciously news reports often mostly describe news from a white hegemonic ideological viewpoint. This is also what Van Dijk argues in his article ‘Mediating racism’ (1987). He argues that ethnic minorities are generally depicted in negative terms as a result of a complex ideological framework in which the news media does not merely reflect hegemonic viewpoints, but in fact co-produces these viewpoints (Mirchandi & Tastsoglou 2010:51). Moreover, Michiel de Hoog in a media blog76 argues that the media downplays the debate. He argues that even a presenter of the eight ‘o clock NOS news, the most watched news program in the Netherlands, Annechien Steenhuizen started the Zwarte Piet story as follows: "Yet we have to talk about Zwarte Piet again,77" as if she did not like to talk about it. Also Humberto Tan, presenter of RTL Late night, a talk show in the Netherlands, started his story on Zwarte Piet with: ‘There is a new highlight in the discussion about Zwarte Piet, but you can also call it a new low78’. According to Michiel de Hoog79, the general message in the mainstream media was that that people should focus on more important topics.

76 De Hoog, M. ‘Wie wint de tegel voor de Zwarte Piet verslaggeving?’ http://mediablog.ncrv.nl/nieuwsblogs/wie-wint-tegel-voor-zwarte-piet-verslaggeving 77 idem 78 idem 79 idem

56

Frank and Roosblad argued that the debate is not really conducted. Quinsy Gario, the guy who started the ‘Zwarte Piet is Racism’ project and was arrested in 2011, was publicly ridiculed on Dutch national TV for speaking out against Zwarte Piet (Frank and Roosblad 2013:1). Frank and Roosblad (2013:1) blame the white hegemony, which according to them is also present in the media, for not making the Zwarte Piet issue debatable. They argue that we first “need to realize that racism is not an exception to the rule but [is] ingrained in Dutch history, culture and society. White hegemony upholds and reinforces power structures that create hierarchical, racialized and gendered identities”. Media, therefore, is not just innocent reporting. However, it can be argued that something changed in 2013. Since 2013, arguments by the minority groups are increasingly presented in the media. Not only are journalist more often reporting on the opponents of Zwarte Piet, but the arguments made by that group are currently presented in a more serious light. According to Patrick Meershoek, now, even though journalists or opinion makers know that their target audience does not really appreciate what they write on this discussion, they still do it. Meershoek argued: “Personally, I think Elsevier, a magazine that also entered into this discussion , does not have a group of readers who really appreciate reading about the discussion , but they still had a very big cover story with comments. First you only had the artists who took the initiative and were consequently threatened, and now you the opinion leaders. Every newspaper had a columnist who spoke about it and that was really a new phenomenon. Before that, all newspapers acted like: ‘there they are again’ and ‘tiresome’. There is also a new generation of columnists who look at this in a different way, they have a rather international-oriented way of life, or at least are capable to think about other arguments without rejecting them immediately . For example Robert Vuijsje has written an interesting letter. But almost all the newspapers had someone like this. This new generation consists of people of about thirty, I think. They are a little less attached to typical Dutch traditions. If you are that age now, you fly around the world, go to other countries and perhaps study abroad, Facebook and internet, couch surfing. I'm not sure, but I think then you will look so different to your own tradition. I think that plays a role now”80.

3.2 Agenda- and frame setting The second process that has to be distinguished is the process of agenda- and frame setting. Agenda-setting is concerned with the salience of issues.

80 Patrick Meershoek, interview, 03-03-14

57

Patrick Meershoek (Het Parool) clearly sees this role of the media. He argues that news reporting cannot be objective because of this agenda-setting. He argues: “Because you pay attention to an issue, you show that you find it a serious subject.” L: “Do you think your own opinion emerges in the articles?” P: “If I'm honest, I think so.” L: “Do you make clear when something is your own opinion and when something is a fact?” P: “No, it is more in how you frame it. When Van Es (alderman of Amsterdam) spoke two sentences in a committee meeting because she did not want to make an issue of it, I have taken the initiative to persuade the editorial board that this should be front page news. I had to argue that this was important. It was the first time that a politician spoke about this. And they (the editorial board) agreed. But they could also have put this in a short article on page seven, which of course makes it a whole different thing. Now it was picked up and the Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (Dutch Press Agency) made a message of it and it becomes important. In that sense, you always do have influence.” Another intertextual element that is often referred to in different ways is a certain version of the history of Zwarte Piet, or his alleged origins. The putative origins of Zwarte Piet range from Germanic origins, to the devil, to Italian chimneysweepers, to a Moorish page, to the book of Jan Schenkman. Arnold-Jan, who I interviewed as a readers’ letter writer but who is also a journalists and is making a documentary about Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet, and especially its origins, argues that we should look at the celebration and the discussion about it from a historical perspective. He discovered during his thirty years of traveling, that the blackening of the face during the New Year takes place from England to Macedonia, and further to the east. In Persia for example, the arrival of the new year is celebrated by foolishly behaving blackened young men dancing in a brightly coloured jumpsuit. When these blackened men disappear, an old man appears with a long beard who brings gifts, including germ and nuts81. He argues that the origins of Zwarte Piet are much older than the era of slavery, and therefore Zwarte Piet has nothing to do with slavery and cannot be racist. Arnold-Jan however got the feeling that his story is not heard. He tells me: “I was invited by the Young Democrats by e-mail. They asked me if I wanted to come because I was an important contribution to the debate. Later they cancelled their invitation because Quinsy Gario did not want to come, if I would come and then they would not have a discussion. So in short, in all those cases was chosen for discussion. Although the invitation was cancelled I decided to go, and once we were there, because it was a public meeting they could not refuse us, so they called us in, but I was not allowed to participate in the discussion, and neither was

81 Arnold-Jan, Reader’s letter Het Parool 07-10-13

58

Roy, who had to stow away his camera. But I wanted to hear what was said, because I 'm just a journalist. Things like that happen, so I have to conclude that the anti - Zwarte Piet lobby manipulates the discussion because if you won’t come if an opponent, someone who has a different opinion is likely to come, then there is not really a fair discussion82. And so far my story, my documentary is not showed. Just that article in the Volkskrant and Trouw and the Parool”83. Arnold-Jan seems to be frustrated that his argument is not set on the agenda, and not accepted as one of the frames. Others argue that the debate on Zwarte Piet should not be framed in historical perspective. For example, journalist Bas Blokker attempted to change the discourse about Zwarte Piet, because he thought this discussion was not about the exact origins of Zwarte Piet. The people that sent a readers’ letter to Bas Blokker in which they employed the history of Zwarte Piet to make clear that Zwarte Piet was not racist received a reply from Bas Blokker, in which he argued that the discussion was not about the origins of Zwarte Piet but rather about the current associations of Piet with either slavery or inequality and racism in general. Implying that the debate is not about the discussion the readers are having in their readers’ letters, stirs the discourse in a different direction. So although journalists make very often use of intertextual elements, we cannot say that they just reproduce the discourse of ‘the people’. Frame setting is concerned with the salience of attributes. “Frames influence opinions by stressing specific values, facts and other considerations, endowing them with greater apparent relevance to the issue than they might appear to have under an alternative frame”(Nelson et al in Scheufele 1999:116). “Salience of frames refers to their accessibility, or the ease in which instances or associations could be brought to mind”. In other words, how people think about an issue is influenced by the accessibility of frames. "The frames that are most accessible are the ones that are most easily available and retrievable from memory” (Scheufele 1999:116). The reception of these frames will be discussed in the next chapter.

3.3 Conclusion In this chapter it is argued that a change has taken place in news reports surrounding the Zwarte Piet debate. According to the journalists and columnists themselves, they have become more careful in their wordings. The news reports very often include references to external sources, like academics, opinion makers and interest groups. However Zihni Ozdil84

82 This is the experience of Arnold-Jan. Unfortunately I do not know the other side of the story. 83 Arnold-Jan, Interview, 17-04-14 84 In: Groene Amsterdammer 22-10-13

59

argues that the white, male, heterosexual segment of Dutch society still determines the boundaries of the social discourse. According to Teun Van Dijk this segment is usually also the main determiner in the media. But while in the past years the media seemed to downplay the whole debate as not really important, it seems that, in the researched newspapers, the debate is now taken more seriously, and there is more space for a ‘real’ debate. But as also Patrick Meershoek argued, most journalist are still white and could fit in this segment Ozdil talks about, which means that the way issues about Zwarte Piet are framed from a ‘white’ perspective. Framing is a very delicate task, because it puts certain knowledge in a certain frame. Therefore it can make the issue consciously or subconsciously linked to this certain frame in the perception of the consumers. Because it is presented as news report, which is assumed to be as objective as possible, it becomes easily regarded as truth. The clear objections to reformulations of Zwarte Piet can be found in the readers’ letters, of which a few are published in the newspapers. But we cannot say that journalists are completely objective. Although journalists present the arguments of others through intertextuality, the way journalists present and frame the debate and the selections that are made about what to (not) write about cannot be a 100% objective. The debate is framed in a few different ways. Often it is framed as an identity issue, or an issue of tolerance or integration and multiculturalism. It seems that the journalists want to go beyond the historical frame. The choices they made in how to frame it and what to report about can influence the way people interpret the issue. The frames they choose for can become a certain truth because journalists present their choices as logical ones. Consumers may adopt their frames as if they are natural. In the next chapter the reception processes of consumers will be discussed more elaborately.

60

4. The reception processes of ‘truths’ about Zwarte Piet

“It [the celebration of Sinterklaas with Zwarte Piet] is thousands of years old; it has nothing to do with slavery. Zwarte Piet is not a slave. Saint Nicholas originates from the story of Wodan, who travelled through the air on his horse Sleipnir, who had eight legs, a roan, he wore a red robe, a rod in his hand, a shaggy white beard, he had two crows with him, who also went to the houses through the chimneys and brought him the news about the people there, there you can already recognize a bit of the current Zwarte Piet. Furthermore, he had with him an army of dead warriors, who were black because they were dead, and gradually the story of Sinterklaas evolved.”85

In the previous chapter the main focus was on the production process of discourse. This one will rather focus on the reception process of discourse. I specifically explore how a discourse is received, the resonance of media frames, the influence of the discourse on wider social practices, and the feedback loop from audience to journalists. To begin with I want to make clear that we cannot speak of a media discourse by journalists that came first and which afterwards resonates in a public discourse. To claim one came first, media or public discourse, is to a certain extent the problem of the chicken and the egg. Does it matter to know what came first? The most important point in this case is that there is interaction between input from ‘the public’ and ‘the journalists’ input. So we should not think, although I divided the information in different chapters, that there are two different processes happening sequentially. Both public and media are influencing the discourse simultaneously. It is argued that there is reciprocity in framing that the top-down (one- directional) depiction omits. Journalists themselves can interpret issues based on frames conveyed to them by other news sources, such as readers’ letters. Johan Van de Beek argues that most columnists and journalists did not take the whole Zwarte Piet phenomenon very seriously until they saw the reactions from readers, and realized this is about more than just Zwarte Piet. “The discussion began on a giggly tone, a bit ironically, the discussion was not taken seriously. As the reactions of angry people became fiercer, people [journalists and columnists] began to realize that apparently something important was going on and they should adapt [their news reports to that]. So initially this story was underestimated, but based on the intensity of the reactions more serious journalism evolved and I think that is a good development”. We should not forget that journalists themselves are consumers of the discourse surrounding

85 Interview Anonymous and anonymous, 27-03-2014

61

Zwarte Piet too. They also read or hear stories from others in society. Although they would like to be objective, it is impossible to step out of a discourse. The media try to (re)produce the discourse of its consumers by ‘making’ news. They make decisions about what is and what is not represented in the media and, thereby, can create a ‘new’ discourse. The discourse is consumed by readers, but at the same time also transformed. Because of their agency, they are able to influence the discourse. Journalists do make choices about how they frame the issue, which can influence how readers come to interpret the issue. Texts set up positions for interpreting subjects that are capable of making sense of them, and capable of making the connections and inferences, in accordance with relevant interpretive principles, necessary to create coherent readings (Fairclough 1992: 84). These connections and inferences may rest upon assumptions of an ideological sort (Fairclough 1992: 84). But readers do thus have a form of agency whereby the discourse of journalists can be transformed. Readers’ letters are an import mechanism for a feedback loop from audiences to journalists and editors. According to Patrick Meershoek, not all of these letters are automatically published. The heavy inflammatory, offensive letters remain unpublished. Those letters, however, can still have a sincere influence. Van de Beek argues that journalists only started to realize that this was a serious debate after they received many heavy, emotional readers’ letters86. Therefore he also started to write articles with a therapeutical tone.87 Thus, there is definitely interaction between consumers and journalists.

4.1 Individual level processes of reception As I argued above, every single person can potentially influence the discourse. Because of that it is difficult to determine whether people change their opinion as a result of the media discourse. However, previous (lab experiment) research about the reception of media frames shows that media does have some effect on the reception process. This influence of media on consumer’s interpretation can, according to Thomas Nelson (1997:568), be explained by combining three different models: the learning model, which holds that mass media messages influence viewer opinion by providing new information about an issue (Nelson et al 1997:568); the priming or cognitive accessibility model, which elaborates on the first model by arguing that “considerations that are accessible, that is, easily retrieved from long-term memory or perhaps already present in conscious thought, will enter into judgements with greater likelihood than inaccessible thoughts” (Nelson et al 1997:568); and expectancy-value models that “stress that different pieces of information carry different weights. This makes

86 Johan Van de Beek, Interview, 18-04-14 87 Johan Van de Beek, Interview, 18-04-14

62

that different persons differently assess the importance, relevance, reliability, or perceptual salience of certain information” (Nelson et al 1997: 568). In the case of information providing about the Zwarte Piet debate, an important piece of new information was that the UN had started an investigation on Zwarte Piet. This was something most people did not know before and seemed to change the perception of the discussion. If a reader were unaware of the involvement of the UN then coverage of this issue might turn that person’s opinion to heavier resistance because people feel that now there are really attacked by an outsider. Furthermore many people reacted indignantly because they felt that this debate was such a minor, nonsense issue, and the UN was not the organisation to investigate this, if it had to be investigated at all. This shows that the learning model can partly explain the reception process in the case of the Zwarte Piet discussion. According to the cognitive accessibility model, mere coverage of an issue brings associated beliefs and feelings to the forefront of conscious thought of the consumer. People have an inability to process simultaneously a large number of ideas, which ensures that judgements are based on only a subset of relevant thoughts, feelings, or other considerations. That is why framing can have a certain impact on people’s interpretation of the issue. The question whether audiences adopt media frames or to which degree they use similar frames to media frames in their own information processing is still left unanswered. Therefore we should research how individuals process media frames and how this translates itself in their behaviour. This however turned out to be very difficult because, as I already argued, it is difficult to determine whether the media takes over the frame of ‘the people’ or the consumers take over the media frames. But there is definitely overlap between media frames and consumer frames, for example the ‘identity frame’ is often used by both media and consumers. But the ‘historical frame’ after a while was rejected by for example NRC. Bas Blokker wrote in a reaction to many readers’ letters he received: “Thanks for your notes on history and background of St. Nicholas. The discussion, I notice, is no longer about the origin of the tradition and an attempt to limit the debate to this discussion, is in vain. Opponents of Zwarte Piet are concerned about the current associations of Piet with either slavery or inequality and racism in general. Even if these associations have no basis in the original use, they have now become apparent reality of the day. Nevertheless, I want to ask if I can send your contribution to the editor ‘Opinion’. They make a page about Zwarte Piet and I would like to submit your letter to them.

Sincerely, Bas Blokker”

63

Interpretation means you engage in a risky conflict-laden activity. It is risky because the meaning of a symbolic form is not given, fixed determinate; to offer an interpretation is to project a possible meaning, one of several possible meanings which may diverge from, or conflict with, one another (Thompson 1990:293). This means that although there are only limited frames offered, not everyone interprets it in the same way. Not everyone will associate the same feelings and thoughts to a certain discourse. Expectancy-value models stress that different pieces of information carry different weights. These weights correspond to the perceived importance, relevance, reliability, or perceptual salience of the information (Nelson et al 1997: 568). What became clear from the interviews is that some people regard news media as informative and (quite) objective, while others are more sceptical about the reliability of the information. This may also lead to a difference in perceived importance. For example in a readers’ letter someone argued: “For nearly two weeks Het Parool spent daily attention to the topic Zwarte Piet. The position of the editorial staff is already clear: the editors want other colours for Zwarte Piet. The news is clearly biased. This Saturday again. Het Parool writes: ‘Whether Zwarte Piet should remain or not deeply divides our country.’ That is nonsense! The Netherlands has been very clear in recent days, Zwarte Piet should be black! His colour is not discriminatory. More than 2.1 million people spoke up for Zwarte Piet”. 88 The writer of the readers’ letter thus judges the information presented in the newspaper differently and does not blindly accept that information as true. Another informant also critically assessed the media reporting about the Zwarte Piet discussion. I asked him: What made you decide to send your letter concerning the Zwarte Piet discussion to Het Parool? He answered: “To dig in the heels of the media hype to randomly write something about it. We have more than enough indiscriminate journalists. The media are not out there to inform viewers / listeners / readers but rather to create newsworthy facts, however trivial and / or nonsensical too. Ten cameramen and four reporters run to an elderly woman in an otherwise quiet street, ‘And? Have you seen what, ma'am? Uh ... no nothing!’ And then subsequently create a new fact. And the people at home behind the television open a new bag of crisps and do not even notice when the news turns into commercials.”89 He personally is thus very critical about the news reports, but also realizes this might not be the case for everyone. ‘ However, all of my informants argued that the media do influence the debate. But, there are differences in opinion about whether they informed the audience objectively or not. I asked the same informant to describe the role of journalists. He argued: “There is a

88 Anonymous, Reader’s letter Het Parool, 26-10-13 89 Anonymous, Survey, 24-04-14

64

great lack of good investigative journalism. All these nonsense journalists who are just talking nonsense because they also do not know but have to write an article about it. The role of the journalist is to bring out facts and use it as a tool or weapon as they get deeper into a newsworthy topic. Investigative journalism is crafmanship.”90 Then I asked him how he would describe the role of the reader, on which he answered: “Divers. As a critic, as an intermediary and as guardian of the quality.”91 He thus argues that the audience has to play a role in the creation of good news reports.

4.2 The discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet and its wider socio-cultural implications The discussion of Zwarte Piet, according to many of the informants, also influences wider social practices in society. It is believed that the polarisation that took place with respect to the Zwarte Piet debate, also increased a polarisation between different groups in society with respect to other issues, a general polarisation of groups. In a readers’ letter someone argues: "It is more important to ensure stability and prevent divisions in Dutch society. The discussion just creates a larger split in the Dutch society instead of more solidarity. Everyone has the right to perform his or her habits”92 Another informant wrote in her readers’ letter: “Actually I associate the whole debate with the word 'hate speech'. If we are not careful, populations are thus pitted against each other.93”Also in the survey someone argues that people become pitted against each other because of this debate: “People who can get along suddenly start discussing about something that is not relevant but what leads them to be pitted against each other. See the polarizing / intriguing effects of others in the communities where people with different religions lived peacefully side by side and then flew at each other's throats”94 It is also argued that the debate on Zwarte Piet influences the ideas about multiculturalism. According to Machiel the debate on Zwarte Piet is “one of the few debates that deal with the topic of multiculturalism, without super vague terms like for or against multiculturalism of which no one has a clue what it is about. Suddenly in this debate it became very clear what it was about. Now we are in a sort of split because we have a celebration that belongs to Dutch culture, there are people who (partly) have a different cultural background, or another nationality or just have another colour and therefore cannot identify with this cultural heritage, and this confronted us that we have to do something with

90 Anonymous, Survey, 24-04-14 91 Anonymous, Survey, 24-04-14

92 Anonymous, Reader’s letter Het Parool, 23-10-13 93Anonymous, Reader’s letter Het Parool, 25-10-13 94 Jaap, survey

65

this. Then we have a number of options, away with it, down with the helpers, multi-coloured helpers, no reformulation, and yes, that is multiculturalism, that these things can be negotiated”95. As was already discussed in chapter two, also the conceptualization of tolerance is subject to change because of this debate.

Machiel argues that this debate, although it was conducted heavily and emotionally, created more awareness of discrimination and racism in Dutch society. “that huge rebound that Wilders had about less Moroccans96, I think that is really been partly with thanks to, not blame to, but thanks to the Zwarte Piet discussion, that also people who might not wanted Zwarte Piet to be touched nevertheless have become more aware of what discrimination is, what racism is, and that it is much more prevalent in the Netherlands than we thought. So I definitely think the debate has influence beyond the discussion of Zwarte Piet”97. Wouter, another writer of a readers’ letter argued in an interview: “Well, I saw a parallel with the Chinese-remark98 for example... my best friend is a Chinese-Indonesian- Dutch-Jew from Amsterdam, educated, has been my best friend for 30 years, however I have never asked him, I asked him this winter for the first time, ‘Have you ever suffered from these kinds of remarks? He said, ‘Yeah, man my whole life: peanuts, Chink ..’ I was shocked. It does not even surprise him anymore, so it plays a role. He has suffered more than I have ever realized, he never even said anything about it, which is really not good. So I think it's very valuable that this is on the table now and in my opinion this should remain on the table. And I think it is a good sign in terms of emancipation that the Chinese community has responded to it now, while also never opened their mouths and they now claim their place and want to be treated equally”99. So the debate also seems to lead to realizations and dialogue about racism in the Netherlands. Machiel and Wouter saw the positive influence of the debate, but it seems that not for everyone it works out like that. For example Wim argues: “They say: you had slaves, you earned a lot of money of that, now fuck off with that Sinterklaas. And I do not know whether it is nationalism or just nature, then I get frustrated, then I think no, we are not going to do

95 Machiel, Interview, 04-04-14 96 On 19-03-14 Geert Wilders, party leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), chanted to a room full of supporters: “Do you want more or less Moroccans in the Netherlands? On which the people in the room replied with: Less! On which Geert Wilders then replied: “We will arrange that”. 97 Machiel, Interview 04-04-14 98 Gordon, a singer and TV-personality, asked in the TV-show Holland’s got Talent a participant with Chinese origins what he was going to sing. He wanted to make a joke and Gordon himself already answered "Number 39 with rice?" 99 Wouter, Interview, 09-04-14

66

that, because sometimes we are obviously ruled by a minority, I do suffer from that”100. It seems that he gets more critical of multiculturalism because of this debate.

4.3 Conclusion In this chapter more insight is provided into the reception processes of truths surrounding the Zwarte Piet debate and its implication for wider social practices. The reception process is influenced by news media through three different mechanisms, namely the learning model, cognitive accessibility and the expectancy-value model. It turns out that therefore not all consumers interpret the media frames in the same way. It also turns out that it is difficult or nearly impossible to draw a clear line between producer and consumer. Shaun Moores (1993:2) also identified this difficulty. He argues: “There is no stable entity which we can isolate and identify as the media audience, no single object that is unproblematically ‘there’ for us to observe and analyse.” Moores (1993:2) reasons, following Janice Radway (1988), that originally the word ‘audience’ was meant to refer to an individual act of hearing in face-to-face verbal communication (to ‘give audience’). “Only later was it employed as a collective label for the consumers of electronically mediated messages.” According to Moores, it has becomes harder to specify exactly where media audiences begin and end (Moores 1993:2). Ross and Nightingale (2003:6) claim that “generally speaking being part of an audience means being part of a media event, where people engage with mediated information”. According to them, all media events are audience events since they require people to hang out in media time-spaces where they physically, mentally, and emotionally engage with media materials, technologies and power structures. Audience events invoke power relations that structure the media as social institutions and delimit the options available to people for involvement in the means of cultural production. This indicates, then, that people would not be involved in the production of the media event, but instead are consumers, recipient or negotiators of information. This, however, changed in the last decades due to new technologies and the ways in which the internet encourages a more active audience (Ross and Nightingale 2003:6). Internet makes it much easier to respond to media news reports, for example by e-mailing readers’ letters to editorial offices or by leaving a response on the website of a newspaper. This facilitates a more fluid exchange of information and blurs the lines between consumer and producer of media discourses. The changes in technology are influencing the kinds of interactions that audiences have with media. Now, more than ever before, individuals are able to make decisions about how they wish to engage with different media in different contexts (D’Antonio 2014).

100 Wim, Interview, 29-04-14

67

Elizabeth D’Antonio (2014) argues that “media and audiences are continually co- constitutive” (D’Antonio 2014). Consumers can potentially influence news media by offering their frames and analyses of an issue in the form of readers’ letters or informants to journalists. According to Ross and Nightingale (2003:7) the information age is changing what it means to be an audience. Audiences are no longer passive receivers of media texts, but actively influence them. Being an audience is now a much more active and interactive experience than in the broadcasting era. Consumers are thus not mere consumers anymore, but employ several ways to contribute. Therefore development already started but the way researchers go about media discourse analysis should change too. The feedback loop from ‘consumers’ to ‘producers’ should be taken into account in every discourse analysis. The discourse also seems to have implications for wider social practices. Some resistants of the current Zwarte Piet see a positive influence of the debate because now the discussion on racism and multiculturalism is set on the agenda. Some defenders of the current Zwarte Piet however just see the polarizing effects and argue that this discussion has negative effects on tolerance and multiculturalism. It shows that discourse does something to society. It has the power to change behaviour and attitude of people in society.

68

5. Conclusion and discussion

“Saint Nicholas was a bishop from Turkey who, after a long journey, finally ended up in Spain. There he found a horrible situation of poverty. Especially child poverty was something that struck him. On his birthday he tried to give as many children as possible a dignified life, by giving presents in the form of clothes and food. Because there were a lot of children, he sought help in the form of Zwarte Piet. Zwarte Piet was in fact not at all black and was not discriminated against by the bishop. Zwarte Piet was a Moor. There were many Moors at that time in Spain and Portugal, read your history! This lightly tinted Moor in fact became black because the gifts of the bishop were supplied through the chimney, as leaving it in front of the door was dangerous because of theft. The smoke was black smoke because they burned everything in the stove. So if you came close to the chimney, you became pitch black in the shortest time. If instead of a Moor, al lily white Dutchman had stood on that roof, he would have become black as well.”101

The aim of this research was to gain insight in how the discourse surrounding the Zwarte Piet tradition in the Netherlands has been produced and consumed through Dutch media in correlation with Dutch national identity. Initially, it seemed that the discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet contrasts the idea of the Netherlands as a nation being commonly associated in the public discourse with tolerance as one of its core values. Therefore, this thesis also investigated this apparent contradiction. The controversies that evolved arose from disagreements about what Dutch people think of the Sinterklaas celebration and how they perceive the roles of Zwarte Piet and Sinterklaas. There are different, contradicting forms of knowledge surrounding this tradition. The challengers of the current celebration of the Zwarte Piet tradition, see it as a colonial representation of unbalanced racial power relations that we should move away from, and that especially should not be taught to children as natural through this celebration. Many defenders of the traditions however, imagine Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet as two fictive figures that belong to a joyful, quaint children’s celebration that is part of Dutch identity. Between the challengers and defenders of this tradition a heavy debate arose, which according to many informants led to polarisation, the cementing of the boundaries of two imagined communities. It became clear that the ‘hegemony of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet’ is under attack. Celebrating Sinterklaas including Zwarte Piet is no longer as self-evident as it was before because of the discursive resistance of challengers. The discursive resistance is mainly produced by critiquing Dutch tolerance and employing intertextuality. Both these strategies

101 Anonymous, reader’s letter Het Parool

69

make the debate a very emotional one. Critiquing Dutch tolerance can be seen as an attack of Dutch national identity. The objections to a reformulation of Zwarte Piet are mainly produced as a reaction to the discursive resistance of opponents of Zwarte Piet in its current form. The production of the discourse led to a cementing of group boundaries of imagined communities but we can actually argue that this process is reciprocal. The cementing of the boundaries also transforms the discourse. The reaction of the defenders of the tradition seemed to be produced as a defence of identity in combination with emotional attachment to Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. In a way you could argue that the majority of Dutch citizens suffer from cultural aphasia. In some way they are unable to recognize or understand the problems black people have with the current figure of Zwarte Piet. I argue that this is due to an apparent contradiction between two different forms of knowledge: Zwarte Piet is a lovable character and the Sinterklaas celebration is a party of happiness and joy in the dark month of December was always regarded as truth while the idea that Zwarte Piet is an expression of racial inequality creates an alternative truth. Most people never saw this association, and never celebrated Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet with bad intentions. Moerover, journalists argue that they did not recognize the problems of the challengers of Zwarte Piet at first. Because of this, the debate was not taken seriously in the media. Journalists argue that they changed their framing of the issue in 2013. Before 2013, the discussion was not framed as a serious issue that was worth discussing. In the production of their news reports journalists frequently use intertextuality by referring to external sources, such as academics, opinion makers and interest groups. The framing of the issue plays an important role in the truth production proces. The discussion is now framed as an identity frame. The discourse seems to enforce the boundaries of two imagined communities. I wondered whether this discourse, these imagined communities and their attitudes towards each other, undermines the notion of tolerance as one of the core values of Dutch identity. It is clear that there are different conceptualizations of tolerance. When there are no issues that personally affect people, people strive for recognition and equal respect for cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences in a society of immigrants, which involves full recognition, respect, normality and equality of values. However, when people experience discomfort from this equal respect and recognition, the practical conceptualization of tolerance is reshaped. Then, the conceptualisation of tolerance shifts and the values, beliefs, and norms of the majority are represented as the standard that everyone else should adhere to. While others are still welcome and tolerated, their values and beliefs that are not compatible with the standard are seen as deviating from the norm and inferior, for moral, religious, or cultural reasons.However, questioning Dutch tolerance seems to be experienced as a

70

deathblow to Dutchness, as is questioning Zwarte Piet. By also attacking tolerance, in the discourse of Zwarte Piet, the debate becomes even more intense and emotional. Although, in one way the discussion seems to have a polarizing effect, at the same time a tendency towards realization seems to arise whereby the heretofore perceived true knowledge might need some reconsideration. It is argued that a change has taken place in news reports surrounding the Zwarte Piet debate. According to the journalists and columnists themselves, the debate is increasingly taken seriously now in the editorial boards of the newspapers. What is regarded as true knowledge about Zwarte Piet changed for some journalists and also for defenders of the tradition. This has consequences for the framing of the debate by journalists. It is clear that the reception process is influenced by news media, by three different mechanisms, namely the learning model, cognitive accessibility, and the expectancy-value model. This, however, is not a one-way influence. Consumers also influence news media by offering their frames and analyses in the form of readers’ letters or informants to journalists. The discourse has implications for wider social practices. Some resistants of the current Zwarte Piet see a positive influence of the debate because now the discussion on racism and multiculturalism is put on the agenda. Some defenders of the current Zwarte Piet, however, only see the polarizing effects and argue that this discussion has negative effects on tolerance and multiculturalism. Besides the identification of the production and consumption process of the discourse surrounding Zwarte Piet, this research demonstrates the power of discourse. A discourse such as the Zwarte Piet debate is not an isolated phenomenon. The discourse has an impact on society. The discourse leads to actual consequences for everyday life, in this case the cementing of boundaries of imagined communities. The discourses in this research expressed when either discussing Zwarte Piet, identity or tolerance included an ‘us versus them’ rhetoric. Simultaneously, another shift is observable, according to some respondents. They argue that people only now start to think about their (shared) history and racism in the Netherlands. Zwarte Piet could be one cause of this trend, which is enforced by other occurrences in society. The realization that the discussion is about more than just Zwarte Piet and actually deals with broader issues in society like multiculturalism, tolerance, racism, and historical awareness is reflected in the newspaper media. The discourse is thus accompanied by two seemingly contrasting processes: a realization that the issues of multiculturalism, tolerance, and racism should be taken seriously and at the same time a hardening of the debate and group boundaries. From the interviews it became clear that the political discourse has also had a severe impact on the discourse production process. A recommendation for future research would be

71

to incorporate this aspect in a discourse analysis. It would also be interesting to look at other institutions in society and to link the debate to a debate on institutional racism. One more conclusion that can be drawn from this research is that the connection between Zwarte Piet and racism or black pages in Dutch history it becomes a very heavy results in an emotionally loaded discussion. The Netherlands, though not directly involved in armed conflict, has just as much difficulty dealing with the past as societies in conflict or immediately post conflict do. Further research on the Dutch sensitivity on this subject, the reasons for this taboo, and the possible solution to make the past more accessible and open for debate could be interesting.

72

Bibliography

Secondary Sources Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined communities, London: Verso

Bureau Onderzoek en Statistiek Gemeente Amsterdam (2012) ‘Hoe denken Amsterdammers over Zwarte Piet?’

Coleman, P.T. (2000) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

D’Antonio, E. (2014) Audience. The Chicago School of Media Theory, University of Chicago. Online available at: http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/audience/ (accessed at 28-07-2014)

Demmers, J. (2012) Theories of Violent Conflict, London & New York: Routledge

Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power, United States of America: Longman, Inc

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power (2nd edition). London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Fog, A. (1999) ‘Mass Media’, http://www.agner.org/cultsel/chapt9/

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Random House LLC.

Frank, C. and Roosblad, S. (2013) “The Debate We Should Be Having on Zwarte Piet and Racism in the Netherlands” Dutch News 30/10/13 Oct 30, 2013 - 10:42:08 AM

Helsloot, J.I.A. (2005) ‘Het feest: De strijd om Zwarte Piet’ Chapter in Hoving, Dibbits and Schrover (2005) Cultuur en Migratie in Nederland; Veranderingen van het alledaagse 1950- 2000. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers

Helsloot, J.I.A. (2012) 'Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands'. In:Quotidian. Journal for the Study of Everyday Life: 3, 1-20. Full text: http://depot.knaw.nl/10235

Hondius,D. (2009) ‘Race and the Dutch: on the uneasiness surrounding racial issues in the Netherlands’. In: Sharam Alghazi, Thomas Hylland Erikson and Halleh Ghorashi (eds.), Paradoxes of Cultural Recognition. Perspectives from Northern Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (2007) Identificatie met Nederland [Rapport van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Jabri, V. (1996) Discourses on violence: conflict analysis reconsidered, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press

73

Kozijn, G. (2014) Zwarte Piet: Verkennend onderzoek naar een toekomstbestendig Sinterklaasfeest, Beilen: Pharos Uitgevers

Langlo, L. (1999) Intertextuality about intersexuality. MA Thesis. University of Amsterdam

Margry, P. (2014) ‘Unesco en de paradox van bescherming’ In: Ons erfdeel 2014 nr. 1

Maussen, M. and Bogers, T. (2010) “Tolerance and Cultural Diversity Discourses in the Netherlands” Accept Pluralism: Working Paper 11/2010, University of Amsterdam

Mepschen, P. (2009) ‘Tegen Tolerantie’ Grenzeloos:102 08-06-2009, http://dare.uva.nl/document/180097

Mirchandani,K. and Tastsoglou, E. (2000) ‘Towards a diversity beyond tolerance’ in: Studies in Political Economy 61

Mitchell, C.R. (1981) The Structure of International Conflict, Bassingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Moores, S. (1993) Interpreting audiences: The ethnography of media consumption. London: Sage. Nelson, T.E., Clawson R.A. and Oxley, Z.M. (1997) ‘Media Framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance’ The American Political Science Review 91:3

Nentwich, J. and Hoyer, P. (2012) ‘Part-time Work as Practising Resistance: The Power of Counter-arguments’. British Journal of Management, 24: 557–570

Riedner, Rachel C. (2006) ‘Review of The Cultural Politics of Emotion, Sara Ahmed’. JAC Online Journal 26 (3).

Ross, K. and Nightingale, V. (2003) Media and Audiences: New Perspectives. Issues in Cultural and Media Studies. Maidenhead: Open University Press Scheufele, D. (1999) ‘Framing as a theory of media effects.’ Journal of Communication Winter 1999

Seligman, A.B. (2008) ‘Living together differently’, Cardozo Law Review 30:6

Smeekes,A. (2011) ‘Nationale identiteit, nationale geschiedenis en de acceptatie van nieuwkomers in Nederland’, Migrantenstudies 2011:2

Taylor,C. (2001) ‘On Social Imaginary.’ Contemporary Sociological Theory

Thompson, J. B. (1990) Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Van Dijk, T. (1987) ‘Mediating racism: The role of the media in the reproduction of racism’. Chapter in ‘Power and Ideology: Studies in political discourse edited by Ruth Wodak

Van Dijk, T. (1992) ‘Discourse and the denial of racism’ Discourse and Society 3

74

Van Lans, J. (2000) Makassarplein: zin en onzin van het Multiculturele drama. Utrecht : FORUM.

Yin, R. K. (2002) Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications

Newspaper articles

Het Parool

• Strijd tegen Piet krijgt meer begrip 19-10-13

• Toekomst van Piet steeds minder zwart 19-10-13

• Pietendebat raakt een open zenuw 23-10-13

• Zwarte Piet hoort er nog steeds bij 24-10-13

• Tegen Zwarte Piet? Rot dan lekker op naar je eigen land 28-10-13

• Piet was man van aanzien, gelijkwaardig aan Sint 13-11-13

NRC

• Acht misvattingen in Nederland 24-10-13

• NRC Handelsblad 19-10-13

o cover: Nu bemoeien ook VN zich met Zwarte Piet o 6 keer 2

• Na Zwarte Piet ook vuurwerk onder druk 24-12-13

Dagblad De Limburger/ Limburgs Dagblad

• Zeurpieten 15-10-13

• Aan de kant 21-10-13

• Waarom Zwarte Piet zwart is 26-10-13

• Dat mens van de VN moeten ze opsluiten 28-10-13

75

Appendices

Appendix 1: Interview list Interview code Name Gender Date of Function in interview research

Journalist01 Patrick Male 03-03-14 Journalist Het Meershoek Parool

Consumer01 Henk Male 24-03-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer02 Anonymous Male & 27-03-14 Writer readers’ and female letter anonymous

Consumer03 Nick Male 01-03-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer04 Patrick Male 01-03-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer05 Ed Male 01-03-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer06 Bas Male 03-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer07 Dorothy Female 04-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer08 Mercedes & Female & 04-04-14 Writer readers’ Machiel male letter

Consumer09 Henk Male 07-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer10 Wouter Male 09-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer11 Karen Female 10-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer12 Tom Male 11-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer13 Paul Male 11-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer14 Don Male 15-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

76

Consumer15 Arnold-Jan Male 17-04-14 Writer readers’ &Roy letter and documentary maker about history Zwarte Piet

Journalist02 Johan Van de Male 18-04-14 Journalist and Beek columnist Dagblad de Limburger/ Limburgs Dagblad

Consumer16 Wim Male 29-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer17 Brigitte Female 30-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer18 Pieter Male 30-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Consumer19 Mark Male 06-05-14 Writer readers’ letter

Journalist03 Bas Blokker Male 07-05-14 Journalist NRC Handelsblad

77

Appendix 2: Survey respondents Survey01 Ferry Male 23-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey02 Frans Male 23-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey03 Harry Male 23-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey04 Jos Male 23-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey 05 Rob Male 23-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey06 AH Male 24-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey 07 Anonymous Male 24-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey 08 HD Male 28-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey 09 Anonymous Female 29-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey 10 Pedro Male 12-04-14 Writer readers’ letter

Survey 11 Jaap Male 17-05-14 Writer reader’s letter

78