Is Black Pete Racist?

Group: s17-ENG-k9 Supervisor: Anne Fabricius Mie Fogh Hansen (70173) Number of Characters: 119.891 Vibe Bisgaard Isaksen (49003) Language: English Sebastian Rasch Jakobsen (52367) English (Master Programme) Niels Villadsen (51715)

Page 1 of 56

Abstract Dette projekt undersøger engelsktalende mediers diskurs om diskrimination. Den valgte case er den kontroversielle hollandske julekarakter, ‘Zwarte Piet’ eller på engelsk, ‘Black Pete’, og skildringen af denne. Skildringen har i en årrække, på grund af sin tilsyneladende diskriminerende aspekter, ledt til en heftig debat på tværs af forskellige medier rundt om i verden. Ud fra et teoretisk grundlag baseret på Norman Faircloughs teori, foretages en komparativ analyse af fire udvalgte artikler, der dækker emnet; to fra USA og to fra Storbritannien. Hertil anvendes udvalgte værktøjer fra Lesley Jeffries’ metode. Gennem denne analyse fandt vi, at artiklerne ved hjælp af buzzwords, præsuppositioner, en klar prioritering af information, samt andre diskursive træk, præsenterer et forholdsvis ensidigt syn på emnet, hvor Black Pete traditionen forstås som diskriminerende. Den overordnede konklusion er, at artiklerne hæmmer en konstruktiv og løsningsorienteret debat. Selvom der er påstande, som kan virke rimelige, giver de ikke megen plads til læserens egen refleksion og vurdering af emnet. Efterfølgende diskuteres artiklernes diskurser og deres dertilhørende konsekvenser for debatten.

Page 2 of 56

Indholdsfortegnelse 1.0 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Problem statement ...... 5 1.2 The Tradition of Black Pete ...... 6 1.3 Data ...... 8 2.0 Theory and Method ...... 11 2.1 Theoretical basis of the project ...... 11 2.2 Methodology - A set of tools ...... 14 2.2.1 Naming and Describing ...... 14 2.2.2 Equating and Contrasting ...... 15 2.2.3 Exemplifying and Enumerating...... 16 2.2.4 Prioritising ...... 17 2.2.5 Implying and Assuming...... 18 2.2.6 Negating ...... 20 2.2.7 Hypothesising ...... 21 2.2.8 Presenting Others’ Speech and Thoughts ...... 21 2.2.9 Representing Time, Space and Society ...... 22 3.0 Analysis ...... 24 3.1 Article 1: Huffington Post ...... 24 3.2 Article 2: Daily Star ...... 31 3.3 Article 3: New York Times ...... 36 3.4 Article 4: Washington Post ...... 43 3.5 The Articles Compared ...... 47 4.0 Conclusion ...... 50 5.0 Discussion ...... 51 5.1 Black Pete and the Discourse on Racism ...... 51 5.2 Political Correctness ...... 53 6.0 Bibliography ...... 55

Page 3 of 56

1.0 Introduction

It is hardly an overstatement that in recent years the western world has witnessed a rise in nationalism in the political field. The war in Syria and the following migration has led to a widening of the political divide across Europe and in the United States. Parties that were once confined to the fringes of the political spectrum have gained increased popularity, on the left wing as well as the right. This, in turn, has led to an increasingly polarised debate on any matter that can, even in the slightest, be considered political. The rhetorics and discourse practices used in such debates bear the marks of this, we believe. This project investigates discourse within English speaking media. Our chosen subject is this media’s coverage of the Dutch Christmas tradition, and its controversial depiction of the figure, Zwarte Piet, or Black Pete. This case is an interesting one, because it has garnered a great deal of attention from American and British media, even though the tradition in question predominantly concerns people in the Netherlands. As such, english speaking media covering this phenomenon will invariably take the role of the outsider looking in, which, we believe, will hold interesting implications for the practiced discourse. It seems to us that the rhetorics used in reporting and debating the tradition has varied depending on the media. This is a main point of interest for us, and as such, we would like to examine how these different ways of reporting on Black Pete are related to different discourses on concepts like racism, political correctness and ideology in, respectively, the United States and Great Britain. We have selected two articles from each nation, one from the Washington Post, one from the New York Times, one from the UK branch of the Huffington Post and one from the Daily Star. These articles have been selected on a criterion we set for ourselves to include two from each nation, but also as far as possible, two from each side of the political spectrum. The particulars of each article will be further laid out in the Data- chapter. The aim of our analysis is to uncover the underlying ideologies that form the basis of the different discourses, which will lead to a discussion of how these discourses contribute to new and existing discourses. We are interested in examining possible differences between American and British news coverage in a comparative analysis, and thereby, the discourse of each article in relation to racism, among other themes. How do the different articles cover the

Page 4 of 56 tradition in terms of discourse? Are there differences in portrayal between the individual countries, or internally? Do they condemn the foreign tradition, or tolerate it?

1.1 Problem statement

These considerations have led us to the following problem statement:

How does the selected articles’ coverage of the Black Pete tradition exemplify discourses on discrimination? And what, if any, are the differences between these discourses?

The first question will serve as a guiding point for our project as a whole, since it encapsulates our main point of interest, i.e. that which first caught our attention when we looked into the subject. Moreover, it will naturally be the question of focus for the analysis, especially. By the phrasing ‘discourses on discrimination’, we mean the sort of discourse practised when writing about discrimination as a subject, or theme, as opposed to a discriminating discourse. The term, ‘discrimination’, is chosen in favour of ‘racism’ due to its, by comparison, mitigating nature. While the phrasing could suggest that there are specific, fixed characteristics attributed to any discourse on the subject, this is not our intention. Rather, we simply wish to examine what these particular discourses look like. The second question is aimed at a discussion of the results of the analysis. Again, a mitigation is present, in the wording ‘if any’, since we admit to the possibility of the discourses being overall similar. The two questions combined represent both our interest in the subject, as well as our focal points.

In order to answer the above questions we will be using the book Critical Discourse Analysis (2010) by Norman Fairclough, to establish our theoretical foundation, and Lesley Jeffries’ Critical Stylistics (2010) to provide the necessary tools for analysis. In order to perform a thorough analysis comparing different news’ outlets separated by different political views as well as nationality, it is important to first establish the political points of view of the individual newspapers or outlets. This will be done in the Data-chapter, where a short introduction to each newspaper and article will be provided.

Page 5 of 56

As mentioned above, the reason we chose this subject for our project is on account of its controversial nature and the debates this has generated, both in the Netherlands, but also especially in English-speaking countries. Additionally, we hypothesised that there might be a considerable difference between how these two countries with their vastly different histories, especially in regard to subjects such as slavery and segregation, would react to Black Pete being an ongoing tradition in the year of 2015 and 2016. As such, whether the historical differences between the two nations is apparent in their discourse or not, might be an interesting point for discussion later.

1.2 The Tradition of Black Pete

‘Black Pete’, or ‘Zwarte Piet’, is a part of the Dutch Christmas tradition and is said to partially stem from the Dutch colonial- and slave period. First of all, it is important to note that the basic concept of Santa Claus and Christmas is different in the Netherlands than for example in Denmark. The Danish tradition holds that Santa Claus arrives from Greenland in a sled with all his reindeer the 24th of December and hands out presents, whereas the Dutch Santa Claus, Sinterklaas, arrives in the beginning of December on a ship from Spain with all his helpers, the Black Petes (Tavares).

The Black Pete character is usually played by a person who paints their face black, lips red and dons a curly, black wig and big earrings. The figure’s colourful attire is reminiscent to that of a 16th century page (Tavares). The role and concept of Black Pete has changed over time, where at one time it was only a single character who tended to Sinterklaas, it is now a whole host of characters, each with their own characteristics (Tavares). Originally, the role of Black Pete was only to help Sinterklaas know which children were good and which were bad and also to deal out punishment for bad behavior. In today’s tradition, however, he is a more comical character. He still helps Sinterklaas hand out presents and holds his cane, but he also performs tricks and generally acts in a whimsical manner (Tavares). It is usually a big event in the Netherlands where each city has a parade on the 5th of December to symbolize the arrival of Sinterklaas and the Black Petes. Here actors walk in procession dressed as Black Pete, while jumping around a single white and elder actor, who

Page 6 of 56 plays Sinterklaas. Furthermore the tradition entails that if children around the Netherlands put their shoes in front of their fireplaces, the Black Petes will jump down through the chimney and leave presents (Tavares). Overall, Black Pete is seen as a comical, kind and somewhat foolish helper to Sinterklaas, a view that lends itself to the discrepancy between modern, liberal Dutch society and the discriminatory undertones of the tradition. When viewed as an innocent children’s character, any allegations of racism against the tradition are treated as hysterical and over the top. The idea of Saint Nicholas having a black helper goes back, at least, to the middle of the 19th century where the writer Jan Schenkman wrote a children’s book called ‘Saint Nicholas and His Servant’ (Tavares). Before this, different versions of the Saint’s stories, across Europe, sometimes included him having a servant, some of these depicting Saint Nicholas as travelling around with a devil on a leash. In any case, Schenkman’s story is the first one known where the helper is a black man, although the idea is thought to stem from earlier in the 19th century. Following this book’s popularity, other writers of Sinterklaas stories took up the custom and as such, the name ‘Zwarte Piet’ is seen for the first time in a children’s book in 1891 (Tavares). Given the time in which the idea of a black helper arose, it is unlikely that this idea can be considered entirely separated from the prejudices that pervaded the European mentality in colonial times. Slavery in the Netherlands and its colonies was abolished in 1863, although the slave trade industry had been stopped by international agreement in 1814. Even though the tradition arose when slavery was declining, it can hardly be denied that it harkens back to a time when the ridicule and enslavement of African people was entirely legitimate. Opposers of the tradition, nowadays, point to the Netherlands’ history with slavery in their critique. One of several points being that Black Pete is portrayed as a fool, founded on the old European idea of the indigenous African people as intrinsically less cultured and enlightened than Europeans (Tavares). The dressing up of the ‘savage’ black man in civilised garb is, besides being comical to Europeans in the 1800s, related to said idea. The main point of this line of argumentation is of course the simple fact that the foolish and silly black Zwarte Piet is the servant of the calm, wise and white Sinterklaas. Modern adherents of the tradition oppose these sentiments and dismiss them , stating that while the tradition was racist in origin, it is now an innocent tradition for the sake of the children, pointing to the joyous and giving nature of Black Pete. In the 21st century there has

Page 7 of 56 been some outphasing of the character in schools as well as demonstrations against it. A survey conducted in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2013 indicates a strong opposition to changing the appearance of Zwarte Piet (Telegraaf).

1.3 Data

The following is a presentation of the articles selected for analysis. It will include a short presentation of each article, followed by a small section on the publishing paper of each article. This includes details on public opinion and political placement of the paper. These opinions have been deduced from surveys from the newspaper survey website, mediabiasfactcheck.com (MBFC) as well as other relevant websites.

Article 1, Huffington Post: ‘Tis the Season to Don Blackface: How My Friends Celebrate Christmas - Published December 10, 2016. In this article, Fisayo Fadahunsi relays how a friend’s recent experience has caused her to contemplate her own experiences with racism, thinking back to when she was living in the Netherlands and how she experienced the tradition of Sinterklaas and his helpers Zwarte Pieten. She describes how she accepted the cultural differences between Britain and the Netherlands with no problem except for this tradition which she is still, years later, bothered by.

The tradition of Zwarte Piet is briefly described and the arguments for the tradition are presented. The writer, however, still struggles to accept that people she cares for, in the Netherlands, would support such a tradition. She describes how she often argues with her Dutch friends about the tradition, which made her question what really constitutes racism, is it the intention or the act? She finally arrives at the conclusion that neither her friend’s colleague nor the supporters of Zwarte Piet are excusable in their racism. (Fadahunsi, 2015).

The Huffington Post: The Huffington Post is an American online news aggregator and blog, with affiliates in many other parts of the world such as The United Kingdom, which typically has left-wing bias

Page 8 of 56 through their story selection as well as their word choices. According to MBFC their writing is not evidence based regarding certain scientific issues, however it is generally well sourced overall. (MBFC4).

Article 2, The Daily Star Is THIS the weirdest Christmas tradition ever? Festival-goers black up for ‘racist’ parade - Published December 5, 2016.

The article is written by Jess Bell and briefly explains who Black Pete is and his role during the Annual Feast of St Nicholas and also explains that a lot of people demonstrate against the tradition. It goes on to describe how an organiser in the UK has left out the Black Pete character because she did not have a black person to fill the role and she felt that blackface was racist. However, according to the article, polls state that most Dutch people support keeping blackface, even so most organizers planned to use soot rather than make-up. (Bell, 2016).

The Daily Star: The Daily Star is a UK based tabloid style newspaper. Though the Daily Star has limited articles regarding politics, as it focuses more on sensational press, it is still considered a right- wing, pro-conservative daily tabloid newspaper. (Thepaperboy). This source publishes some legitimate news, but also conspiracies and pseudoscience articles (MBFC3).

Article 3, New York Times U.N. Urges the Netherlands to Stop Portrayals of ‘Black Pete’ Character - Published August 28, 2015. The article, written by Somini Sengupta, is about how a U.N. committee is asking the Dutch government to get rid of Black Pete. It starts off with a quick summary of what could arguably be wrong with the tradition. After this, the article quotes the reason for U.N.’s request and follows with the Dutch government’s response of how they are open to a discussion of the tradition. The article mentions several more aspects of the tradition which might arguably be racially insensitive. The article then quickly refers to the Dutch government’s response once more, but also how the debate on social media has been ‘unruly’. The article ends with mentioning how a specific Dutch department store is making strides in how to celebrate the tradition in a more racially sensitive way. (Sengupta, 2015).

Page 9 of 56

New York Times: The New York Times newspaper was founded in September 1851. The newspaper has won 117 pulitzer prizes, which is more than any other news organisation in America. The paper is viewed as having a fairly strong left-wing editorial bias, but it is still considered one of the most reliable sources of information (MBFC2).

Article 4, The Washington Post The Dutch are slowly recognizing that their blackface tradition of Zwarte Piet is racist and weird - Published October 2, 2016.

The article, written by Ishaan Tharoor, briefly explains what Black Pete is and how some people protest it because they see it as racist and harking back to the days of colonialism and trading on “garish racial stereotypes”, while others defend the tradition by saying it predates the times of colonialism and is simply an innocent children’s pastime. It also talks about how the opposition to Black Pete has protested the tradition in recent years.

Ways to appease both sides have, according to the article, been attempted by removing the, to some, offensive physical markings such as blackface. Furthermore, the law is involved on both sides of this debate; on the pro side there are talks of creating a law to protect the image and tradition of Black Pete. On the other side, protesting the tradition in its current state, there is talk of the Netherlands risking “(...) contravening conventions on children's rights to equal treatment and protection from discrimination.” (Tharoor, 2016).

The Washington Post: The Washington Post is one of the major newspapers in America and is generally considered very credible in its reporting. According to Yale professor Allan Gerber the post leans to the left. (Riddell, 2015). Supporting this statement is the fact that The Washington Post has supported Barack Obama and endorsed Hillary Clinton. According to MBFC: “The Washington Post has a liberal bias in reporting choices, however they are typically well sourced to credible information.” (MBFC1).

Page 10 of 56

2.0 Theory and Method

This chapter will cover two different aspects of the project. The first part will present our definition of some of the concepts related to critical discourse analysis, based on the book Critical Discourse Analysis by Norman Fairclough. The reason for this is that some of the concepts we are working with are very fluid and can be interpreted in a number of different ways and as such, we felt it necessary to make it clear how we are going to use them. The second part of this chapter will be a summarisation of selected tools defined in the book Critical Stylistics by Lesley Jeffries which will help us perform a critical discourse analysis. It is important to note that we are not going to have a complete summary of all the terms presented in the book since it would not be possible to cover all of them in this project and it will therefore only consist of the terms that we have deemed crucial in order to perform this analysis.

2.1 Theoretical basis of the project

In this chapter, we will define the important concepts of the theoretical foundation of our project and give a guiding description of the theory and account for the object of investigation, i.e. discourse.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) examines how social situations are affected by a shared background knowledge among agents, meaning interlocutors or writers. This is typically so powerfully implemented in daily speech that it is somehow natural and thereby invisible or unquestionable to the agents themselves who are in turn influenced by them (Fairclough, 2010: 26). This is related to power-relations and hegemony which will be defined below. This approach entails the view that there is a dialectical relationship of discourse, between structure and action. Structure is the shared background knowledge, and action is the speaking or writing behavior of the agents involved, whereas it is given that language is a form of social action. (Fairclough, 2010: 27).

Background Knowledge (BGK) is described as the beliefs, values, ideologies and facts known by the agents in a given social speaking or writing situation (Fairclough, 2010: 46). It could be, for instance, politeness conventions.

Page 11 of 56

Various theorists describe Ideology as a system of underlying language practice - a “code”, “structure”, “system” or “formation”(Fairclough, 2010: 57). There are certain ideologies connected to special events, entities and institutions beforehand. Furthermore, several different ideologies exist at the same time - and these ideologies are structured in power relations or hegemony. Hegemony means that some ideologies are more valued than others and the most valued is the norm. (Fairclough, 2010: 58). The hegemonic discourse is the one that is seen as “the correct one”, and what the correct one is depends on the agents’ ideological position. Discourse is shaped by the structures of ideology and is at the same time shaping, reshaping, reproducing and transforming them (Fairclough, 2010: 59). One could say that discourse is the practice of ideology, the meaning or the content in a speaking or writing situation (Fairclough, 2010: 60). In addition, this will be structured in a certain way to make mutual sense to the agents.

Naturalisation is a way through which norms are sustaining and maintaining themselves. When speaking of naturalisation, it is the BGK that is naturalised to become invisible to the speakers. Norms of social situations are so strongly implemented that interlocutors take them for granted or even as natural and not only as “common-sense” (Fairclough, 2010: 34).

On the basis of Gramsci’s study (1971: 328 in Fairclough, 2010: 62), Fairclough argues that the hierarchy of ideologies is also naturalised. However, he does not clarify whether it is favourable or unfavourable. Moreover this must depend on who you ask, since ideology is connected to interests or intentions, as will be described later. Hegemony constitutes social relations through discourse, however, it is important to note that hegemonies and ideologies can change over time, for instance through social struggles (Fairclough, 2010: 64).

Mediation is a term Fairclough uses in the understanding “movement of meaning” as suggested by Silverstone (1999: 13 in Fairclough, 2010: 72); meaning can move from one text or context to another. Also, one text, discourse or event is always linked to other texts, discourses and events, i.e. intertextuality, and is in the same way affecting others, new as well as old, in which we as people make sense of how the world is linked together. At another taxonomical level, this is also affected by meta-texts, -events and -discourses. Fairclough adds that mediation is also both concrete, general and abstract and exists in all kinds of different

Page 12 of 56 media. Fairclough also points out that it is important to note that mediation contains both continuity as well as changes. Components of meaning are maintained from one text to another; other components change. He suggests an addition to the definition of mediation which is “movement of resources for meaning-making” (Fairclough, 2010: 73).

After this short introduction of the main terms in CDA, we will explain the advantage of using CDA as method and theoretical basis.

A primary issue of CDA is the fact that both ideology and hegemony as phenomena are naturalised because they become invisible, and therefore people tend to ignore critical thinking towards them. The theory is a helpful tool in overcoming this. Here the modifier “critical” in the term critical discourse analysis plays an important part. That is because critique: “ (…) grasps things … essentially in their interconnection, in their concatenation, their motion, their coming into and passing out of existence (...)” (Engels, 1976: 27 in Fairclough, 2010: 38), and makes this interconnectedness of cause and effect, visible. (Fairclough, 2010: 39).

When being critical in this respect, it is necessary to understand that firstly, social action in speaking or writing situations is a product of BGK, but also secondly, that the these structures are also a product of action, which is exactly how norms are reproducing themselves. Therefore there is this duality of structure (Giddens, 1981). (Fairclough, 2010: 38). One could say that the macro structures (society, history, power-relations and social institutions, etc.) affect the micro structures (the specific incident or happening) and, as pointed out, again affects the macro structures. In the micro aspect of discourse, discourse is formed by an agent who, Fairclough decides, has full conscious control over their actions. These actions are formed by the intended goals of the speakers, their will or intention. (Fairclough, 2010: 47).

The goal of Critical Discourse Analysis is therefore to examine how structures reproduce themselves through discourse and is less concerned with the effects of this process (Fairclough, 2010: 45). An important concern of Fairclough’s theory is, that agents are not equal from the start, as they are in other studies. Rather, they are unequal and are, therefore, also reproducing power- relations. In studying this, a critical view is necessary in order not to take these differences in

Page 13 of 56 status for granted. (Fairclough, 2010: 49-50). This can be seen in connection to agents’ intentions; that those who have power want to maintain their power, which is also a way for power to be reproduced (Fairclough, 2010: 49-50). The object of CDA is social practice, discoursal practice (text production, distribution and consumption) and text. More concretely, it is a study of content and meaning, and form and style. (Fairclough, 2010: 59).

To apply CDA it is important to note that social structures (BGK) contain possibilities of what is socially accepted in a social event - whereas the social event, the concrete incident, constitutes what is actual. These are mediated by social practices, that is, orders of discourse which are affected by hegemony, which “(...) control the selective actualisation of potentials.”. (Fairclough, 2010: 74). Moreover, texts are affected by agents, and also, texts are contributing to meaning-making (Fairclough, 2010: 75).

2.2 Methodology - A set of tools

The following is a list of linguistic features and tools that will function as a way of describing the way ‘texts’ represent the world and its ideologies. We have selected nine tools which all provide different ways of analysing a text.

2.2.1 Naming and Describing This tool looks at how Naming and Describing can create ideological meaning in text. Namely how nouns or even verbs converted into nouns have certain ideological consequences when used in a text i.e “my sister” versus “ my cold-hearted sister”. In order to find these ideological meanings Jeffries divides the text according to the grammatical structures of Noun- and Verb phrases and how these phrases represent different entities or processes. Entities are the parts of a sentence that function as either the Subject or Object of the Predicator and are further categorised by being either the initiator of the action, called the ‘actor’, or the recipient of the action, which is known as the ‘goal’. These entities can either be single words or they can be further modified with pre- and/or postmodifiers in an effort to further name the entity. For example:

Page 14 of 56

1. The prime minister reduced benefit payments 2. the new, energetic prime minister reduced child benefit payments to the rich (Jeffries, 2010: 19)

This noun phrase (2) has been expanded to include a number of identifiers of the entity and is a way of delivering more information. “(...)the main ideological importance of noun phrases is that they are able to ‘package up’ ideas or information (...)” (Jeffries, 2010:19). Jeffries argues that Naming covers a broad number of linguistic practices, including:

• The choice of a noun to indicate a referent

• The construction of a noun phrase with modifiers to further determine the nature of the referent.

• The decision to use a ‘name’ rather than, for example, express a (verbal) process.

In everyday life we can encounter this process of Naming in how we describe things: “I bought a heap of clothes” where ‘heap’ is used to express the amount of clothes you bought or when you express your opinion of something, whether it is negative, neutral, or positive, i.e. “She gave me a smile” or “She gave me a leer” (Jeffries, 2010:20).

Naming can also be used to pack ideological content into the head noun through the process of nominalization. Jeffries gives a good example of this: 1. The British invaded Iraq 2. The invasion of Iraq by the British In example 1 the recipient could question, debate or comment on the action (invaded): “did they?” “are you sure?” etc. But in example 2 the actor has been syntactically removed because nominalization of the verb has turned it into a noun phrase and made it function more as an ascertainment.

2.2.2 Equating and Contrasting This chapter looks at how authors use text to create a version of the world for us to read about. They show us what they see as equivalent and what they see as contrastive. For

Page 15 of 56 example: “the incompetent government“, here equalizing incompetent and government or: “the government is not smart“, here making a contrast between government and smart. This is a way to shape the image presented in the text to reflect the author's ideology (Jeffries, 2010: 51). The tool is based on finding triggers in the structure of the texts and the relationship between two items. Jeffries gives a list of triggers but argues that this is only a small representation of some of the more common triggers. She also notes that several triggers may occur in a single example. In the following examples, the two items examined will be referred to as X and Y and followed by an example sentence. Her list of triggers includes, but is not limited to:

• Negated opposition

• X not Y = Home not dry

• Concessive opposition

• Despite X, Y = Despite her anger, she danced

• Explicit oppositions

• X by contrast with Y = Steel by contrast with water

• Parallelism

• He liked X. She liked Y = He likes beer. She likes wine

• Contrastives

• X, but Y = She was young, but ugly By using these triggers an author can create an alternate perspective of a given situation and push her own ideology on the reader (Jeffries, 2010: 58)

2.2.3 Exemplifying and Enumerating. Exemplifying and Enumerating are ways of listing a number of items and the two can be hard to distinguish because of the similar structure. A simple way of showing the difference is: 1. The whole household turned out to welcome us: Mum, Dad, Uncle Sam and the twins. 2. The whole town was there: The Mayor and his wife, the City Councillors and the representatives of every trade and business you could imagine. (Jeffries, 2010: 66) Example 1 shows how enumerating functions as a way to list items where we know that everyone involved in the situation is mentioned, i.e. there is not another member of the family

Page 16 of 56 who is not mentioned. In example 2 it is clear that “the whole town” is an exaggeration and is just a way to exemplify the amount of people who showed up. As mentioned before, the structure of the two is very similar and will usually consist of a list following a colon which expands upon the subject (Jeffries, 2010: 66). A marker for enumerating is usually when it is clear that the list is complete.

Listing items can have very different effects depending on the amount of items included in the list. The most common use of a two-part list is to construct an image of opposites (Jeffries, 2010: 70). The three-part list is a ubiquitous list that has the ability to indicate that all possibilities have been covered and therefore implies completeness without being comprehensive. This list is often used by politicians who want to create a positive image (Jeffries, 2010: 70-72). An example of such a list is: “Communities and Local Government’s vision is to create great places where people want to live, work and raise a family” (Jeffries, 2010: 73). This is a three-part list and has a number of different functions. The sentence is supplanting the real content but it still implies completeness. By implying that the sentence encompasses it all, it also creates the image of “this is a party that will make everything right!” (Jeffries. 2010: 73). Furthermore a three-part list is easier to remember and is therefore useful for creating a more permanent image. The four-part list is often used as an instruction manual for different sorts of everyday things, i.e. putting together some furniture. For example: “Check all bolts, screws, legs and castors regularly to make sure they haven’t loosened.” (Jeffries, 2010: 72). It is intended to be comprehensive and there is no question in the reader’s mind that this list is complete. Jeffries notes that there are situations where the list might not include everything individually but that these kinds of lists usually include a “catch-all category” so as to cover anything missing from the list. To summarise; the function of enumerating and exemplifying is to create an image of either opposites, completeness or comprehensiveness.

2.2.4 Prioritising The choice of Prioritising certain information is something everyone does when producing text, either on purpose or unconsciously. It is a way of controlling what the reader focuses on

Page 17 of 56 and hopefully what they will take with them after reading the text. It can be by leaving out things or by placing information at the end of the clause (Jeffries, 2010: 77). The following sentences are examples of different prioritising: 1. The government reduced unemployment benefit 2. Unemployment benefit was reduced (by the government) These two sentences are more or less the same, one being passive and the other being active, the difference is in what information is being prioritised. In example 1, the focus is on the last element of the clause (unemployment benefit) and in example 2, it is on the predicator (was reduced). Jeffries (2010: 78) also argues that another important thing has happened in example 2, namely that the actor responsible for the action is hidden since “by the government” has been made into an optional adverbial. Another way of using prioritising is to put specific information into a subordinate clause and thereby controlling which information the reader focuses on. For example: “Senator McCain gave Americans specifics on how he will increase jobs, while Barack Obama was unable to give a straight answer to this question” (Jeffries, 2010: 88). Doing this creates the image of the first sentence being more important, while the subordinate clauses function as a way to enforce the main clause.

2.2.5 Implying and Assuming The terms, Implying and Assuming, deal with presuppositions and implicatures: in a sense the aspects of hidden meaning and general assumptions a given text relies on to make its point. Jeffries has based this chapter on theory drawn from the field of Pragmatics, which is “more about what is implicit in language than what is explicit (...)” (Jeffries, 2010: 93). She goes on to state that “one of the main powers of language in general and English in particular is the ability to use assumption and implication to make ideologies appear to be common sense.” (Jeffries, 2010: 93). This is achieved in a text by making assumptions of the world implicit enough that a reader will go along with them. This is done in a variety of ways, as we shall see, but the main point is that the assumption or implicature is often removed from the main proposition of a given sentence, and are as such ‘out of focus’ (Jeffries, 2010: 93).

Page 18 of 56

The term presupposition refers the to built-in assumptions of a text and falls generally into two categories; existential and logical assumptions (Jeffries, 2010: 94). Existential presuppositions are the more basic of the two, but potentially more dangerous. In any given conversation, it is altogether natural to make some general assumptions about the world and the knowledge of one’s conversational partner (Jeffries, 2010: 94). Communication would be severely hamstrung if we did not make such assumptions. The trouble is that it is possible to make ideological assumptions in the same way that we make everyday conversational assumptions. Jeffries uses the following example to demonstrate how an existential presupposition can be ideologically loaded: “The Prime Minister we applauded turns out to be the Headmaster from Hell!” (Jeffries, 2010: 95). This clause’s two noun phrases constitute the presupposition that both ‘The Prime Minister’ and the ‘Headmaster from Hell’ are people that exist; presented as a fact given the definite nature of the noun phrases. The, somewhat ideological, proposition is then that these two are the same people. As such we see that the ideological load, as it were, is separate from the main proposition of the sentence. Logical presuppositions fall into a number of categories, each with an open-ended set of triggers from which they can be identified (Jeffries, 2010: 95). These categories include ‘Change of state verbs’, that signify a change in circumstances; “You have stopped snoring since you lost weight.” (Jeffries, 2010: 95). Here the presupposition is that the addressee snored before. Other such trigger-words include started, resigned, finished and so on. As this example illustrates, logical presuppositions rely on the logic of language.

A simple way of distinguishing between presupposition and implicature is the negation test. Any of the above examples will retain some of their presuppositional content if negated. Implicatures, however, “will disappear if the main clause in which they occur is negated.” (Jeffries, 2010: 97). Jeffries defines implicatures as “(...) recognisable as cases where the text flouts or violates the Gricean maxims of cooperation (...)” (Jeffries, 2010: 99). Jeffries here refers to the Co-operative model of interaction, by Paul Grice. Grice, in his model, puts forth a series of maxims, which are understood to be the rules of conduct by which we converse and expect others to converse. We shall not go into the particulars of the model, nor list its maxims here, as this would be too extensive for present purposes. We believe implicatures can be found and analysed without direct reference to and use of the model.

Page 19 of 56

In the following example from Jeffries, she exemplifies how a disregard for the Maxim of Quality (Truth) can lead to an implicature on the part of the speaker: “The Honourable Gentleman in question is a monkey and should answer the question.” (Jeffries, 2010: 99). This statement is not literally truthful, as all present should be able to identify the Gentleman as human, and as such it violates Grice’s Truth Maxim. The implicature then, is that the Gentleman is thought, by the speaker, to possess some qualities of a monkey (he is like a monkey), which are generally thought to not be positive traits, especially in a political context (Jeffries, 2010: 99). Presuppositions and implicatures are important points in discourse analysis due to their subtle nature. They are often placed on the fringes of utterances, so to speak, and can therefore slip by a reader unnoticed. Additionally, they are often innocent, ideologically, as we use them all the time in everyday conversation and language. As such, we are often less aware of them when they suddenly carry ideological meaning.

2.2.6 Negating Jeffries uses Negating and negation as generic terms, carrying a broader array of meaning than the grammatical negating of verbs (Jeffries, 2010: 106). Negation produces a hypothetical world in the text, a simple example of which is the following from Jeffries: “The door is not closed” (Jeffries, 2010: 106). With this sentence, the recipient is invited to imagine a scenario in which the door is in fact closed. If the door, or doors in general, was incapable of being closed, the sentence, and thereby the negation, would not make sense. Negation can be realised by grammatical negation, as in the example above, or by an open-ended list of trigger words such as the nouns lack, absence, scarcity, the verbs, fail, omit, refuse, and the adjectives absent, scarce and so on (Jeffries, 2010: 109). Also included in this list are words with a negative prefix, such as incomplete, undecided, asocial, anti-depressant (Jeffries, 2010: 109). Ideologically, negation can be used to conjure up images of an unwanted scenario within the reader’s mind, creating fear (Jeffries, 2010: 111). A couple of examples can illustrate this: “Scientists warn that there may be no ice at the North Pole this summer.” (Jeffries, 2010: 111). Even though the modal, may, suggests a hypothetical scenario, the contrast between an imagined world with no ice at the pole and the one we live in at the moment is enough to create fear. Another example is typical of sensationalistic journalism: “No murders took place

Page 20 of 56 at the care home at the centre of a child abuse investigation, the new police chief leading the inquiry said today.” (Jeffries, 2010: 111). Even though it expresses a, after all, positive scenario, the negation still conjures up an unwholesome scenario where murders did indeed take place.

2.2.7 Hypothesising Another way of conjuring different scenarios of various description, is by way of Hypothesising. Here, however, a hypothetical scenario is envisioned through the use of modality, rather than negation. For example, the sentence “This law ought to be repealed.” expresses a possible scenario wherein said law is repealed, on the background of the present state of affairs in which it is not (Jeffries, 2010: 124). The trouble, Jeffries explains, is that “Though there are reasons why such statements may be made frequently in the press and other media, it is nevertheless their repetition from authoritative sources that make them into a self-fulfilling prophecy.” (Jeffries, 2010: 124). Another, more ideologically loaded, example is this: “Why long-haul food may be greener than local food with low air-miles.” (Jeffries, 2010: 125). Such a sentence is typical of, for instance, online click-bait articles. The modality of may be promises nothing more than a hypothetical scenario, but in the case that the source holds a certain degree of authority, there is a distinct chance of the scenario being accepted as realistic by the reader. Whether or not the recipients read the ‘why’ promised by the article, the idea is planted in their heads, at least until it is disproved.

2.2.8 Presenting Others’ Speech and Thoughts In relation to presenting others’ speech and thoughts Jeffries discusses the potential ideological interpretation of “(...) the viewpoint of the participants who are discussed in texts but whose words and thoughts are mediated by the narrating voice of the text (..)” (Jeffries, 2010: 130). Jeffries uses a variety of terms to describe this mediation, ranging from direct speech, using quotations (“He said ‘I’m terribly sorry’.’’), to the more interpretive method of relaying utterances through verbalisation of the speech or speech act (“He apologised”) (Jeffries, 2010: 132). The former is usually considered the more truthful approach, or at least more faithful to the originator of the utterance, whereas the latter leaves room for embellishment or other interpretation on part of the narrator (such as the leaving out of the

Page 21 of 56 adjective in the above example). The latter forms are called Narrator’s Report of Speech and Narrator’s Report of Speech Act. It is within this sphere of reporting that a narrator can (mis)construe the words of others to the point where the reader is left with half the picture. Words can be left out, as with the adjective above, leaving the reported speech sounding different than originally. Additionally: “The use of connotatively loaded words instead of the denotative synonyms is one common way of slanting the reporting of another’s speech.” (Jeffries, 2010: 140). To exemplify this, Jeffries refers to an opinion piece wherein the narrator ‘quotes’ an owner of a chain of clubs as having said that his “clubs were ‘not sexually titillating’ (…)” (Jeffries, 2010: 138). In the original quote, the owner uses the phrase ‘not sexually stimulating’, which is a good deal more neutral than ‘titillating’.

2.2.9 Representing Time, Space and Society The last term of Jeffries’ toolset concerns how narrators and text producers create and express specific points of view, or worldviews, in their texts. Even in everyday speech, people use different words and terms to communicate distance in time and/or space to/from themselves. This, Jeffries argues, can be analysed using the model of deixis. The term refers to the way in which speakers position themselves in interaction “Thus, at a simple level, the place where the interaction is occurring is here, and the time it is occurring is now, the speaker is I and the addressee is you.” (Jeffries, 2010: 148). This position is called the deictic centre, and is considered default for most everyday interactions. Being empathetic creatures, people will recognise the deictic centre of others in interaction, and thereby see things from others’ point of view (Jeffries, 2010: 148). Jeffries gives the example of someone guiding a friend to their house over the phone, thereby placing themselves at another’s deictic centre in order to guide them, saying ‘take a right here’ or ‘keep straight on’ (Jeffries, 2010: 149). In relation to written texts, “The deictic system of English divides the context of interaction into those things (people, times etc.) which are close to the speaker, and those which are more remote from the speaker.” (Jeffries, 2010: 148). Jeffries then gives a list of word categories which are useful to be on the lookout for when trying to determine the deictic centre of the speaker. This list is as follows:

Page 22 of 56

“Place – adverbs (here, there), demonstratives (this, these, that, those), adverbial (often prepositional) structures (on the right, opposite, further up the road) Time – verb tenses, adverbs (then, now), demonstratives (this, these that, those), time adverbials (later, tomorrow, afterwards, next, soon) Person – personal pronouns (I, me, we, us, you) Social – titles (Mr, Dr, Lord etc.), address forms (first name, nicknames, formal names)” (Jeffries, 2010: 149)

The clever text producer will use words from the above list to create a deictic field that the reader will in some way identity with: “The most important effect of deixis in ideological terms is the ability of a producer to create a deictic centre that causes the reader to place him/herself mentally at that point in the deictic field created by the text.” (Jeffries, 2010: 156). This is the more advanced use of deixis. At the simplest level, this is just how language works, it is simple communication. Jeffries also uses the term, Actual World, to demonstrate what ideologically loaded text usually tries to achieve. By communicating the text producer’s deictic centre in the text, the producer can try to convince the reader that the worldview they are conveying is the Actual World, that is, perceived factual reality.

Page 23 of 56

3.0 Analysis

What follows is an analysis of each article, first the British, then the American. The analyses will follow the the structure of the method section. As such, we will be going through the articles one tool at a time, starting with Naming and Describing, then Equating and Contrasting, and so on. It is highly likely that some tools will be less useful than others for some articles, whereas they might feature more in others. Additionally, there is bound to be a degree of overlapping of terms; it is difficult to describe a presupposition without discussing the naming that makes it possible, for instance. We will reference each individual article by line numbers, as found in the appendix.

3.1 Article 1: Huffington Post

“‘Tis the Season to Don Blackface: How My Friends Celebrate Christmas” (l. 2) With this title, the author (Fisayo Fadahunsi) introduces the reader to both the tone and subject of the article. While the first half of the title creates a catchy hook, playing on the words of a well-known Christmas lullaby, it also underlines the theme of the article: racism. The naming of the act of putting on a Black Pete costume as ‘donning blackface’ is what introduces the theme. Obviously, it had to fit with the meter of the song, but there is connotative difference between painting one’s face black and wearing blackface; the first is somewhat neutral, the second holds historically racist implications. Additionally, the second half of the title represents an action taken by someone other than the author, leading to a certain allocation of blame. The two halves together create a somewhat oxymoronic title, due to the apparent incompatibility between wearing blackface makeup and celebrating Christmas.

Around lines 31-32, the reader’s attention is turned back to the distress of the author’s friend, who, before the reported incident “(…) had not fallen victim to such a remark (...)”, and as such “(…) never had to directly confront overt racism.”. Here, the racism is nominalised, being a complement of the clause, and as such is assumed to be not only present but ‘overt’. Indeed, the use of the noun ‘victim’ and the action verb ‘confront’ underlines the general tone of struggle present in the text. In fairness, there is no direct indicator (such as ‘such’ or ‘this kind

Page 24 of 56 of’) that this ‘overt racism’ is referring to the remark in question, but the context implies that it is. At line 34, the author begins a presentation of the more specific subject of the article: The Dutch tradition of Black Pete. She introduces the tradition as the “Largest celebration in Dutch culture”, which is an interesting choice of naming, since it refers not to the Netherlands per se, but specifically Dutch culture. As such, this is both an inclusive and exclusive statement. It is inclusive in the fact that it can refer to Dutch-culturally identifying people around the world, such as in Britain or South Africa, but exclusive in that it implies that there might be people in the Netherlands, who fall outside of this category of ‘culture’. This might suggest the idea that there are people within the Dutch nation who do not participate in this celebration, which is true, given the substantial opposition to it.

Additionally, the writer refers to the celebration by its Dutch name, Pakjesavond, thereby underlining the foreignness of it (l. 35). This can be seen as the easiest way for the reader to distinguish between the two countries’ Christmas celebrations. However, it can also create an image of a foreign and strange custom in the mind of the reader.

Further into the article, there is a larger selection of pictures, once more of people dressed as Black Pete, which underlines the previous statement, “I couldn’t help but be surprised by the scale of the practice” (l. 67). Besides the clear message the pictures convey, the naming of the tradition as ‘practice’ is interesting. On one hand, it can be seen as a strictly neutral way of describing the act, but on the other, it does hold some connotations of disapproval or criticism.

When discussing her experienced difficulties in dealing with the acceptance and approval of the tradition from her Dutch friends, the writer states: “My friends repeatedly told me, and I fully accept, that their actions were not intended to offend me.” (l. 98-99). Here, the use of the complement, ‘actions’, which is vague, does hold some accusatory connotations, akin to the wording of ‘practice’.

Page 25 of 56

Towards the end of the article, the author concludes that she is “(…) confident that (…) something like Zwarte Piet would not have survived the evolution of our society [British society].” (l. 106). The nominalisation in the complement ‘evolution of our society’ implies that Dutch society is less evolved, as such: a racist society is less evolved than a non-racist society. While this may be hard to disagree with, it does not exactly foster a healthy debate.

In the section beginning at line 46, there is a picture of a man dressed as Sinterklaas surrounded by six people in the traditional Zwarte Piet costume, makeup and all. While we are not going to analyse the picture itself, its placement and subtitle, “Meet Sinterklaas’ companions, Zwarte Pieten (Black Peter).”, does hold some importance, as this is the first visualisation the reader is presented with. Following the picture, the writer continues her presentation of the tradition: “Unlike Father Christmas, Sinterklaas is accompanied by a band of black servants.” (l. 46). Here, we see the explicit opposition using ‘unlike’, underlining the contrast. Besides the alliterative quirkiness of ‘band of black’, the use of servants, is a peculiar choice of naming. While ‘helpers’ or ‘assistants’ would have been the more neutral approach, ‘servant’ is heavily connotative in a negative way, especially in this context. The Black Petes are then further described historically as “Santa’s mean sidekicks” (l. 48), contrasting how “Sinterklaas rewarded well-behaved [kids]” (l. 49). As such, the writer is explaining the factual historical composition of the characters, but also laying the groundwork for the implicit hypothesis that maybe this has not changed all that much. After this historical clarification, the writer explains that, in relation to the black face paint, “the modern narrative now states that this is due to the soot (…)” (l. 52). The ‘now’ implies a change of state. However, the adjective ‘modern’ should then be redundant, it’s inclusion presupposing that while the modern narrative is now stating this, there may be another modern narrative, which used to say something different. This is once again signifying of the idea that the old view of Black Pete as a slave could still exist as a parallel modern narrative. This is further emphasised when the author underlines the fact that the presence of the afro wigs and golden earrings in the costume points to Black Pete as remaining “(…) a not-so- distant relative of the 19th Century Blackface caricature.” (l. 55).

Page 26 of 56

Beginning at line 81, the author discusses her feeling of alienation in face of her Dutch friends’ beliefs: “I simply could not accept that people I respected and cared for could hold these opinions.”. This statement contrasts ‘friends’ with ‘racists’, which may seem reasonable, however, it is a fairly polarising argument, unfairly splitting people into two incompatible groups. Indeed, she has evidently experienced that she can care about these people and consider them friends, in spite of their adherence to the tradition. The author’s following introspection, “Being faced with racism from friends forces one to really think.” (l. 92), once more presupposes that the tradition does indeed equal racism; the iterative presence of the word leads to its nominalisation and equalisation. On this note, she goes on to explain that it is one thing “when a stranger attacks you (…) but when it is someone that you are invested in it is a lot harder.” (l. 92-93). With this sentence, she is equating an attack from a stranger, presumably a racist remark or slur, with an ‘attack’ from a friend. This creates an environment where the friend cannot defend his or her beliefs without being labelled an attacker and a racist, further polarising the debate.

As evident from the analysis so far, the article is full of presuppositions and implicatures. For instance, in lines 15-17, we see the presupposition of a, somewhat specific, set of ‘indicators of racism’, which is interesting in terms of the position of the writer and her worldview. This presupposition speaks of an environment where racism is oft-debated and plays a role. Also, it is assumed that the reader would know of such indicators. In explaining the Dutch tradition to the reader, the writer states that “the celebrations echo those in the UK very closely” (l. 37). Here, the use of ‘echo’ implies, in the least, that the writer speaks from a deixis centred in the UK, and as such orientates herself from that point of view, which is natural. On the other hand, it can imply a view of the Dutch celebration as secondary or subordinate, compared to that of the UK. This is further underlined when the writer lists the specific differences using phrasing such as “the earlier date”, “in place of’, “ (...) Sinterklaas rather than Father Christmas (...)” (l. 41-42). While not overt, this sort of language does imply a UK-centred viewpoint. To back up the report that “The tradition is a fiercely defended one.” (l. 74) the writer relays the percentage results of a survey from 2013, “(...) reveal[ing] that 92% of the Dutch public do not perceive Zwarte Piet as racist or associate him with slavery (…)”(l. 75). The negated verb,

Page 27 of 56

‘perceive’, implies that perhaps the Dutch public ought to find the character racist and associate him with slavery. The implication could additionally suggest an admission that racism is a matter of perspective. On the note of this high approval rate of the tradition, the writer continues “Indeed, I soon found that many [supporters] were people that I classified as friends.” (l. 79). The contrast between the author’s, by now, explicit view of the supporters of the tradition and the word ‘friends’ seems to hold the implicature that ‘perhaps I was wrong to classify them as such’. In any case, she goes on to say that many an argument over the tradition has sprung up. The author relates her friends’ arguments in favour of the tradition, based on their childhood memories; “Zwarte Piet was not a man in blackface but a fantasy character (…)” (l. 86). The past tense indicates the view that while such may have been a child’s interpretation, he is now most certainly a man in blackface. Nearing the end of the article, the author states that “I certainly can’t imagine Prime Minister David Cameron publicly defending the practice, as the Dutch Prime Minister did when challenged just last year.” (l. 108). Here the implicature is quite clear: Cameron is in the right; the Dutch Prime Minister is in the wrong. The article ends with a nominalisation: “(…) my right to be outraged.” (l. 114), which concludingly presupposes that outrage is a right, and, true or false, it further develops the confrontational nature of the article, and the debate as a whole.

In relaying the anecdote that leads to the main subject of the article, the writer uses reported speech; “(…) asked her (…)” (l. 9), “She declined (…)” (l. 9). Only when reporting the comment made by her friend’s colleague does she use direct speech, thereby placing focus on this utterance (l. 11). After this, the writer resumes the method of reported speech. This structure has a couple of consequences. Firstly, as mentioned, it puts the focus on the incriminating utterance, making it clear that this is the important bit. Secondly, it allows the writer some freedom in painting a specific picture. For instance, “Her colleague was going to the shops and out of courtesy, or so she thought, asked her if (…)” (l. 8). The ‘so she thought’ directly indicates that the colleague in question had malignant intent, which, neither writer nor friend had any way of knowing. After the incriminating comment is made, the friend “(…) realised his intended implication.” (l. 14). The placement of the adjective in the complement of the clause

Page 28 of 56 results in the presupposition that the implication was indeed intended, which, again, no one but the utterer could know. The way the anecdote is reported leaves room for interpretation. What could have happened is that the colleague was perfectly genuine in his inquiry, made a thoughtless comment, realised how it could be interpreted by the recipient, and then tried to play it off with laughter. Admittedly, this seems less likely than what is reported, but the point stands that reported speech lets a writer tell their version of a story. The two quotes above illustrate how the text paints the situation in a certain light, without presenting all the facts. The writer continues the anecdote from the point where her friend is conveying it to her, trying to agree whether or not it was in fact racist: “We concluded that his eluding to her being a monkey, his laughter and professing his innocence were all indicators that it was” (l. 16). Here, the colleague’s intention is once again presupposed by virtue of said elusion being placed as a complement. Additionally, the naming of the colleague’s speech act as ‘professing’ is not necessarily neutral, but rather, signifying of his presupposed guilt. In the next section, lines 20-27, the narrator seems to be paraphrasing pieces of advice given to her by others in the past. In the face of racist remarks, she is advised to “just brush it off” and “grow a thicker skin”. However, she then relates how she has come to accept racist remarks against her as “just a fact of life when you’re brown/black”. All of these are placed in quotation marks, which leads to some confusion as to whether they are direct speech or reported speech. The last ‘quote’, especially, seems altogether separated from any originator. While this use of, seemingly, direct speech does not hold ideological implications in this case, they do emphasise a certain image, or role, the author is taking on, which will be elaborated on further in this analysis. Relating her experiences with the tradition in the Netherlands, the author describes how “Children and adults alike wore their afro wigs, red lips and gold earrings with pride (…)” (l. 68). The genitive article directly denotes both ownership and affiliation, while the ‘pride’ seems an unfair report of other’s perceived thoughts. Although pride is an emotion that can be observed, in this context it gives off a heavily negative connotation. Another report of others’ thoughts or emotions follows the above when the description of the event falls on the audience who “seemed to be spectating (…) joyously” (l. 70). While the judgement of this sentence is mitigated by the copular verb, it does at the very least constitute a generalisation.

Page 29 of 56

The first instance of the writer developing deixis further than what is given through her use of pronouns, is in line 18, where she reports her friend asking for her “(…) opinion as a fellow young, black female (…)”. This helps establish a perceived identity for the sake of the reader, as well as lending credence to the author’s expressed feelings of outrage. In the paragraph from line 20-27, the author discusses the various experiences she has had with racism, and the advice she has been given in order to deal with it. As mentioned previously in this analysis, the author concludes the section with the statement that she has “(…) been hardened into acceptance.” (l. 27). This sentence, and others besides, help to establish the writer’s identity, but also, more importantly, her role in the debate; that of a victim. This is important in relation to the deictic centre that the reader is supposed to sympathise with, and which is developed throughout the text. In developing the deictic centre, the author relates how she, when first moving to the Netherlands, was warned about the tradition: “It is a Dutch tradition, held close to the Dutchman’s heart. I, as a foreigner, should simply grin and bear it.” (l. 61). Here, the deictic centre is made explicit, the writer is a native Brit and a foreigner in the Netherlands. This maintains the viewpoint of the article as that of an outsider looking in, so to speak, which for the reader will give her credence as being able to view the subject in a different light. However, the Dutch could equally claim that her foreignness bars her from understanding. In summation, as a blog, the text works adequately in drawing in the reader by presenting the writer’s emotional response to the subject, but as a way of objectively reporting on the controversy that is the tradition, it falls short. The author is establishing herself firmly in the role of the victim, and while she is indeed a victim of racism, the insistence on this role, and the ‘us and them’-mentality it promotes, does not promote a healthy debate. Additionally, the writer falls prey to some of the same rhetoric used by her presumed opposition, such as generalisation and a, however slight, sense of superiority of one’s own people compared to the opponent.

Page 30 of 56

3.2 Article 2: Daily Star

“Is THIS the weirdest Christmas tradition ever? Festival-goers black up for ‘racist’ parade” (l. 1-4). This is the headline which introduces the article published in the Daily Star. The first thing one notices regarding the headline is the fact that ‘This’ is in all caps, pointing out that the author indeed thinks this is the weirdest Christmas tradition ever. Already, we see the opinion that the article leans towards. Another interesting aspect regarding the first sentence in the headline is that while the sentence ends with a question mark, it answers its own question before the readers have a chance to consider it for themselves. Also, the fact that the sentence ends with the word ‘ever’ puts strong emphasis on just how weird the author (Jess Bell) finds the tradition. Just from reading the first part of the headline it is made clear that the author is of the opinion that the tradition is weird. Another example of the author’s opinion shining through via Naming is in the second sentence of the headline (l. 3-4) where you find buzzwords such as ‘black up’ and ‘racist parade’. The term ‘black up’ is loaded with negative connotations. If the author had attempted to remain neutral she could have used a phrase like ‘dress up for’. When the author chooses to utilise such buzzwords she leaves the reader with no doubts that indeed this tradition must be both the weirdest tradition ever as well as being racist. In the lead the author again uses the word ‘weird’ when describing the Dutch Christmas traditions: “(…) the weird and wonderful Christmas traditions (…)” (l. 5). The word ‘weird’ often has a negative connotation but in the lead the nouns ‘weird’ and ‘wonderful’ are used together in a noun phrase where weird and wonderful are identifiers of ‘Christmas traditions’. When two contrasting nouns are used like this, they create a contrastive opposition, which in turn forms a two-part list used to exemplify or enumerate. However, here they are used in the capacity of naming. When the author mentions Black Pete she is very inconsistent with her modifiers. Below are a few examples. The first time the author mentions Black Pete by name she describes him as “(…) the sidekick of Saint Nicholas (…)” (l. 14). The noun ‘sidekick’ describes Black Pete as someone who, although subordinate to Saint Nicholas, chooses to help him. With this descriptor there does not seem to be anything inherently wrong with the relationship between the two. Contrasting this a few lines further down, the author makes an attempt at neutrality with her choice of words when she describes Black Pete as being “[a] controversial

Page 31 of 56 figure (…)” (l. 23). When she describes Black Pete this way she avoids using any biased modifiers. However, she soon after breaks from this neutrality when she writes “(…) St Nick and his pal Black Pete.” (l. 24). When she calls Black Pete Saint Nicholas’ “pal” it has a similar effect as in the previous example when he is called a “sidekick”, although it takes it a step further by calling them friends. Usually friends are quals and therefore this is very contrastive. Yet another inconsistency is found within the same sentence when she describes Black Pete as “(…) a racist caricature (…)” (l. 25), clearly condemning the character.

The author goes on to describe the arrival of St Nicholas as being “(…) the official arrival of St Nicholas.” (l. 29). The “official arrival” distinguishes it from any other arrival; St Nicholas’ arrival is something special. In the next section of the article the author describes an attempt at appeasing protesters by avoiding blackface and using yellow make-up instead as a ‘bizarre twist’. “In a bizarre twist (…) Gouda decided to paint some of its Black Pete helpers yellow to represent the area’s famous cheese.” (l. 49-50). The use of the modifier ‘bizarre’ creates clear implications because bizarre is such a negatively loaded term. So while the author thinks that blacking up is wrong she thinks it is just weird that they would attempt to appease protesters of the tradition by using a different colour. However, naming the Black Petes as “helpers” (l. 49) somewhat lessens the critical tone, compared to other possible epithets.

The fact that the word “’racist’” (l. 4) is in quotation marks in the headline shows that the author attempts to lessen the force behind the word racism but the fact that the word is even in the sentence means that it is the message put into the mind of the reader before they even start reading the article itself, which is a clear instance of Implying. Another example of implying is when the author uses the words “weird and wonderful” (l. 5) to describe the Dutch Christmas traditions she uses two, somewhat, contradictory terms and through these shows that there are people who think this tradition is wonderful as well as people who think it is weird.

As mentioned earlier in the analysis the author is not always consistent in her ideological presentation of Black Pete. Another point where the author is unclear in her message regarding this tradition is when she writes the following: “Black Pete (…) is the sidekick of Saint Nicholas (…) according to tradition.” (l. 10-11) The author finishes the same sentence

Page 32 of 56 with the words “according to tradition” which implies that Black Pete being Saint Nicholas’ sidekick has always been the case. However, as we see later in the article that is not how the character was originally portrayed.

On line 16 “For years festival-goers have covered their faces in blackface make-up, chucked on a wig and traditional clothing to get into the character.” we have another example of the author utilising naming as a tool in order to imply something without outright saying it. The first instance of this within this sentence is when the author writes: ‘covered their faces’. This implies some attempt at disguise, which in turn, could imply shame on the part of the festival- goers. By writing the sentence as such it allows the author to express underlying currents without directly reporting them. It is not necessarily the case that the festival-goers feel that they need to hide behind their make-up during the festivities, but when the author chose to write it in the way that she did, the implicature is that they do in fact feel this way. Another example is found a few words later in the same sentence when the author uses the word ‘blackface’ (l. 16). The fact that the author chose to use the single word ‘blackface’ rather than two words implies that the festival goers wore blackface rather than that they wore face paint that happened to be black. Blackface is a very negative word and it does not show the festival goers in a good light when it is described in this way. Further in line 16, we see the phrase ‘chucked on a wig’, which implies carelessness; they are not considering the consequences, or they simply do not care about said consequences. This is an especially noteworthy choice of words when one considers the amount of protests that take place within the country itself and the adverse reaction it gets from around the world. As mentioned earlier Black Pete is at one point described as being Saint Nicholas’ ‘Pal’. This word choice is an example of how the author creates an ideology though her modifiers. When the author describes Black Pete as a pal she not only negates the true origins of the character but she also implies that, not only is Pete choosing to help Saint Nicholas, he is his friend. Black Pete and Saint Nicholas being friends rather than slave and master is one of the arguments people use when they are defending the use of Black Petes. Previously in the article the author mentions that the Black Pete tradition is controversial but does not mention that people protest against the character, she only implied it. The first mention of protest comes in the following: “(...) protesters have slammed the 19th century character as a racist caricature – sparking clashes between demonstrators and cops (…)” (l.

Page 33 of 56

25). Using the verb ‘slammed’, rather than a synonym like criticise, or protest, implies that protesters are unfairly attacking the character. While using the word ‘caricature’ implies that people dressing up as Black Pete are consciously making fun of, or stereotyping black people. Therefore, this sentence is implying two very different things at the same time. The first implication is that demonstrators are unfairly attacking the traditions and the second is that portraying a black person the way that they are doing it, by making Black Pete a caricature, is inherently wrong.

Another example where the author failed to maintain neutrality is in her use of “folklore” in the following sentence: “Folklore states that Zwarte Piet is black because he was a Moor who travelled to the Netherlands from Madrid.” (l. 42-43). The use of the noun folklore implies that the sources are not very credible, or it implies that the author might not know the sources from which this information is gained. This puts Pete’s origins as a Moor into question and supports the defenders of the tradition. The following is also an example of failed neutrality: “In Harwich organisers were forced to abandon the character last year after they failed to recruit a black person for the role.”(l. 44- 45). ‘Forced to abandon’ implies that the organisers were not given a choice in the matter. It also implies that they would continue with the tradition given a choice. ‘they failed to recruit a black person for the role’ implies that they are not against the tradition itself but that they might not agree that it is alright for a white person to be wearing black face paint.

In the third to last paragraph the author makes use of some unspecified polls. “Polls show the majority of Dutch people support blackface for the character, and most parades will keep the character despite the outrage.”(l. 51-52). That these polls are unspecified, means that it is an unfounded claim since no sources are given. This further supports the previous analysis that the article has questionable trustworthiness. Additionally, this example the author, once again, underlines the negative connotations associated with the term blackface, presupposing that there is outrage: “(...) will keep the character despite the outrage”. This wording gives the reader the impression that keeping the character as it is, is offensive.

In the last section, the author writes about how the Dutch media, NOS, “(...) questioned 223 organising committees and discovered only two plan to ban blackface completely.” (l. 55-56). The use of the word “only” implies that the author thinks that there should have been more

Page 34 of 56 organisers willing to ban blackface. This further demonstrates the ambivalence dominating this article regarding the tradition.

Returning to line 14-15 where Black Pete is described as “(…) the sidekick of Saint Nicholas(…)”, when one describes Black Pete like this, who is the focus of so much talk of racism, it makes the issue seem inconsequential. It negates the actual story of Pete being a black slave to the white Saint Nicholas. It buries the true origins of the tradition. This seems somewhat contradictory as the article previously emphasised the negative aspects regarding the tradition. Another such example is found in line 42-43 with the use of the noun folklore. This negates the fact that Black Pete was a Moor and therefore it does not emphasise why the tradition is wrong, rather it makes it seem as though it might not be true that Black Pete was indeed originally a Moor. In the lead the author writes that the Christmas tradition “appears to go one step too far” (l. 6). Here the author is distancing herself from her previous loaded sentences (the headline) by using the modifier ‘appears to’. In other words, the author is hypothesising that it is possible that the festival has gone too far, but she does not outright express this opinion. This is a strong contrast to the headline. Another interesting aspect regarding the lead is the author’s choice of putting the word racist in quotation marks. Perhaps this was done in an attempt to make it function as reported speech. This way it is clear that the writer herself is not responsible for that description and therefore cannot be held accountable. This makes it obvious that someone thinks this tradition is racist but the quotation marks clarify that it is not necessarily the author herself who has this point of view. The second instance of reported speech is a much clearer example as it is an actual quote with a source included: “We have stopped it this year as we can’t get anybody who is black to do it.” (l. 46-47). In the entire article, there is only one person quoted and this quote condemns the tradition. If the author attempted to write from a neutral standpoint it would have been a good choice to quote from both sides of the conflict.

In line 24, we see the shorter version of Saint Nicholas, “St Nick”, this places the character closer to the deictic centre of the reader as most people are familiar with the alternative name for Santa Claus. For most people the name Santa Claus has a lot of positive connotations and

Page 35 of 56 by using this name the author helps the reader relate to the character and by extension familiarises the character of Saint Nicholas for western people.

In summation, the headline of the article leaves the reader with the impression that the article will be written from the point of view of someone who is against the tradition but the author does not succeed in convincing the reader of this by the end of the article. The text is far from consistent in how it portrays the character and tradition of Black Pete. It attempts to present both sides of the controversy but rather than doing this in a neutral way it uses buzzwords like racist and blackface alongside words like sidekick and pal, but it also uses words like controversial in an attempt to appear neutral. All of these conflicting terms and descriptors leave the reader unsure as to what point the article is actually trying to make.

3.3 Article 3: New York Times

This chapter will examine a part of the discourses represented in the article U.N Urges the Netherlands to Stop Portrayals of ‘Black Pete’ Character with the help of the terms described by Lesley Jeffries.

The author (Somini Sengupta) of the article from The New York Times uses language in a variety of ways to spread her message and by extension her own ideology. This is for example the case in the headline of this article. The author starts by naming the actor and in extension of this, marks the seriousness of the situation. The actor in the headline is named “U.N.” (l. 1) which is its formal name and a name most people know. U.N. is known as a global organisation working on an official level and this helps set a more serious tone for the article. The author slowly elaborates on the identity of the actor where U.N. is named respectively as “A United Nations committee (...)” (l. 4) and “The United Nations Committee on the Eliminations of Racial Discrimination (...)” (l. 8-9).This might just be a courtesy to the reader, but it also functions as a way of enforcing the serious tone of the article. The noun “committee” (l. 4) is a very formal description and shows the reader that the arguments against the tradition are

Page 36 of 56 made by professionals. In addition to marking the tone of the article this also helps the reader understand the situation since the actor is already known, this will be elaborated on later.

The use of the verb ‘urges’ in the headline aims to create the idea of a problem that needs to be solved quick and this idea is further strengthened when it is repeated later (l. 4). The problem in question is the character of Black Pete and here it is interesting to note how the author describes it: “(...) Stop Portrayals of ‘Black Pete’ Character” (l. 1-2). The verb ‘portrayal’ means a representation or description of a character and by using this word the writer might be implying that it is not the tradition, or character, itself that is racist, but the people's representation of it.

The author uses various words with strong connotations as a way of embedding the importance of the article for the reader, for example with the use of the noun ‘Eliminations’ (l. 9) combined with the buzzword ‘Racial discrimination’ (l. 9-10). This is especially the case in the first paragraph which informs the reader of the more negative aspects of the tradition with the use of “blackface” (l. 7) which is a word loaded with racist connotations. The negative tones of this is further enhanced by the use of the descriptors: “exaggerated red lips” and “gold hoops” (l. 7) This also creates a three-part list which has two functions: firstly, it creates the idea of completeness, meaning that the writer is implying that this is reason enough to support U.N. Committee’s request even though this is not a comprehensive list of the reasons the tradition might be racist. Secondly, the whole argument is summarized here in a way that is easy to remember since it has been simplified into concrete characteristics.

The function of the sixth paragraph is also more informative, but it gives an expressive image of the discussion regarding the tradition. The author describes Black Pete as “fodder” and the discussion as a “culture war” (l. 28). These are both harsh words with strong connotations. The author is equating the discussion to a real war which indicates a battle presumably between only two different points of view. In a war one is always either for or against, there is no 'in between'. In addition, it is described as a war of ‘culture’ which is a wide and important subject that concerns every human-being. This could be understood as a simplification of the

Page 37 of 56 case but is still pointing out importance. By using the noun “fodder” she is also showing how this character is just a small part of a big discussion and will only fuel it.

Another way that the author underlines the tone of the article is by using the verb “get rid of” (l. 5) in the first paragraph, which implies that the tradition is unequivocally a problem. This is reported speech and therefore might simply be the author's interpretations of U.N’s request but it still suggests that they are not just asking them to stop portraying ‘Black Pete’ but that they get rid of him all together and this enforces the serious tone and importance of the subject.

Early in the article the author uses direct speech to relay how the Dutch government describes the discussion regarding racism as “uncomfortable” (l. 18). First of all the author denies responsibility for claiming the discussion is ‘uncomfortable’ but otherwise she stays neutral in terms of whether she thinks that is true. It is only later in the article that she argues that the discussion on, for instance, social media has been “more unruly than uncomfortable” (l. 38-39). This functions as a counterargument to the aforementioned quote (l. 18) by using an example of how the discussion before has been ‘unruly’ and not ‘uncomfortable’. That it is something that has already happened is indicated by the past tense of the verb ‘engaged’. This is followed by quotes from both sides of the discussion which might imply that the author is placing responsibility for the current negative state of the discussion on both sides, since neither of them have shown that they can have a rational discussion. Additionally these two sentences (l. 16-18, 38-39) also function respectively as concessive- and negated opposition. In the first quote it is made clear, that even though the Dutch government has dismissed “ (...) the idea of banning the character (...)” (l. 18) they are still willing to discuss it. Here the author is positive towards the actions of the Dutch government and shows it by subtly saying that they are not racist, just because they did not ban the character. In the latter (l. 38-39) a contrast is made between how the Dutch government describes it and how it factually is (according to the author), i.e. it is “unruly” not “uncomfortable”. By doing this the author takes a negative stance towards the Dutch government's argument, not that she is necessarily arguing that they are in fact racist, but more that they are using poor excuses.

Page 38 of 56

The author also utilizes this use of opposites in the fifth paragraph, but here it functions more as an attempt to really show the negative aspects of the Black Pete character by comparing him to another character who attends the Christmas celebration, St. Nicholas. It starts of by naming the character by its dutch name ‘Zwarte Piet’ and how he “accompanies” St. Nicholas (l. 23-24). That the author uses the verb ‘accompanies’ in describing so is interesting because it might imply a relationship of equals but the rest of the paragraph gives an opposing image. Firstly St. Nicholas is described as “always [portrayed by] a white man in a red suit (...) [and he] arrives on horseback” (l. 25-26) which might not have a negative function in itself, but in relation to the last part of the sentence, the function changes. The second part of the sentence describes how Pete “walks alongside distributing candy” and he is also named as “his servant” (l. 26-27). This creates a strong contrast to the first part. The function of both the first and second sentence is therefore to create opposites through the use of parallelism. The first sentence is neutral in the sense that the relationship is indicated through the use of the verb ‘accompanied’ and the second sentence is negative because it shows a shift in relationship where one walks and another rides on horseback. One could argue that this is a presupposition on part of the author, i.e. just because someone is walking and another one is riding a horse does not necessarily mean that one is subordinate to the other.

The author does not only use opposites in her attempt to influence the reader with her ideology but also comparisons. There is an example of this in the tenth paragraph. The debate surrounding Black Pete is described with the modifier “emotional” (l. 42) which helps magnify the significance of this debate and this is further supported when the author equates this with “this one character” (l. 42). When she puts these two as equals she helps strengthen the idea that this has a huge impact on the Dutch.

In order to make her point clear the author also prioritizes in the text. This is the case in the last sentence of the second paragraph: “It urged the Netherlands to ‘actively promote the elimination’ of the racial stereotyping.” (l. 13-15). This does not only function as a way of summarising the committee’s statement, but also as a way of reinforcing the important part of the argument. This shows how the writer is prioritising information and how, by ending the

Page 39 of 56 paragraph with a summarisation, the writer makes sure that the reader remembers the important parts. Furthermore, she makes use of the verb ‘urge’ once more and the buzzword “racial stereotyping” which is an effective way of enforcing the message of the first part of the article. The author also does this in the eleventh paragraph (l. 45-51) where she ends it with describing the goal of this change and how the character should eventually resemble “someone who had climbed through a chimney” (l. 50-51). By using this example it shows that she prioritises the compromise of not getting rid of the tradition but just changing it. This is a neutral way to end the article.

Throughout the article there are also several examples of the author assuming or implying things, whether they are intentional or not is not clear, but they are nonetheless important to mention. In the beginning of the article Black Pete is described as a “popular children’s character” (l. 5). This description presupposes firstly that Black Pete is a character existing for the enjoyment of children, and secondly, that he is a popular one. By doing so, the writer is creating a strong incentive for the reader to agree with the argument that it should stop. The noun ‘children’ creates connotations to innocence, purity and something one should aim to protect. When the character is described with the noun ‘racism’, which has a lot of negative connotations, it serves to underline the point that they are oppositions that should not be intertwined. Therefore it functions as a sort of ‘think of the children’-trigger and helps to create support for the writer's ideology.

This also happens in the seventh paragraph. It is a brief paragraph and consists mostly of reported speech. The interesting thing to note though, is how the author describes the cited person: “Mr. Asscher spoke carefully” (l. 33). Here the modifier ‘carefully’ functions as a way of describing the sensitivity to the issue, while also being an interpretation of his manner of speech. That the author uses this modifier might also imply that her conviction is in line with this and that one has to be careful what they say when one discusses subjects like this.

Page 40 of 56

Further along in the article it is stated that the argument is about: “the limits of multiculturalism in Dutch society” (l. 43-44). This is a presupposition and is her attempt to create a scenario where the statement is true.

The author is consistently using either reported- or direct speech in order to relay the arguments from both sides of this discussion. Some of them have already been mentioned, but there are several more and they all enable the author to avoid responsibility for what is said in the article. This happens in the majority of the paragraphs where they start off by naming the actor and by extension of this the source of the statement. For example in the first paragraph where the description of the actor as “A United Nations committee” (l. 4) is followed by their statement and functions as reported speech. Here the writer is disclaiming responsibility for what is said and places it on the U.N. Committee. In the next paragraph the author uses direct speech and quotes the U.N Committee directly by using quotation marks (l. 10-13). Basically, this has the same function as reported speech, that is, denying responsibility for the statement but stronger since it is exactly how and what they said. The author makes use of direct- and reported speech several times throughout the article and the way it is used in the fourth paragraph is interesting to note: “The Dutch are already reinventing the way they portray the controversial character, said Lodewijk Asscher (...)” (l. 19-20). The first interesting word to note is “reinventing” which functions as a way to represent it as an action and something that is already happening. Additionally this also aims to create support for the actor. This is followed by the description of the character as ‘controversial’ (l. 20), which is ubiquitous in terms of functions. First of all we do not know if it is the author’s description or the cited person’s since it is a part of a sentence that also functions as reported speech, indicated by the verb ‘said’ (l. 20). Therefore it might just be a way of disclaiming responsibility, but if it is the author’s choice of words then it is very interesting since it is the first time the author directly describes the tradition. This is a very cautious and neutral way to describe the tradition and shows how the author takes strides so as to not offend anyone, perhaps even by placing the responsibility on the cited person, even though he might not have said it. Afterwards the cited person is further

Page 41 of 56 named: “minister for social affairs and employment” (l. 20-21), which helps strengthen the credibility of him and in extension of this the claim that the tradition is ‘controversial’. This is followed by another use of direct speech, this time indicated by quotation marks, which shows a more humorous perspective on how a reinterpretation of the Black Pete character meant that they were orange instead (l. 21-22). This functions as a way of lightening the mood and might even create connotations to oompa loompas since they are also comical and goofy characters.

One of the ways to create a good flow in the text and make sure that the reader understands what is being said and by whom, is to continually position themselves in regards to who is talking. This is done in almost every paragraph of the article and often functions in coordination with reported- or direct speech. The actor in the headline is named “U.N.” which is, as mentioned before, its formal name and a name most people know. This means that the reader will have an easier time relating to the situation since most people will have an idea of who they are and what they stand for. The author slowly elaborates on the actor in the article where U.N. is named respectively as “A United Nations committee (...)” (l. 4) and “The United Nations Committee on the Eliminations of Racial Discrimination (...)” (l. 8-9). By doing this the author is placing the following statements away from her own deictic center and effectively showing the reader that this is something that someone else is saying and not the author herself. The author also utilises this distancing technique when describing the arguments from the other side of the discussion, i.e. “The Dutch government” (l. 16), “The Dutch” (l. 19) and “Mr. Asscher” (l. 33). This works in collaboration with reported- and direct speech in order to enforce the authors unaccountability for what is being said. By doing this the author is not only showing who the speaker is but also at what time they spoke, or an event took place. This is the case in the last paragraph of the article where the author writes about how several Dutch institutions have already tried to remove some of the negative aspects of the tradition, which is done by placing the deictic center in the past with “Earlier this month” (l. 45) and thereby showing that this has already happened. Here, the character is described as just “Pete” (l. 46) and not ‘Black Pete” and that he will now wear “gold makeup” (l. 46-47). The second sentence places the deictic center further back in the past: “In 2013” (l. 47). Here ‘Pete’

Page 42 of 56 is described as “Pete without golden earrings” (l. 48) and shows another attempt to remove the more negative aspects of the tradition. The significance of this is enforced by use of the modifier “official” (l. 47) which creates the notion that this is not just something that happened once and that capable people are willing to change the tradition. This is further enforced with the naming of the actor in the last sentence as “city officials” (l. 48-49) and that they will continue changing the character in order to remove its inherent racist implications.

The author of this article is very careful in describing the tradition and the people criticizing it. Every time the tradition is described in a negative or positive manner it is through the use of reported- or direct speech so as not to have any responsibility for what is said. The author is mostly trying to be neutral but it is clear that most of the arguments are against the tradition. The majority of the arguments that are not directly against the tradition are the ones that argue that the changing of such an old tradition takes time. This seems to represent the main message of the article: that the tradition needs to change, but that the opposition needs to be patient while it happens

3.4 Article 4: Washington Post

The article, “The Dutch are slowly recognizing that their tradition of Black Pete is both racist and weird“ by Ishaan Tharoor, chooses to complicate the matter in different ways – for instance, through naming and describing. The first sentence is as follows: “Over multiple years now, WorldViews has run stories about the problematic Dutch tradition of Zwarte Piet.” (l. 1- 2).

Here the case is presented to have been discussed over a longer period. It is not limited to a number of years, but ‘over multiple years’. This is led by the phrase: ‘the problematic [tradition]’, where ‘the’ decides the case as something that is already well-known, ‘problematic’ strengthens the purpose for discussion, and the phrase heightens the idea of importance. This is emphasised by the following sentence which states that it involves a ‘myriad’ of people: “(…) myriad Dutch adults and children [attend this tradition]” (l. 9-10).

Black Pete as a figure, is also described in a way that problematises the matter. In the main head-line, the character is directly described as being “(…) racist and weird”. To directly state

Page 43 of 56 that Pete is racist is a strong claim. This is toned down with the use of ‘weird’ which is a weaker accusation. It is a word often used in the understanding of being ‘funny’ or used together as in ‘funny and weird’, but here, because of the word that comes before, the connotation is without doubt negative. Black Pete is also portrayed as “(…) the trickster figure, they say (...)” (l. 18-19) which can have the negative connotation of being a ‘fraud’. These choices stand in contrast to the idea of Black Pete being enjoyable and the tradition being amusing.

Black Pete is described as a ‘helper of Sinterklaas or Saint Nicholas’, as opposed to, for instance, as ‘companion to’. The difference is essential. ’Helpers of someone’ can come across as if the helpers are subjected to the one they are helping, whereas ‘companion’ means to have influence on equal terms. This choice is in accordance with the tradition being racist.

The article uses negation to emphasise its argument: “(…) many people think the tradition is racist — one that is shaped by the country's not-so-distant colonial past and trades on garish racial stereotypes.” (l. 13-15). Here, ‘not-so-distant’ with its negation tries to accommodate the presumed presupposition of the reader: that the days of slavery were a long time ago (more than 150 years) and should not have any or much impact today. The argument here, however, is that it is not far away and therefore still has influence.

“Others, including a significant proportion of the Dutch public, are less sure.” (l. 16). Here the phrase ‘less sure’ is quite an underestimate of the real situation. It implies firstly, that the Dutch public is in doubt, and secondly, that they are close to being sure. It creates the image of a Dutch majority weighing the matter which is incorrect. In general, it is problematic to use a definition like ‘less sure’. To be in doubt is a state of mind that is inaccessible to others unless the state of mind is directly articulated which is not the case here. A quotation is simply missing. We know that the Dutch follow this tradition despite other opinions. This action must reflect a prevailing positive attitude towards it because participation in this tradition is voluntary.

In regards to implicit arguments, this article makes a correlation between people and politicians, and makes it evident that the tradition should be seen as racist: “For reasons that are both obvious and complicated, many people think the tradition is racist (...)” (l. 13-14). This is a presupposition implying that obvious reasons exist and that despite these

Page 44 of 56 complicated reasons, there are people who still think the tradition is racist. It is problematic to use the word ‘people’ in this respect, because it is not stated what exact people are being referred to. And when in other parts of the article there is reference to ‘the Dutch people’, the people concerned, this is confusing. On the other hand, ‘people’ used in general like this, gives the impression that this concerns a lot of people, rather than just the Dutch people who in that sense come across as an irrational minority.

In the next section, the Dutch people are also portrayed as not having a free will or not having a shared, clear-cut opinion for or against the tradition: “Around Christmastime, myriad Dutch adults and children have customarily donned frilly wigs, patted themselves in blackface, painted their lips red and japed around in costumes as ‘Black Pete,’ (…)” (l. 9-11). ‘Customarily’ is a biased word, and here it takes away the power of the people who follow the tradition as if they were forced to do so. One must presume that they have their own power of will and can judge for themselves what is okay and what is not. This quote disregards the fact that the Dutch must consider some amusement to this tradition since they keep following it.

The implicit argument here, is that the Dutch do not have any self-determination, and therefore they must be suppressed by something or somebody, i.e. the politicians, whom are in control of whether this tradition is allowed or not and also how it is celebrated. In this sense, the politicians come across as dictating what the people are allowed to do, and have substantial control over them. This is an unfair statement because the Netherlands has democracy and power is shared by politicians and the people. “Dutch politicians have largely tried to dismiss controversy surrounding Zwarte Piet as inconsequential, but one's attitude about such blackface antics is increasingly part of a political fault line in the country.” (l. 43- 45). Here the reason for the people’s attitude is directly given: the politicians. The issue here however, is that attitudes are personal and cannot necessarily be changed by other people’s opinions, i.e. a people does not equal its politicians.

The article ends quite abruptly, focusing on the fact that some Dutch politicians have the intention to change the tradition. One could make the connection that because some politicians are concerned with the matter, the Dutch in general are, as written in the head- line: “(...) slowly recognizing that their blackface tradition of Zwarte Piet is racist (…)”. However, the rest of the argument is simply missing. The assumption is made that it is common sense and it is therefore not necessary to mention it directly. The fault in the

Page 45 of 56 argumentation is that politicians and a people do not equal each other. The situation is also bilateral, since the article states that the situation, as of now, is that there are still different opinions between the politicians in the Netherlands as well as for the Dutch people.

Regarding the matter of black people’s attitude towards the tradition, it is stated that: “Even minorities in the Netherlands embrace the tradition, some say.” (l. 19-20). ‘Even’ implies that it is malplaced when minorities do so, and that it obviously should be criticized. This again, gives the idea that the Dutch people as a whole are in the wrong. In addition, it is problematic to use the word minorities here because the discussion is only regarding one particular minority-group, i.e. black people. And if black people do not feel offended, the tradition is somewhat harmless.

In spite of this, the article also states the opposing view: “’Many children of colour say they experience discrimination in their daily lives and that it is worse around the time of Sinterklaas,’ the report states.” (l. 39-40). If there are children of colour who feel discriminated, and if there is a correlation between this experience and the tradition, this seems a strong argument against the Black Pete tradition. However, the argument is somehow week, using the relative ‘many’ and the personal ‘experience’ which are undefinable terms. The question of how many and what exact experiences they have, are prominent in this issue – and in order to make a strong argumentation. Of course, some black people today might feel some kind of discrimination, but how severe, how many, and when and why are questions to be taken into account. These parameters are not sufficient. It is difficult to investigate something as individual attitudes and experiences without doing any concrete research.

The article in general lacks references, and the choice of words and construction of arguments are problematic. It also functions as a second source with references to other sources for a lot of the argumentation which obviously means that information is left out.

In many ways, the article emphasises the idea that tradition is going from being legal to being abolished. It communicates the idea that things are about to change. The title, “The Dutch are slowly recognizing that their tradition of Black Pete is both racist and weird”, shows this indication as well as the purpose of the article. Here a state of movement in the Dutch people’s experience is described, which results in the hypothesis that the Dutch people could end up in direct opposition to the tradition which, in turn, could lead to an abolition of the tradition.

Page 46 of 56

A hypothesis of what could happen in such a likely situation is for instance stated with the elaboration of the concrete idea of building a museum: “(…) a burgeoning leftist, pro- immigrant party has called for a wider Dutch reckoning with the nation's multicultural identity that would include a museum about the history of slavery as well as the abolition of the black minstrel figure.” (l. 48-51). The article also suggests an answer which seems to be a compromise of both opponent’s opinions: “Changing the long-standing characteristics of Zwarte Piet would enable all children to ‘experience the joy of the tradition’.” (l. 40-42).

This article is contributing to the discourse of Black Pete being racist but also shows that divided opinions exist. In spite of the articles title and overarching proposition, it is difficult to say something generally valid about attitudes towards the tradition of Black Pete. It would include a large study of interviews and investigations because attitudes are personal and complex.

3.5 The Articles Compared

In this section we will look at all four articles in comparison to each other. For the sake of readability, we will name each article the same way we did in the data-chapter, with the numbers 1-4. We will look at the articles in connection to pivotal subjects and where we see similarities or variations in the analysis. This will provide an overview of vital points.

Both article 1, 3 and 4 state the overall argument that the tradition of Black Pete is discriminating, where article 2 is more ambivalent in its statement. All articles use negative buzz-words like “racist”, “blackface” and “weird”, and represent the negative point of view in the discussion. While article 2 seems to have the intention only to write about something controversial for its newspaper to create sensation, the other articles seem to have the unequivocal intention to patronize. However, the articles differ in how this is done. Both article 3 and 4 try to represent both the opinion for or against the tradition because of it being racist, and describes it as a two-sided issue. Both try to give the impression of being neutral and to show both sides of the case. Article 2 is more indistinct and describes both the tradition in positive, negative and neutral terms and in that sense gives, a three-sided story. Article 1

Page 47 of 56 gives a personal point of view on the tradition and is in that sense has a complex perception on the tradition, even though her view is explicitly negative.

In general, the articles’ lack sources and are biased in relation to who says what. In 2 and 4, the sources are missing all together and what could be useful, like direct quotes is left out. In 1 and 4 it is difficult to know who says what because article 1 is written from a subjective point of view, whereas 4 has another source to refer to, U.N., which makes the author understood in relation to the organisation but can also make it unclear whether it is the author or the institution who says what. This article nonetheless seems to be trustworthy with references and it uses direct speech. In relation to evidence, article 2, 3 and 4 have second-sources to what other people involved have said as well as polls, whereas article 1 has as the only article, a subjective view-point which in that sense, makes the view more valid when it comes to objective of investigation. While one cannot question the validity of other’s feelings, due to their subjective nature, you can question if they are reasonable. One could say that article 3 and 4 try to argue through rational arguments while article 1 uses pathos. In article 1 the point of view is subjective, the quotes and references can be slanted and her reactions questioned. In addition, the other articles, to a higher degree, need to have clear references and evidence regarding their quotes and inequities.

It is also important to note that article 1, is the only one that has the viewpoint of a black person and is in that sense, related to the discussion in a way that is different from the others. It seems to play an important role that the author of article 1 is black because this is the article that is the most negative. However, it is somewhat difficult to say something about the tradition according to black people in general from it, when she is the only source.

Every author is from another country than the Netherlands and have not grown up there. In that sense, none of them, barring Fadahunsi, are targets of the ridicule that the tradition presents and none of them have grown up with this tradition or have any personal relation to it. Based on this, it is interesting to notice how the Dutch people and their government, in the articles, are presented as inferior. In article 1, the Dutch are seen as not as developed a country as the U.K. and in article 4, as an irrational minority in opposition to people in general.

All articles agree that the main problem with the tradition is how the character is portrayed and that as it is now, because of its traits, is offensive. It is different from article to article how

Page 48 of 56 the character of Black Pete is described. In article 1, it is very negative, with descriptions such as “Santa’s mean sidekicks” and “black servants”, while article 3 and 4 describe the character in a more positive light but still as inferior: as a “helper of” or someone who “accompanies” Saint Nicholas. Article 2 is self-contradictory, using both “sidekick” and “pal”.

When it comes to the intentions of the people involved, article 1 describes the tradition as something that the people are doing as an act which is a strong way of showing opinions, i.e. presenting the tradition as an act committed against an implied victim. Article 4 describes it more like something that is done because of custom or because of the politicians which means without intention, and article 2 and 3 state that celebrating this tradition is not due to spiteful intentions.

It is also different what solutions, the articles present and how. Article 4 offers the compromise of wanting to change the character’s traits but still keep the tradition, where article 3 starts out by wanting to “get rid of” the character completely to end up arguing that just changing it would be sufficient. In article 1 it seems more as if the author is forced to accept the tradition if it is not changed or eliminated, which is definitely something that she cannot accept, as if it were the only possibility. Article 2 focuses on showing the different sides of the case, but does not suggest any solutions.

Having laid bare the discourses of the articles, the question is now whether these discourses contribute to a constructive debate or leads to a stagnation of the discussion.

Page 49 of 56

4.0 Conclusion

The purpose of the project was to examine the way the selected articles from Britain and USA covered the Black Pete tradition and how this coverage both creates and sustains discourses on discrimination. Based on this, we wanted to look at these discourses comparatively and discuss potential differences. Originally, we had sought to answer our, admittedly optimistic, hypothesis of historical differences between the two nations. However, while not actively disproved, this hypothesis cannot be validated on the basis of our analysis.

In describing the tradition the articles make use of several tools. The authors use buzz-words with negative connotations in order to criticise the tradition. All the articles build their premises on the presupposition that the tradition is racist, rather than attempt to weigh the issue and let the reader decide. Furthermore, it is clear that the authors are prioritising information in order to focus on the negative aspects of the tradition, thereby promoting their ideology, further cementing its hegemonic status. They use either arguments that are rational or emotive and try to be either neutral, personal, or a combination of the two. However, they all come across as presenting the tradition in a prevalently unfavourable way, which neglects other views on the case, describing it as discriminating. In that sense, there is a tendency within the covered articles, that instead of resolving or discussing the matter in a constructive manner, they end up further disambiguating the discussion and thereby sustaining an undesirable situation.

Page 50 of 56

5.0 Discussion

This chapter will discuss the underlying ideology of the authors in question based on the discourses prevalent in the articles. Additionally, we will discuss how the concept of political correctness dictates how the authors present their arguments.

5.1 Black Pete and the Discourse on Racism

Whether any given subject can be considered racist or not must be a matter of consensus. If enough people agree that it is, then it will be so. To put it another way, it is a matter of subjectivity. This is exemplified so clearly in the case of the Black Pete controversy. On the one hand, we see a substantial opposition to it in Western media, but on the other we seemingly have the majority of a nation supporting the tradition. The question is then, if this is a case of conflicting ideologies. Perhaps the Dutch have a much broader margin for what they consider racist, or perhaps the papers in question were a bit too quick to pass judgement. Ideologically speaking, it is hard to imagine that the general Dutch public would uphold their tradition out of spite, recognising the racist implications, but simply not caring. Indeed, as we have seen from the articles, the Dutch do not perceive the tradition as racist, to paraphrase the oft quoted poll from 2013. As such, it is not necessarily a matter of the Dutch believing that racism is acceptable, nor necessarily a disagreement as to what in general constitutes racism, but simply that they consider this particular subject to not be overtly, or problematically, racist. Thus, we believe that the Dutch cannot be considered a racist people, at least not based on this subject alone, but rather they simply ascribe a wealth of positive connotations to the tradition that, while not necessarily blinding them, does make it hard for them to recognise the issue. As such, while there may be a difference of ideology at work, it is not a matter of an overall ideology, but merely one pertaining to this specific tradition. To emphasise, we believe that the controversy springs from a difference between the Dutch populace’s background knowledge of the tradition and that of the authors in question, rather than an ideologically based condoning of racism in general. On the subject of racism in relation to the tradition, one could ask the very same question that Fisayo Fadahunsi poses in the Huffington Article: is it the intention behind the act, or the act

Page 51 of 56 in itself that constitutes the racism? If an action is perceived as racist by the opposing party, but not in any way by the actor, one could ask who is truly accountable. Case in point, not many years ago the US legalised same-sex marriage. This sparked a great deal of debate across all kinds of media. A general sentiment among those who applauded the act was that if anyone had a problem with, for instance, two men marrying each other that was their problem alone, not the couple in question’s. Similarly, if someone finds a tradition like Black Pete offensive, one could question if it is anyone’s problem but their own. We are not taking a stance for either viewpoint here, we are merely trying to shed some light on what makes the issue multifaceted. Obviously, the case of Black Pete is different in that it entails the danger of systematically condoning racism, amongst other issues, but this sort of discussion is, we believe, necessary to promote a constructive debate that has the potential of solving the issue to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. While there seems to be, within the Netherlands, a hegemonic ideology whereby Black Pete is seen as innocent, in the articles we have analysed, it seems clear that an opposing ideology holds the hegemonic status. The presupposition put forth in both Huffington Post, the Daily Star and the Washington Post is a dangerous one. It reinforces the idea that the tradition is racist without letting the reader make up their own mind, or at least, they do not go to any great lengths to do so. If one goes out and proclaims that ‘Black Pete is racist and should be outlawed’, they are contributing to the same sort of polarising discourse that the political right is often accused of when they make similar generalising statements. Discursively, there is no difference between the aforementioned utterance and a statement such as ‘Muslims are bad and should go back home’. Both are, as mentioned, generalising, polarising and unnuanced. They are discourses of conflict that in no way contribute to solving of the issue. In conclusion we are not saying that the tradition is unproblematic in terms of racism. On the contrary, it is a complex issue with a dangerous array of racist overtones. What we are saying, and hope to have proved by now, is that the language used in some of these articles does nothing to promote a healthy and constructive debate on the subject. Quite the opposite, it creates a confrontational environment that only makes the issue harder to solve.

Page 52 of 56

5.2 Political Correctness

The subject of racism is a tricky one and discussing it through a public medium like a blog or newspaper can be difficult and we therefore thought it prudent to discuss how this is shown in the four articles that we have analysed. The articles show different levels of how freely they dare discuss whether the tradition is racist or not. The article from the New York Times is cautious not to make any claims in this regard, only daring to call it ‘controversial’, and even then it is not clear if this is the writer’s or a source’s word. The articles from the Daily Star and Washington Post are somewhat less cautious, going as far as directly calling it racist, while the Huffington post article is the most condemning towards the tradition, having no qualms criticising it. This is interesting considering how one must often ‘thread the needle’ when discussing racism. Given the medium of the Huffington article, that of a blog, the author is given a lot more leeway in discussing the subject from a personal point of view. Additionally, the author of the Huffington Post, Fadahunsi, is black, and identifies herself as such, while the Daily Star author is caucasian and the last two are of indian descent, which could arguably have had an impact. As such, Fadahunsi is part of the minority that is being ridiculed by the tradition, meaning that she is entitled to feel offended or at least that is how she feels. This is something she utilises throughout her text, emphasising her role as a victim and thereby giving credence to her condemning the tradition. The fact that the other authors do not choose to write this way about the tradition may have something to do with the hegemonic discourse of racism that exists in society today. We believe it is fair to say that racism is, in general, thought of as ‘something white people do to black people’ and usually not the other way around. So by not being part of the minority in question, the authors may well feel that they have no right to express whether or not they themselves think it is racist. Hence, they can either write in support of the minority or write an article so saturated by quotes that the author cannot be held accountable for any opinion expressed. This is the case with the New York Times article where the author subtly argues that the tradition is racist by always using quotes when defending the tradition. This is not necessarily surprising, as the New York Times is known to be somewhat noncommittal in discussing such matters because of the fear of ‘opening a can of worms’. This mentality arguably functions as a part of a process of stagnation, because the hegemonic ideology is borrowed from the minority, and any would-be new inputs are

Page 53 of 56 suppressed to the point where they are compatible with said ideology. So it is that we see this process as partly preventing a constructive debate on the subject and, in doing so, reinforcing and sustaining this hegemonic discourse. Additionally, as we have stated, this promotes an ‘us versus them’ mentality instead of striving to create an objective debate. The problem here, that the authors in some sense seem to be aware of, is how they, by taking up this whole discussion, complicate black people’s position in this. Hence, they portray black people in general as being more sensitive in this regard and thereby uphold the discourse of black people as being an outsider-group.

Page 54 of 56

6.0 Bibliography

Books: • Fairclough, N (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis - A Critical Study of Language. 2nd ed. Harlow: PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED

• Jeffries, L (2010). Critical Stylistics. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

Websites: • Bell, J. (2016). Is THIS the weirdest Christmas tradition ever? Festival-goers black up for ‘racist’ parade . Dailystar. Available: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- news/566908/black-pete-zwarte-piet-christmas-parade-festival-goers-black-up- racist-tradition. Last accessed 18th May 2017. • Fadahunsi, F. (2015). ‘Tis the Season to Don Blackface: How My Friends Celebrate Christmas. Huffingtonpost. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/fisayo- fadahunsi/zwarte-piet-black-pete_b_8748148.html. Last accessed 18th May 2017.

• Mediabiasfactcheck. • MBFC1: Unknown. (Unknown). Washington Post. Available: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/. Last accessed 18th May 2017. • MBFC2: Unknown. (Unknown). New York Times. Available: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/. Last accessed 18th May 2017. • MBFC3: Unknown. (Unknown). Daily Star UK. Available: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-star-uk/. Last accessed 18th May 2017. • MBFC4: Unknown. (2016). Daily Source Check: Huffington Post. Available: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/09/23/daily-source-check-huffington- post/. Last accessed 18th May 2017.

• Riddell. K. (2015). Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists. Washingtonpost. Available: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias- claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/. Last accessed 18th May 2017.

• Sengupta, S. (2015). U.N. Urges the Netherlands to Stop Portrayals of ‘Black Pete’ Character. Nytimes. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/world/europe/zwarte-piet-netherlands- united-nations.html?_r=1. Last accessed 18th May 2017.

• Tavares, I . (Unknown). Black Pete: Analyzing a Racialized Dutch Tradition Through the History of Western Creations of Stereotypes of Black Peoples . Humanityinaction. Available: http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/255-black-pete- analyzing-a-racialized-dutch-tradition-through-the-history-of-western-creations-of- stereotypes-of-black-peoples?gclid=CjwKEAiArvTFBRCLq5-7-. Last accessed 17th May 2017.

Page 55 of 56

• Telegraaf: Unknown. (2013). VN wil einde Sinterklaasfeest . Available: http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21993260/__VN_wil_einde_Sinterklaas__.html. Last accessed 18th May 2017.

• Thepaperboy: Unknown. (2011). UK Newspaper Guide . Available: https://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/uk-newspaper-guide.cfm. Last accessed 18th May 2017.

• Tharoor, I. (2016). The Dutch are slowly recognizing that their blackface tradition of Zwarte Piet is racist and weird. Washingtonpost. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/02/the-dutch- are-slowly-recognizing-that-their-blackface-tradition-of-zwarte-piet-is-racist-and- weird/?utm_term=.9a8fe995e4ab. Last accessed 18th May 2017.

Page 56 of 56