Solving the Black Pete problem

George Ought to Help focuses a critical mind on the idea that anything beyond individuals can be considered discriminatory, something I focus on in arguments against a variety of mainstream ideas in society and economics:

Supporters of the Black Pete tradition say that it does no harm. That it should be maintained as part of Dutch cultural heritage. That their personal attitude towards people with dark skin has not been affected by the tradition. That as children they never even read the blackfaces as representing black people. One of the more naive sounding defences is that the black is actually chimney soot.

In support of the pro-Pete public, I think it’s important to point out that the Black Pete tradition isn’t racist. Black Pete, the tradition, can’t be racist. No image or performance can be inherently racist. Racism is a belief that within humanity certain biological groups are inferior to others. Images or rituals don’t hold beliefs, people do. Images or rituals cannot be racist, only people can be.

Given that Dutch settlers created the state of South Africa and benefited from slavery, and then indentured servitude under Apartheid law, it's hard to understand how anyone engaging in the Black Pate tradition could be doing so sans discriminatory actions.The Dutch were responsible for the oppression of indigenous black populations in South Africa, but even with the end of apartheid there was hardly an end to the practice. It was only when the state was partially dismantled and the oppressed segments of society rose up to take hold of the government that the tide turned on those promoting aggression through the state. Legal slavery is no less immoral.

More: Solving the Black Pete problem