Revealing racist words in the superdiverse era

Globalization and its impact on languages can be studied from many angles. This article will focus on the intra-lingual change of the vocabulary of the Dutch language that is brought by inter-cultural contact as a result of globalization. The rise of the social status of many migrant groups and their offspring has increased their impact in the public debate and some of these groups have raised awareness for the racist histories of certain words that are commonly used in the Dutch language. In this article, we will discuss why words matter for the social cohesion within a country. 

The Netherlands is, much due to its colonial history and the prevalent import of cheap migrant workers, characterized by superdiversity - a concept coined by Vertovec (2007). Within this context, “super” means new layers of diversity that tops up the first layer of ethnic diversity within a country. The stable migration flows have come to collapse since the 1990s and the migrant population in the Netherlands has become far more complex and layered. In combination with modern globalization infrastructures like the internet and digital communication technologies, all aspects of social, cultural, political and economic life have been influenced by superdiversity. Nowadays, all the different ethnic groups with different statuses in society play a key role in defining the social structure of the Netherlands. One of the effects of superdiversity on Dutch culture can be found in the changes that have occurred in its language. 

The “negerzoen” - A guilty pastry

The first example is that of the “negerzoen”, a chocolate-coated marshmallow treat. The name of the pastry is a compound word in which “neger” refers to the word “nigger” or “negro” and “zoen” is directly translated to “kiss”. In 2005, the social acceptance for using the word “neger” was already decreasing, when the commitment of a particular group of inhabitants with a migrant background succeeded in accelerating this process. The Foundation of Honor and Recovery Payment of Victims of Slavery in Surinam (FHR), an organization that defends the rights for Dutch people with an African-Surinam descent within the Dutch society, inclined the company that produced the pastry, Van der Breggen, that the name of the “negerzoen” has to be changed. They used the following argument: 

"The by Dutch people invented and applied word “neger” on the African human is regarded as a swear word and considered as insulting in the 14th edition of the Van Dale dictionary of Dutch; many African-Dutch citizens experience the term “negerzoen” as harmful and insulting due to the fact that their ancestors who have been imported from Africa to the Americas to be made a slave and forced into labor are reminded of this highly disgraceful period that lasted for nearly 400 years. This kind of racist and discriminating treatment is not helpful for the cohesion in the multicultural Dutch society in which racism and discrimination are still lawfully forbidden." (FHR Foundation)

Afterwards, the company changed the name to “Buys Zoenen” with a statement mentioning that "we came to the conclusion that we want to be here for everyone. […] The world is changing, and therefore also our product is changing." However, sometime later, it was found that the company changed its name primarily due to commercial motives. To be able to produce more thematic variations of the pastry, like the “World Championship Zoen”, changing the pastry’s name would come in handy. The fact that people feel less insulted was regarded as just a very convenient coincidence. No matter what the exact reason may have been, the name was changed, and the question arose whether the old term “negerzoen” would prevail in the everyday vocabulary or not. Nonetheless, the name change has caused controversy amongst some Dutch people; they were used to the word and ychanging it is regarded as an exaggeration.

Three years before the “Buys Zoenen” incident, the foundation FHR had sent a letter to the editors of the Van Dale Dutch dictionary. They asked for the removal of the word “neger” in the dictionary as they claimed that this word is deliberately invented to distinguish between races and to deny, ignore and offend African people. Thereby they meant that using this word is equal to discriminating people from African descent. According to the foundation, the editors of the dictionary should not wait for the “language reality” to change but to take on responsibility and remove the word from the dictionary themselves. 

If the word “neger” would be erased from the vocabulary, would it be possible to think about the distinction between human races which the word implies?

This issue has been handled by the College of Human Rights. In the trial, the dictionary editors claimed that the dictionary does not 'invent' language but rather only registers the words and meanings in the way they are used by Dutch language speakers. It is how people use language that decides how offensive, appreciative, positive or negative language is experienced and the speaker is the only one responsible for this. Therefore, the college judged that describing words in the dictionary cannot be viewed as a discriminating act. However, after this verdict, the dictionary added: “by some perceived as an insult” to the description.

This sentence was addressed to three years later in the letter the FHR foundation sent to the producer of the Buys Zoenen, as mentioned in the quote before. Here we see an example of a superdiverse group, the FHR foundation, influencing the product of an institutional organization (the national dictionary) by using the information from that same product that they have contributed to themselves (the added sentence) as an argument to constitute further change (by writing to the Buys Zoenen producer) to change the language reality evermore. 

Racist words and cultural aphasia

Why did this name-changing initiative demand so much effort of the people who feel discriminated against? Isn’t it clear that this word is linked to colonial history, and it therefore has strong racist connotations? The public debate around “Zwarte Piet” in the Netherlands will clarify this. Since the beginning of the 2010s, the character of Zwarte Piet has become a subject of controversy. Within the Dutch celebration of Sinterklaas, Zwarte Piet is the companion of Sinterklaas. According to the tradition Sinterklaas visits The Netherlands every year to celebrate his birthday on the 6th of December by giving presents to all the children in the country.

Does it even make sense to try to “clean up” a vocabulary, if the ideological worldview is not erased by that action? In other words, does the elimination of a word contribute to defeating discrimination and racism? 

Travelling over rooftops, he delivers through the chimney with the help of Zwarte Piet. Zwarte Piet has a black skin as he is a Moor from Spain, but it is also claimed that his blackness derives from his travels through so-said chimneys. When white skinned inhabitants of the Netherlands portray the character they paint their face black, wear curly wigs and paint their lips bright red to make them look fuller. The past decade, near every end of the year the Dutch have fiercely been discussing about whether or not Zwarte Piet portrays a racist history. Protesters from both sides, pro- and con Zwarte Piet, have been trying to get their point across. 

At first, it might seem pretty interesting that so many indigenous inhabitants of the Netherlands get so sensitive about a celebration meant for children. However, this debate represents a more significant issue in Dutch society. Protesters who are pro-Zwarte Piet disagree with the accusation that the celebration is an act of racism and that by defending the character they would be discriminating people of colour. More precisely, they even praise people of colour who do not oppose ‘Zwarte Piet’ in its current form. 

The Dutch blind spot for racism

The fact that many indigenous inhabitants of the Netherlands do not consider the tradition of “Zwarte Piet” and pastries like “negerzoen” as discriminative is, according to Helsloot (2012), an example of cultural aphasia. Cultural aphasia is defined as the inability to recognize things in the world and assign proper names to them, in these cases relating to the colonial past of the Netherlands. The colonial past of The Netherlands is a part of history which many Dutch indigenous residents embrace; The Gouden Eeuw (Golden Age) is an era many deem to be proud of, part of the national canon that fills up history books and is widely taught across the school curriculum.

Yet again, the fact that during the same period the Netherlands was responsible for slave trading as well is preferably ignored. This is part of the reason why these vocabulary and tradition changing initiatives have raised much controversy by Dutch people who do not see those words as discriminative but instead see the discussion around it as belittling of Dutch traditions.

The mentioned topics might seem a bit outdated. However, these kinds of discussions keep occurring. The most recent example from February 2020 is that of the “moorkop” which is also a chocolate-covered pastry and the name refers to African Muslims who lived in Spain during the Middle Ages. Later on, “Moor” was commonly used for people from North-Africa and people with a dark skin in general. Similar to the “negerzoen” story, producers and sellers are starting to change the name because "it does not fit our time". Similar to the “Zwarte Piet” story, people have been complaining a lot.

Bakkerij Riseeuw

Another recent example for the steps taken is the publication of the guide Words matter. An incomplete guide for word choices in the cultural sector which was published by the Tropen Museum in Amsterdam. This guide shows words that are commonly used in museums and exhibitions of which the connotation has become increasingly discriminating throughout history. The guide explains the reason for this negative connotation, gives alternatives for those words and includes essays about the topic.

One of the authors, Wayne Modest, argues that there are many different points of views to evaluate this topic. You could say that this formal change of language is just a political act that does not solve the real problem or that it is just a way of rewriting the bad part of Dutch history. Another author, Esther Peeren, discusses what the effect could be of changing those words because it is a never-ending conduct. She names Bakhtin, who wrote that words are never a neutral description but always entail an ideological stance that is based on the historical use of a certain word. Does it even make sense to try to “clean up” a vocabulary, if the ideological worldview is not erased by that action? In other words, does the elimination of a word contribute to defeating discrimination and racism? 

Words Matter

This idea resembles the concept of the “Newspeak” language in Orwell’s novel 1984. This concept is based on increasingly limiting the vocabulary of the official language by continually re-writing the dictionary to erase the accompanying concept with it. It is initiated by the nation state of the country with the aim to limit the citizens’ freedom of thought. Because, if there wouldn’t be a word for “freedom”, would it be even possible to think about it? And therefore, would “freedom” even exist?

The abovementioned examples rely on the same principle. If the word “neger” would be erased from the vocabulary, would it be possible to think about the distinction between human races which the word implies? And further, if there would be no words to distinguish between human races, would racism even exist?

The difference between the imagined world of 1984 and the reality of The Netherlands in 2020 is that the dictionary does not make up the guidelines for the way Dutch people should speak. So to eliminate racist words with their accompanying ideological world view, individual speakers should take the responsibility not to use words with a racist connotation. The organizations mentioned in this article have shown that they take this seriously because they have chosen to limit their vocabulary in order not to insult others.

This seems to be an effective conduct. Because to improve the social cohesion within a country a valuable thing to do would be to listen to the people who feel discriminated against and accept their proposals for improvement. In these cases, that entails eliminating certain words from the vocabulary which have been brought to life as a product of racist and discriminating discourse.

Thereby taking into account that the connotation of a word and the way it is used is not fixed in time: it is subject to change due to social, political, cultural and globalization-related developments. Therefore, the words that are in the midst of discussion nowadays might be completely forgotten about in twenty years; by then, there will be a whole new range of contested words to argue about. Nevertheless, raising awareness for such words shows word-users their everyday casual racism which is blinded by their cultural aphasia. The effort that is put into this issue by inhabitants who may or may not belong to settled communities that have their history rooted in the Dutch colonial past, companies and institutions shows that words matter and that the used vocabulary of the normative language contributes to the social cohesion within a country.

References

Helsloot, John. “Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands.” Quotidian: Journal for the Study of Everyday Life. Vol. 3, 2012, pp. 1-20.

Modest, Wayne. “Het belang van woorden.” Woorden doen ertoe. Een Incomplete Gids voor woordkeuze binnen de culturele sector. Tropen Museum Amsterdam. 

Peeren, Esther. “Taal valt niet ‘op te ruimen.” Woorden doen ertoe. Een Incomplete Gids voor woordkeuze binnen de culturele sector. Tropen Museum Amsterdam. 

Vertovec , Steven. “Super-diversity and its implications”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 30, no. 6, 2007, pp. 1024-1054. DOI:  10.1080/01419870701599465

Orwell, George. 1984. Secker and Warburg, 1949.