Shantrelle P. Lewis, New York-based curator and scholar, has been all over the globe – Haiti, Brasil, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Cuba, Jamaica, Sweden, Paris, and elsewhere black folks can be found – researching, documenting and presenting the African Diaspora through exhibits like, Dandy Lion: Articulating a Re(de)fined Black Masculine Identity and Life After Death: A Multi-Media Analysis of the Persona That Was/Is Fela Anikulapo Kuti.

Her new project, Black Pete, Zwarte Piet: The Documentary will send Lewis back to the Netherlands in an effort to explore the tenuous relationship between a Dutch holiday fable and the local black community. Taking time out from fundraising, Lewis talked with MadameNoire about the film; the passion behind the project; and the fascinating story about how a former pre-med student and high school teacher found her true calling as a keeper of the culture:

First tell us about Black Pete, Zwarte Piet: The Documentary? More specifically, for those not aware, who is Zwarte Piet?

“Black Pete, Zwarte Piet: The Documentary” is a film about the Dutch celebration of Sinterklaas and his helper – Zwarte Piet (Black Pete). St. Nicholas as a figure, is harmless and famous around the world right? Well the narrative attached to the celebrations of Sinterklaas in the Netherlands includes another element that is virtually unknown outside of the Netherlands. During holiday celebrations there, white people dress up in blackface in their roles as the Zwarte Piet character. This tradition has been practiced and widely celebrated throughout the country for many years. However, when larger numbers of Black people started to migrate to the Netherlands from Suriname and former Dutch colonies in the mid/late-20^th century, of course, some people were not happy about this tradition.

Over the years, various individuals and groups have resisted the celebration while many others have assimilated into mainstream culture and adopted the celebration themselves. It has been within more recent years that more visible protests have been formed against the practice and people have increasingly in larger numbers began speaking out and publicly protesting the blackface character, who supposedly received his dark color from falling down a chimney. But if that is indeed the case, why is that he has “nappy” or “curly” hair (e.g. afro wig), exaggerated red lips and gold hoop earrings that are synonymous with the same types of earrings worn historically by people of African descent? Also, why is his entire face black? And why aren’t his clothes covered with “soot” as well?

This documentary seeks to explore several subjects – the history of Zwarte Piet’s blackface, activists and Dutch citizens who believe that the performance and imagery associated with Zwarte Piet are racist, and individuals in the Netherlands who feel that the tradition is harmless and shouldn’t be changed. Additionally, we seek to locate Zwarte Piet in a larger context of the race, racism and (mis)representation of Black people in the Netherlands.

What compelled you to want to explore such a racially-charged and culturally sensitive topic through film?

As a curator, I’ve always been attracted to the medium of film. While I use the exhibitions that I curate to explore subject matter that isn’t necessarily for the faint of heart, I’ve never been too afraid to approach sensitive subject matter. For example, my exhibition Sex Crimes Against Black Girls, was probably the most emotional and professionally challenging experience I’ve had thus far in my career. So when it came to the subject of Zwarte Piet, I wasn’t necessarily interested in curating an exhibition – there have been several exhibitions about the subject already. My primary goal for attempting to tackle the subject of Zwarte Piet through film comes from a desire to educate masses of people, not just in the U.S., but internationally, about what some may deem as an international issue of concern. 

Unlike the accessibility of other languages like Spanish, French and English, Dutch is a localized language, one that isn’t spoken by many people outside of its borders and its former colonies. Thus, much about Dutch history and contemporary politics are virtually unknown by the rest of the world. My goal as a researcher is to explore a topic of interest and concern to me since I’m currently heavily involved in research about the Dutch Caribbean, but through a medium that provides greater access and awareness. It also concerns me because it affects my colleagues and friends – people that I’ve grown close to during my experiences in NL. I could have curated an exhibition but honestly, how many people would have had the opportunity to engage the subject matter? The work that I do as a curator and researcher, the manner in which I present the topics that I’m de-constructing and exploring, is about accessibility. I felt that Zwarte Piet is a topic that has already experienced enough isolation and I want to test my ability as an educator to assist in placing it on a larger platform for critical discourse.

Source: singleblackmale.org

The battle of the sexes has been waged on many fronts but there’s still one frontier that is still in debate: Who should pay on the first date? Depending on who picks up the check at the end of the evening, it’s either going to be emasculating or empowering. At the risk of subscribing to sexist ideals, the man should flex into his wallet and write out that check (or pull out that card). Women are strong enough to bear children and do a wealth of other admirable things, but that strength is often intimidating and it’s not such a bad thing to hang back on the first date and save the Girl Power for another battle.

In this new age of dating, some men are asking women to cover them at the end of the evening or she’s already reaching into her purse without prompting. It’s not necessarily that chivalry is dead, but so many are determined to hold up the banner of equal footing since there’s been so much ado about sneakers and heels being on par; whatever he can do, she can too.  It has almost become a competition and not only have the battle lines been drawn, but they’ve blurred. Some men expect a woman to come out of pocket in some way even if he initiated the first date. In fairness, some women make it clear that they are not beholden to how it used to be and will call the waiter over first to help sort out who ordered what and how much her share of the bill is.

Alas, there’s something to be said about tradition. Whoever asked for the first date should pay for the meal and that’s usually the man. A woman can offer to leave the tip, but she shouldn’t be flattening the crumpled bills in her purse to prove any point. She is not on a date with the rest of society, but an interested man who needs to show his intentions.

More and more women are independent and fully capable of paying their own way, but that mantra doesn’t mean a loss of femininity. Women still want to be courted and not treated like one of the guys who’s pooling their money at the end of a long night out on the town. A guy just might be so impressed that his date wants to throw her coins on the table at evening’s end that he’ll get too comfortable. He just might think his lady’s got it like that and can pay for everything going forward. He just might think she can pay for the concert he wants to go to next month. A guy just might get so comfortable with his woman’s finances that he lets her pay for everything.  It’s a slippery slope that doesn’t even need to get that far.

Just because a woman can pay doesn’t mean she should. A woman can open her own door, but a gallant suitor will show her that he’s got her. It’s the little things that help deepen a connection. As much as the gender gap has closed, there are just some conventions which shouldn’t be done away with. Men can still be gentlemen and women can still let themselves be ladies. It has not gone out of style.

Stephanie Guerilus is a journalist and author. Follow her on Twitter at @qsteph.

Explaining racism to people who’ve never had to deal with it must be like explaining the birthing process to a man. They’ll just never get it.

Eva Hoeke’s resignation from Jackie magazine following the Rihannagate situation earlier this week appeared to be an admission of wrongdoing on their part—but just to make sure no one would think such a ridiculous thing, the magazine’s publisher, Yves Gijrath,  has issued a statement of his own, saying quite the opposite. According to an interpretation, he said:

[T]here is nothing wrong in the magazine. [Hoeke] presented it as a joke, but it most certainly was not a joke. It was an interpretation [of a fashion style]. [...] She should have said: “we did not realize this interpretation is such a touchy subject. We never meant any harm and offer our sincere and upright apologies.” But because of all the fuss, Eva started to wiggle in all directions, and therefore we have come to the conclusion her credibility has been undermined.”

And while that seems like a step in the right apologetic direction, Gijrath followed the statement up by emphasizing that although the magazine had invited Rihanna to respond, it would not be printing a retraction.”We will not be silenced. People are totally off limits when calling both the magazine Jackie and Eva Hoeke racist. Jackie is even produced by an editorial staff that is of mixed origins.”

Is that sort of like saying, “I have black friends?” Would people be off limits if they called Jackie, Eva Hoeke, and Yves Gijrath ignorant?

I need for Gijrath to recognize that with his words he basically undid the sorry apology that Hoeke issued in the first place by saying it wasn’t her editorial judgment that got her fired, it was her refusal to stand by the magazine’s decision to publish racist and sexist terms. Perhaps he isn’t so concerned with how he’s skewed the image of black women in America by printing this article; and it’s evident he doesn’t care whether or not we feel disrespected by those words, but how have we come to the point that we’re not even deserving of an adequate apology?

In so many instances we hear apologies that we know were forced and don’t hold much weight, but the fact that the publisher doesn’t see fit to issue his own speaks to how unimportant he sees this issue. It’s not enough to say Hoeke should have offered her utmost sincere apologies, where are his?

Anyone with a tenth of a brain knows the history of the N-word, and even if you chose to ignore that for your own racist enjoyment, is it cool to refer to a woman as a B in a female magazine? I guess as long as she’s black, right?

Jackie continues to dig itself into an even deeper hole with this situation and unfortunately there is little we can do here in America as consumers. Hopefully those who receive the Dutch magazine and who initially expressed outrage at its poor word choice will vote with their feet and cancel their subscriptions, and maybe even advertisers will take a second look at how the magazine upheld its “integrity” among this scandal. This entire situation serves as a reminder of how far we still need to go—-not that we really needed one.

What do you think about the publisher’s words?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Oh Na Na, What’s My Name? Celebs Whose Real Names Baffle Us
• Why Do People Think Tyler Perry is Gay?
• Robin Thicke Says Black Women Aren’t Better Off with White Men
• 10 Things You Don’t Know About Beyonce
• Ratchet Relatives That Can Make the Holidays a Hot Mess
• When Emo Rappers Collide

Well that didn’t take long. Eva Hoeke, editor-in-chief of Jackie, the controversial magazine that’s having a PR nightmare over the racist terms used in an article to describe Rihanna, has resigned. According to Necole Bitchie, the editor and the publisher felt her credibility were compromised by the incident, and in a statement on the publication’s Facebook page, she announced she is laying down her editorial responsibilities. Here’s what the statement says:

I realize that my first reaction on Twitter, where I indicated that it was a joke, was an incomplete description of what I, and also the author of the article referred. The term ‘n—a b—h’ h” has come over from America and we have only this to describe this particular style of clothes that we can try to interpret. Due to the enormous pressure from social media, I promised to do better regarding the language in future issues of Jackie and I have offered to rectify the situation.

I have now come to the conclusion that rectification is not the right solution. I regret that I have taken too quickly positions on an item in Jackie – which incidentally had no underlying racial motive. In the course of events I went with, the publisher came to the conclusion that, now that my credibility is affected, it’s better for all parties if I immediately lay down my duties as editor. After my eight years giving my heart and soul for Jackie, I realize that these errors – although not malicious intent – are a reason for leaving. “

What do you think about the editor resigning? Is it the right thing to do?

In a twitter lashing that only Rihanna is fit to dish out, the pop star nicely laid into Jackie editor-in-chief Eva Hoeke for dismissing the n****b**** term used to describe her as a “stupid joke.” Here’s what she tweeted:

@evajackie I hope u can read english, because your magazine is a poor representation of the evolution of human rights! I find you disrespectful, and rather desperate!! You ran out of legit, civilized information to print! There are 1000′s of Dutch girls who would love to be recognized for their contributions to your country, you could have given them an article. Instead, u paid to print one degrading an entire race! That’s your contribution to this world! To encourage segregation, to mislead the future leaders to act in the past! You put two words together,with the intent of abasement, that made no sense…”N**** B****”?!….

Well with all respect, on behalf of my race, here are my two words for you…F*** YOU!!!

Rihanna is known to check someone quickly on twitter so we all should have seen this one coming. What do you think of her response?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• 7 Negative Thoughts To Stay Away From When Single
• Veiled Vows: Couples Who Married On The Low…
• Captain Save Em’: Celebrity Men Who…Well You Know
• They Love Their Mamas: A Gallery of Rappers and Their Mommies
• The Problem with the Word Homewrecker
• The Real, Real Basketball Wives of The NBA

The words Dutch magazine Jackie used to describe Rihanna in their latest issue make the pop star’s racist altercation in Portugal this weekend almost seem harmless.

In a very crass description of the singer’s image, the author of the article writes:

She has street cred, she has a ghetto a** and she has a golden throat. Rihanna, the good girl gone bad, is the ultimate n****b**** and displays that gladly, and for her that means: what’s on can come off. If that means she’ll be on stage half naked, then so be it. But Dutch winters aren’t like Jamaican ones, so pick a clothing style in which your daughter can resist minus ten. No to the big sunglasses and the pornheels, and yes to the tiger print, pink shizzle and everything that glitters. Now let’s hope she won’t beat anybody up at daycare.

Thankfully, readers were not shy about their disapproval of the article’s racial slur, and their reactions prompted the magazine’s editor-in-chief to issue an apology, writing on Facebook:

Dear readers,

First: thanks for all your responses. We are of course very fed up over this and especially very shocked. However I’m glad that we’re engaging in a dialogue on this page — not everybody does that. Thanks for this. Other than that I can be brief about this: this should have never happened.Period. While the author meant no harm — the title of the article was intended as a joke — it was a bad joke, to say the least. And that slipped through my, the editor-in-chief’s, fingers. Stupid, painful and sucks for all concerned. The author has been addressed on it, and now I can only ensure that these terms will no longer end up in the magazine. Furthermore I hope that you all believe there was absolutely no racist motive behind the choice of words. It was stupid, it was naive to think that this was an acceptable form of slang — you hear it all the time on tv and radio, then your idea of what is normal apparently shifts — but it was especially misguided: there was no malice behind it. We make our magazine with love, energy and enthusiasm, and it can sometimes happen that someone is out of line. And then you can only do one thing: apologize. And hope that others wish to accept it.

From the bottom of my heart I say it again: we never intended to offend anyone. And I mean that.

Regards,

Eva Hoeke

What a convenient slip. Regardless of what you think about Rihanna and her wild-child image, this article is beyond her. It speaks volumes to people’s attitudes about black women and their obliviousness to the inappropriateness of offensive language directed at us. The slang most likely slipped through the editor-in-chief’s fingers because it’s a term she has no problem applying to black women herself.

The article also exemplifies the reason black women police one another’s women’s images so much. Rihanna is not at fault for the racial slurs directed at her, but it’s a reminder of how black women are not allowed to be overly sexual or have a “bad girl” image without being racially and sexually targeted.

What do you think about the magazine publishing these words and backtracking? Do you think the editor-in-chief’s apology is sincere? Do you think this term is specific to Rihanna or perceptions of black women in general?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Game Over: The Scoreboard Of How Kobe Fouls Out With Wife
• Veiled Vows: Couples Who Married On The Low…
• Captain Save Em’: Celebrity Men Who…Well You Know
• They Love Their Mamas: A Gallery of Rappers and Their Mommies
• 7 Leave-In Conditioners for Soft and Supple Hair
• This Ain’t VH1′s Version: The Real Real Football Wives of The NFL

As if deciding who should pay for a first date wasn’t difficult enough, a new factor has entered the mix: coupons. Apparently nearly 1 in 5 adults are using a coupon on a first date and supposedly 1 in 4 adults are OK with it. Yeah, I’m not sure what to do with that either.

I know we’re in a recession and on the verge of a depression. Trust me, I know. However, I also know the power of a first impression and this doesn’t make a good one. Would you show up in a cheap suit for a job interview? The two are essentially the same.

I’m really trying to picture what this whole scene looks like:

When the menus come, does the guy start off with, “I have this two for $25 coupon here so we can choose from any of these three items on the menu, boo.”

Or when the waiter comes to take the guy’s order does he start off with, “Hey man I just want to let you know I have this coupon here for $15 off a meal of $50 or more so can you make sure to take that off at the end?”

Or when the check comes, does dude just reach in his wallet and put the coupon discretely in the bill jacket along with the cash for the remainder? What if you’re going dutch? Now he has to fess up to using a coupon. And does his coupon only apply to his portion or both? See, now it’s getting too complicated.