Btw. Ancient Greeks were really best at pure logic and instituted that as scientific thing. I doubt anyone came even close to them in logical thinking later in history, or even today.
The Hobbit wrote: I don't see how the penguin not being there causes god to not exist, otherwise, brilliant.
But he does exist. I believe in him and that is the proof, dont even dare to dishonor my beliefs.
Well D'uh he exists.
But the thingy claims that in the rare ( and impossible) event that he doesn't it still proves god doesn't exist which is wrong, I mean for me of course Eric exists, but for others, they may need more proof.
The Hobbit wrote: I don't see how the penguin not being there causes god to not exist, otherwise, brilliant.
But he does exist. I believe in him and that is the proof, dont even dare to dishonor my beliefs.
Well D'uh he exists.
But the thingy claims that in the rare ( and impossible) event that he doesn't it still proves god doesn't exist which is wrong, I mean for me of course Eric exists, but for others, they may need more proof.
Ahh, fellow Eric-the-Penguin worshiper, welcome. We will show the world our truth. We dont need proofs, who need them, when we believe? It is on others to disprove our beliefs...
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 30-10-2013 10:49
God being the most powerful being (and immortal) comes from the bible (and i am assuming we are talking about Christian/Jewish/Muslim God). It's not some random claim made about God by some nutter. It's a fundamental basic part of the nature of God.
Hence the penguin is mis-named. God cannot be eaten, therefore a God-eating penguin is mis-named, because it doesn't eat God.
Unless the penguin itself is God (because it is more powerful than "God"). I've made this very clear before.
The nature of God means that it is the most powerful thing. If God is eaten by Eric, then clearly Eric is more powerful, and hence is god himself. If Eric is eaten, then Eric was not god, but this new thing (lets call it Steve) is god (provided Steve is the most powerful thing).
Equally you have failed to prove that a God does not exist, just that in fact god is a Penguin called Eric.
Ok to help me understand the original post, please prove that Eric does not exist. Hence providing the proof that God does not exist at the same time, using the same argument.
But if Eric eats God, then that God was not God, and Eric is god. (to make this a bit clearer i'm calling God Dave)
If Eric eats Dave, then Dave was not God. Eric is now assumed to be God. If Steve eats Eric, then Eric is not God. Steve is now assumed to be God.
The theory is that there is always something more powerful, and that thing can be unknown at the time.
Edited by TheManxMissile on 30-10-2013 10:54
TheManxMissile wrote:
God being the most powerful being (and immortal) comes from the bible (and i am assuming we are talking about Christian/Jewish/Muslim God). It's not some random claim made about God by some nutter. It's a fundamental basic part of the nature of God.
Hence the penguin is mis-named. God cannot be eaten, therefore a God-eating penguin is mis-named, because it doesn't eat God.
Unless the penguin itself is God (because it is more powerful than "God". I've made this very clear before.
The nature of God means that it is the most powerful thing. If God is eaten by Eric, then clearly Eric is more powerful, and hence is god himself. If Eric is eaten, then Eric was not god, but this new thing (lets call it Steve) is god (provided Steve is the most powerful thing).
Equally you have failed to prove that a God does not exist, just that in fact god is a Penguin called Eric.
Ok to help me understand the original post, please prove that Eric does not exist. Hence providing the proof that God does not exist at the same time, using the same argument.
But if Eric eats God, then that God was not God, and Eric is god. (to make this a bit clearer i'm calling God Dave)
If Eric eats Dave, then Dave was not God. Eric is now assumed to be God. If Steve eats Eric, then Eric is not God. Steve is now assumed to be God.
The theory is that there is always something more powerful, and that thing can be unknown at the time.
And because it is written in Bible, it has to be more truth than something i claim now , just from top of my head? You have a problem with undestanding what i am saying because you talk again and again about some "nature of the God" and how his (or her?) power is. How do you know about nature or power of something that nobody ever seen. Because it is written in book? Pfff, there are so many books. if i had to believe every one of them, i would be pretty confused by now.
And you want me to disprove the existence of Erik (or Dave how you call him, despite it dishonors his holy name)? I cant do that, because i believe Erik exists and he has eaten the God.
TheManxMissile wrote:
God being the most powerful being (and immortal) comes from the bible (and i am assuming we are talking about Christian/Jewish/Muslim God). It's not some random claim made about God by some nutter.
No no no no no.
God cannot be the penguin because the penguin devours god. Therefore all worshipers of the penguin must be polytheistical, because they worship the penguin and at least one god. You say the penguin would starve but there are hundreds of gods, as he can eat:
God
Yahweh
Waheguru
Allah
All the hindu gods
Classical gods (already been eaten, clearly)
Every other god ever.
You do not have to be a deity to overpower and kill a god. This is proven by the fact that many gods have died in religion, or have always been dead. I won't quote Jesus coz he wasn't really god I don't think, Christians feel free to correct me.
Why would Eric become god if he ate Dave. It would not prove anything. You say god is all powerful, meaning there is no escaping his justice etc etc. death is also omnipotent. It overpowers everything and is supposedly unescapable. However if someone found an elixir of eternal life, death would not be omnipotent, but he would still be death, as people could still die, sorry to be so morbid but I can't think of anything else.
If someone was to escape the formerly omnipotent death, they themselves would not become death. Except in the Simpsons.....
This shows that there most ceratinly a god eating penguin which drinks out of Russell's Teapot and enjoys munching on deities for afternoon tea.
Finally. You say Eric would starve once he'd eaten every god, however there is no proof. He may also be a planet munching penguin or a cabbage munching penguin. I am a pie eating human but I don't solely eat pie, (although that would be nice).
TheManxMissile wrote:
God being the most powerful being (and immortal) comes from the bible (and i am assuming we are talking about Christian/Jewish/Muslim God). It's not some random claim made about God by some nutter.
I LOLed hard on this.
Same, it's kinda funny, are u religious Manx, coz if not surely u must have realised this.
Amazing sensitivity and understanding there Avin. If i was Christian i would be seriously offended, and if i was Muslim even more so! Luckily i'm not and just like a good debate, especially when the original argument is lacking.
"The nature of God" is key to this. Most of this revolves around how you define a God. And as i make clear i am using a Christian/Jewish/Muslim set of rules, in which God is the most powerful thing in the universe and is also immortal. I accept that there are other definitions of God and "the nature of God." If you want to use a different idea of god, like a Hindu/Greek/Roman/Pagan polytheistic idea i'll argue that as well.
Ok you won't disprove Eric, fair enough. But at least Christians/Jews/Muslims are willing to try and prove the existence of God. Aquinas Five Ways, Argument from Meaning, Argument from Ethics, Anthropic Argument, Qualia based, Teleological, Intelligent Design, Transcendental, Argument from Degree and even experiences. Finally, the one i'm using, the Ontological Argument.
I concede that it needs a basis of belief to work, but then so does Eric.
Also Eric can't have eaten God for the reason that God is the most powerful thing. Unless we are now using two different ideas about the Nature of God. And if you are, please share that idea to further the understanding of the belief behind Eric.
And finally, Light. You can't see light, no-one has ever seen light, but we accept that it exists. So even though we cannot see God, he can exist.
Or Madagascar. I have never seen Madagascar but because of other peoples experiences, and what has been written in books, i believe it exists. I have no proof, only others experiences and books.
Well we do have proof that Madagascar and light exist, but no one has been to heaven and come back and said god exists guys.
Also laughing at that is not that insensitive, and probably less so than u calling whoever invented Erik a nutter. We were merely pointing out that fact that a great deal of people call religious people nutters, and that is indeed how they were regarded at the time, only for the religion to grow afterwards, because of worries spread by the few people who believed.
And yu think Muslims would be more offended by us laughing at u saying that their religion was founded by superior beings and holy texts which are more likely to be right than anything anyone else says. So does the nutter who came up with evolution count for less than those who say all animals were created.
The Hobbit wrote:
No no no no no.
God cannot be the penguin because the penguin devours god. Therefore all worshipers of the penguin must be polytheistical, because they worship the penguin and at least one god. You say the penguin would starve but there are hundreds of gods, as he can eat:
God
Yahweh
Waheguru
Allah
All the hindu gods
Classical gods (already been eaten, clearly)
Every other god ever.
God and Yahweh (and Allah to an extent) are the same. They also can only exist singularly because they stem from Monotheism bases.
And i just posted, it depends on your idea of The Nature of God. I am arguing from a Christian basis, and i accept that there are other ideas. But so far Avin has only made vague reference to a Nature, and i did just ask for a clarification.
You do not have to be a deity to overpower and kill a god. This is proven by the fact that many gods have died in religion, or have always been dead. I won't quote Jesus coz he wasn't really god I don't think, Christians feel free to correct me.
Jesus was not God, he was the Son of God.
And again, depends on the basis we are arguing from. I am using a Christian/Jewish/Muslim basis so for my arguments there is only one god, and the rest are fake and hence have no influence on my arguments.
If we go with a Hindu/Roman/Greek etc. set of rules then Eric can be a god-eating penguin. Until he eats all the other gods and dies of starvation, at which point he is no longer a god... Yes your god will die.
Why would Eric become god if he ate Dave. It would not prove anything. You say god is all powerful, meaning there is no escaping his justice etc etc. death is also omnipotent. It overpowers everything and is supposedly unescapable. However if someone found an elixir of eternal life, death would not be omnipotent, but he would still be death, as people could still die, sorry to be so morbid but I can't think of anything else.
God is immortal, meaning he cannot die. So if Eric eats Dave, Dave dies. Therefore Dave was not God because he was not immortal. Eric then must be God, as he is the most powerful being.
That last part is put forward in the original argument, i believe (or i'm misreading it). If not, Eric does not have to be god, but God can still exist, he just wasn't Dave. He is Steve.
And yes in mortal beings Death is overpowering, but it is not omnipotent. Death cannot make me cook a meal, death can only end my life. God can make me cook. Death cannot make a planet, God can make a planet.
If someone was to escape the formerly omnipotent death, they themselves would not become death. Except in the Simpsons.....
This shows that there most ceratinly a god eating penguin which drinks out of Russell's Teapot and enjoys munching on deities for afternoon tea.
Finally. You say Eric would starve once he'd eaten every god, however there is no proof. He may also be a planet munching penguin or a cabbage munching penguin. I am a pie eating human but I don't solely eat pie, (although that would be nice).
Killing God does not make you God. It comes back to the Nature of God. God is the most powerful thing. In this example Eric is the most powerful thing, we just did not know this until he ate Dave. Eric was always God, but we did not know. That's what i mean when i say "becomes God".
I can only go off the information available, which is that Eric is god eating. I therefore assume he only eats God. Without god therefore he will starve. I accept that he could eat other things, but again (hey guess whats coming next) its the Nature of God! God does not need to eat as he is immortal. If Eric needs to eat he is not immortal, and hence not God.
The Hobbit wrote:
Well we do have proof that Madagascar and light exist, but no one has been to heaven and come back and said god exists guys.[quote]
I only know of Madagascar because it was in a book (like God) and because some people said they saw it (like God). Madagascar exists as much as God exists to me.
People lie, books are written by nutters. Madagascar could not exist, i have no idea.
To go to Heaven you have to die. You can't un-die, so obviously no-one has come back...
[quote]Also laughing at that is not that insensitive, and probably less so than u calling whoever invented Erik a nutter. We were merely pointing out that fact that a great deal of people call religious people nutters, and that is indeed how they were regarded at the time, only for the religion to grow afterwards, because of worries spread by the few people who believed.
It is insensitive. Avin said that the people who wrote the bible were mental. This means that the Bible is a lie, a creation, not true. If i were Christian/Jewish/Muslim i would be offended because i would believe that the Bible was true and written by normal people.
Also at no point did i call Avin a nutter for inventing Eric!
And just because lots of people do it, does not make it right. Lots of people murder, but it's not right. Lots of people steal, but it's not right. etc. etc.
And yu think Muslims would be more offended by us laughing at u saying that their religion was founded by superior beings and holy texts which are more likely to be right than anything anyone else says. So does the nutter who came up with evolution count for less than those who say all animals were created.
I was saying Muslims would be more offended because there a primary part of their religion is Mohammed, the messanger of God how wrote the first scriptures.
Avin called those who wrote the texts nutters, which means Mohammed. And Mohammed is one of the central figures of Islam, hence why they would be more offended.
I also never said that religion is created by superior beings, just that the texts were created by mentally sane people.
Darwin was very sane. Equally the people who wrote the bible, and Mohammed could have been very sane. If Darwin was insane then yes it would count less, and that is what Avin was saying about the Bible. That it counts less because it was written by nutters.
The Hobbit wrote:
No no no no no.
God cannot be the penguin because the penguin devours god. Therefore all worshipers of the penguin must be polytheistical, because they worship the penguin and at least one god. You say the penguin would starve but there are hundreds of gods, as he can eat:
God
Yahweh
Waheguru
Allah
All the hindu gods
Classical gods (already been eaten, clearly)
Every other god ever.
God and Yahweh (and Allah to an extent) are the same. They also can only exist singularly because they stem from Monotheism bases.
And i just posted, it depends on your idea of The Nature of God. I am arguing from a Christian basis, and i accept that there are other ideas. But so far Avin has only made vague reference to a Nature, and i did just ask for a clarification.
You do not have to be a deity to overpower and kill a god. This is proven by the fact that many gods have died in religion, or have always been dead. I won't quote Jesus coz he wasn't really god I don't think, Christians feel free to correct me.
Jesus was not God, he was the Son of God.
And again, depends on the basis we are arguing from. I am using a Christian/Jewish/Muslim basis so for my arguments there is only one god, and the rest are fake and hence have no influence on my arguments.
If we go with a Hindu/Roman/Greek etc. set of rules then Eric can be a god-eating penguin. Until he eats all the other gods and dies of starvation, at which point he is no longer a god... Yes your god will die.
Why would Eric become god if he ate Dave. It would not prove anything. You say god is all powerful, meaning there is no escaping his justice etc etc. death is also omnipotent. It overpowers everything and is supposedly unescapable. However if someone found an elixir of eternal life, death would not be omnipotent, but he would still be death, as people could still die, sorry to be so morbid but I can't think of anything else.
God is immortal, meaning he cannot die. So if Eric eats Dave, Dave dies. Therefore Dave was not God because he was not immortal. Eric then must be God, as he is the most powerful being.
That last part is put forward in the original argument, i believe (or i'm misreading it). If not, Eric does not have to be god, but God can still exist, he just wasn't Dave. He is Steve.
And yes in mortal beings Death is overpowering, but it is not omnipotent. Death cannot make me cook a meal, death can only end my life. God can make me cook. Death cannot make a planet, God can make a planet.
If someone was to escape the formerly omnipotent death, they themselves would not become death. Except in the Simpsons.....
This shows that there most ceratinly a god eating penguin which drinks out of Russell's Teapot and enjoys munching on deities for afternoon tea.
Finally. You say Eric would starve once he'd eaten every god, however there is no proof. He may also be a planet munching penguin or a cabbage munching penguin. I am a pie eating human but I don't solely eat pie, (although that would be nice).
Killing God does not make you God. It comes back to the Nature of God. God is the most powerful thing. In this example Eric is the most powerful thing, we just did not know this until he ate Dave. Eric was always God, but we did not know. That's what i mean when i say "becomes God".
I can only go off the information available, which is that Eric is god eating. I therefore assume he only eats God. Without god therefore he will starve. I accept that he could eat other things, but again (hey guess whats coming next) its the Nature of God! God does not need to eat as he is immortal. If Eric needs to eat he is not immortal, and hence not God.
There, nice and tidy.
You are saying that this is from a monotheistic all system, but I have already explained Erikism is not monotheistical, therefore he does not need to eat one god, he can eat gods, and create gods if he so wishes, making him autotrophic, but not omnipotent necessarily.
I know Jesus wasn't god, that's why I said, I won't quote Jesus.......
Dunno what stance you're coming from but I get the idea either you or I have BADLY misinterpreted world religions. God is the most powerful being they know of, but if a more powerful being comes along then they do not become god, for example, if the devil became more powerful than god, he would not become god, he'd just be a horrendously OP devil.
Also, in this particular circumstance Erik will not necessarily be more powerful than god. He may have the ability to eat gods, but that. May be his only ability, thus making him not omnipotent. Also Erik may also not be immortal, but there may be a hereditary line of Erik's, looking to become a god eater themselves one day.
You also say that the most powerful thing is god. This doesn't make sense from many religion's perspective, as well as atheism, or else they'd all worship black holes etc etc. u will say that u r approaching from Fort Christianity so it doesn't matter if what u say disproves every other world religion, but in that case Erik could be God's pet which munches every other religion.
U say that Erik doesn't fit with Christianity, well obviously, but Christianity doesn't fit with Erikism, or Islam, or Jusaism, or Atheism, or Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism. So which one is right, Erikism makes a rough fit with all of them, not perfect with any, but it sort of makes sense.
On a quirkier note, maybe Death can do all these thugs but he just CBA......
You say that you can only go off the information you have available, but if you did the same with Christianity, then you'd be left with a rather piece meal depiction, you'd get the gist, as with Erik, but it doesn't say anywhere that God dislikes Cabbage, so I could form a branch of Christianity where his favourite food is cabbage, and it'd still adhere to the bible.
TheManxMissile wrote:
God being the most powerful being (and immortal) comes from the bible (and i am assuming we are talking about Christian/Jewish/Muslim God). It's not some random claim made about God by some nutter. It's a fundamental basic part of the nature of god
Hmm, this is difficult to interpret correctly. So you are saying that those who came up with the bible are sane, but those who now try and come up with a religion aren't?
Or are you saying Erik is the random claim made about god by some nutter, as is initially read.
If not then sorry I have misinterpreted you and am deeply sorry for any offence I have caused, I didn't mean to make fun of any world religion, as in my earlier post I thought that was true, but now I see it isn't.
We are rapidly moving away from the original argument, which is tricky. I am not religious so basically agree with your points. However those points are not always valid in relation to the original argument.
The original argument implies a singular, monotheistic style God. This is taken from the capital g, G, on the start of god, indicating a proper noun, rather than an idea. As well as the constant use of the singular in God, never a plural gods. So these relations of polytheism are confusing the issue.
Which is why i keep making the points about the Nature of God. If the Devil became more powerful than Dave, then Dave is not god, but the Devil is god. But in Christian/Jewish/Muslim systems this situation cannot arise, as the Devil is an angel and angels have limited power which cannot be grown by themselves. It has to be bestowed upon them by God, and God cannot create anything more powerful than himself.
So the question is not about whether Erik is a god, because he isn't. Dave is God. There can only be one god, and that is Dave.
However if you are using a different set of "rules" then yes Erik can be a god, not arguing that. But neither are you arguing the original post.
I am not trying to say Christianity is the one true religion or anything like that. And i am not in Fort Christianity. I keep coming from a basis of Christianity/Jewish/Muslim "rules" as they share basis and many fundamentals.
Death is not a thing in Christianity/Judaism/Islam. There is death but not Death. Death is a god in other religions/belief systems yes but it has nothing to do with the original argument. And yes you could say that God's (Dave's) favorite food is Cabbage, in fact there is a religion based upon Doughnuts! The Church of the Holy Doughnut!
TheManxMissile wrote:
God being the most powerful being (and immortal) comes from the bible (and i am assuming we are talking about Christian/Jewish/Muslim God). It's not some random claim made about God by some nutter. It's a fundamental basic part of the nature of god
Hmm, this is difficult to interpret correctly. So you are saying that those who came up with the bible are sane, but those who now try and come up with a religion aren't?
Or are you saying Erik is the random claim made about god by some nutter, as is initially read.
If not then sorry I have misinterpreted you and am deeply sorry for any offence I have caused, I didn't mean to make fun of any world religion, as in my earlier post I thought that was true, but now I see it isn't.
I am not saying that the people who wrote the Bible were sane. I do not have that information. But neither can you say they were insane for the same reason. And if you do you are being narrow minded and offensive.
Eric is a random creation for the sake of the original argument. Eric is merely a devise to carry an argument in this case. It could have been Tracy the God-eating Skin flake from the back of the Sofa, it just happened to be Eric the Penguin.
Eric was first mentioned 6 days ago on Tumblr. Yes he can become a religion, but that was not it's intended use. It was intended as a way to carry an argument.
Edited by TheManxMissile on 30-10-2013 12:27
Actually, religion is completely sane and natural. Humans have always been looking for explanations for the inexplicable, the inexplicable has been filled up by something that explains it: a supernatural creature, also known as a god. Therefore, I'm convinced thinking of religion is sane. It's not necessarily correct, but that doesn't make it insane. What I do see as insane is replacing something explicable with a god.
TheManxMissile wrote:
I am not saying that the people who wrote the Bible were sane. I do not have that information. But neither can you say they were insane for the same reason. And if you do you are being narrow minded and offensive.
Well, finally you realised that you cannot know a thing about who wrote the bible and how sane he was. My oppinion is that it was written much later than it is believed and it was not taken seriously by its author. Simply, i think it was written as a manual and tool to control people. If it is close to truth,yes, the author was sane and pretty clever bastard.
On the other hand, if it was written as serious text, i have my doubts about sanity of its author. Because we have people in mental institutions, which believe similar nonsense. To their shame, their nonsense is not so traditional and believed for hundreds of years by many, so it is called insanity.
With all that said, i praise religion (especially Christianity as i live in that area of the world) for role it played in history of mankind, especially in dark times. It always gave people the hope and shelter (for both bodies and souls). On the other hand, it justified horrible things for centuries. As i said, good tool to control masses.
And Erik, the God-eating penguin is obviously not start of new religion (i only trolled with that signature and stuff), but an argument of atheists, as you said Manx. But who knows, maybe people after 500 years will find some info about it and will make their own construction based on it, because this way is very popular...
This post is way too long and I apoligize for that but I hope you at least find it informative.
Aquarius wrote:
Is it ? I should have written that somewhere further down my message, but I had too little time to edit it when I wrote.
Anyway, fact is you might have a tolerant nation, but you (the Dutch) are not racist-proof either.
Please stop talking about the Dutch nation as a whole. People here have different opinions on everything. Some people are more tolerant than others. You identified various traits that exist in our society, but they belong to different groups of people. You are portraying it as if everyone shares all of these characteristics.
In essence, you are stereotyping the entire Dutch population. You have then used that inaccurate stereotype to create the image of a Dutchman who is tolerant on the surface, but because the Dutch traded slaves 300 years ago, nowadays must feel superior to blacks.
I can go into detail as to why there is no link between Black Pete and Dutch colonial history but there's no point, as the morals and values of 300+ years ago aren't the same as the ones today. By assuming the opposite you are inaccurately attributing morals and values of history to the present day.
This just doesn't work. I can't put it any other way.
I should have added to the details the golden rings in the nose or stuff like that that makes him a person-of-little-civilization. Some black people find it offensive, be they right or wrong. We wouldn't be talking about this if they didn't feel offended. I didn't invent that.
Is it ? I've not filled the complaint at the UN. But someone has. Because she felt offended by the representation the the Dutch tradition gives of black people through Black Pete.
To be fair if others outside the Netherlands are offended by it it's their problem. They are not part of the festival so they shouldn't be involved in the first place. Besides, they are only offended because they are judging Black Pete by their morals, not ours, while only basing themselves on their own reference point. Without the knowledge about the culture and the meaning, I'm not surprised that they find it offensive.
The reason it's not offensive is because: while Black Pete has physical traits such as red lips, frizzy black hair and (ear)rings, he isn't black to create a black stereotype, but he's black simply because he's always been black. The crucial thing is here that we're not purposely portraying Black Pete in a negative way. Instead, right now he just happens to be black and just happens to have red lips, frizzy black hair and ear rings.
What the world does, is assume that these things must be intended to stereotype and therefore racist, but that isn't the case. This assumtion is racist on its own, because it draws conclusions based on skin color and appearance only.
In short, people who think Black Pete is racist are racists themselves, because they judge it on the way he looks.
it has its origin in a racist, or to put it more verbally like I did, a patronizing, condescending and degrading image of black people. And when did it come up ? At a time (17th century) when the Dutch, like many other European nations, had colonies in countries with black populations.
I saw your point straightaway and while I agree that the portrayal of Black Pete in this manner, has, in certain times of our history (not necessarily at the beginning), probably had some prejudiced profiling of blacks into it, I want to make it clear to you that this is no longer the case. In modern day there is absolutely no discriminating meaning to it and that is because culture and traditions change over time. You need to judge based on its current meaning, not on its origin.
I'll give you one crazy but yet plausible example. Let's take Christmas and Santa Claus. His helpers are elves, who are pretty much little people with ears. Does that mean that it discriminates little people? Well, I don't believe so, because I don't think it has that intention. Yet maybe it did when the concept of Christmas elves were invented. Look at Oompa Loompa's for example, they're not much different. Could it be that they too were created as a discriminating profile of little people? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it still has that meaning today to people who celebrate Santa Claus, nor to people who are fans of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It doesn't make them discriminate, even though it may very well have done so at its inception, depending on the motives of their creator.
Again, I'm not saying it should be changed (nor that it shouldn't )
I'm speaking only for myself here but I wouldn't mind if Black Pete wasn't black, because frankly I don't care that much about his skin color. I just don't see the need to change it.
but you can't deny the racist origins of the tradition, nor the fact that some black people have felt offended by the representation Black Pete gives of black people.
I don't think Black Pete has a racist origin as it is not directly linked to Dutch colonial history, nor was he caricatured at his inception. At his origin, he was simply a black assistant, and we have had those in Dutch history (next to white lackeys and assistants) since the early 1500s according to Dutch historians in the news, well before colonization or slave trade.
His portrayal has probably had some racist influences over the years but again, that is seperate from what it is now, and people who are offended by it don't see that.
This post is way too long and I apoligize for that but I hope you at least find it informative.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
. I've made this very clear before.
)
