In complex societies, such as the Dutch, images play a decisive role. Images can create a sense of community. Through images, people develop an idea of their own and the other or strange, and that strongly influences who in this imagination belongs to a community and who does not.
The depiction of community is always a selective process:which past does one want to share? Which image is typical of a community is a matter of negotiation, in short, of power processes. A good example is the Dutch slavery past. The transatlantic forced labor system is an integral part of Dutch history, but efforts to raise awareness about this still lead to fierce controversy.
Race and ethnicity usually play a crucial role in the depiction of community, even if this sometimes happens under the skin and goes unspoken. Because what exactly is selected as an image of the community (in the form of, for example, cultural heritage or shared traditions) immediately determines who recognizes themselves in these images. For example, not everyone recognizes themselves in Charlemagne, the 'emperor of the West', William of Orange, the 'father of the nation', or the 'naval hero' Michiel de Ruyter.
Some may have more affinity with Aletta Jacobs, Raden Adjeng Kartini, or Anton de Kom. These images give the nation its own 'face', as it were, and with it also an ethnicity and race. That is, 'the Netherlands' and 'Dutchness' can very subtly acquire a 'skin color' or phenotype through this imagination, a representation of what a typical Dutch person should look like.
Pete question
A good example of this imagination is the controversy surrounding the Sinterklaas party. In 1850, thirteen years before the abolition of slavery in the Dutch colonies in 'the West' (Suriname and the Antilles), the Sinterklaas festival changed shape. It was at the height of Dutch colonialism. Under pressure from the ideals of the Enlightenment, education also had to change. As John Helsloot put it in 2005:the dark childhood scare that Sinterklaas still often was, had to change into a happier, milder figure. After all, the children were not allowed to be brought up to superstition.
In the book of the Amsterdam teacher Schenkmann, Saint Nicholas and his servant, the darkness of the former Sinterklaas was reinterpreted by means of a dark servant:'although I am black as soot, I mean it well'. This new figure no longer had to frighten children, but appeared as a cheerful children's friend. This clownesque was portrayed in the form of the "joyful Negro," a widespread and beloved racial stereotype of people of African descent at the time in Europe and North America. In this image Zwarte Piet embodies the 'racialized other', the children's own, the future of the nation.
National Identity Crisis
Since 2015, Sinterklaas, including the figure of Zwarte Piet, has been included in the Unesco national inventory of intangible heritage. Although it is only an inventory of intangible heritage in the Netherlands, this list is nevertheless seen as representative. As a signboard for 'the Netherlands', he depicts the Dutch identity, as it were. Such a claim to represent the nation as a whole may exclude those who do not recognize themselves in it. On the other hand, precisely because the Sinterklaas feast has such great national significance, criticism of the feast is seen by many as an attack on the nation itself. At moments of 'national identity crisis', such as the discussion about Zwarte Piet, the images of the party itself can be used to defend the 'ones' against the 'other', as in racist swear words such as 'whiner' or 'black whopper'.
Race and ethnicity are social constructs. They arise in processes of imagination of the own and the other. That is not to say that they are mere illusions. The imagination of community is a social reality that can lead to actual exclusion. Especially in a society that relies heavily on the modern media, images have great power. To stick to the example of Zwarte Piet, think of the Sinterklaas news. Images make a significant contribution to the world we live in, and some images seem persistent and difficult to change. The images produced in these media can lead to social exclusion. At the same time, it is precisely the imagination of race and ethnicity that is often fluid, and able to adapt. This makes stereotypes resistant, but also changeable.