The Zwarte Piet discussion is actually not a debate. The parts involved do not hold equal power, which means, amongst other things, that they do not have an equal share in framing the discussion. We are dealing here with a minority that is the target of racial policy and practice, and a majority that benefits from white privilege. The majority has defined what is a reasonable outcome of this engagement, and this is basically that the will of the majority should prevail, as morality is presented to be on their side and actually as an unborn property of the white. So much so that the benevolent majority is allegedly showing a gesture of accommodating the sensibilities of the minority in offering a compromise between them and the opposing part. What does this mean? Revolutionary measures such as the abolition of golden earrings or sooth in the face of the servile caricature. It is critical to be precise in this discussion and indicate, time and again, who is the subject of racist practice and who is the object, where power lies and how it is deployed.
Patricia Schor in It is about Zwarte Piet (kritischestudenten.nl)