[Translator’s note: The central Dutch linguistic distinction in this article — between blank and wit — does not map cleanly onto English, since both translate as ‘white.’ The word blank is the traditional, neutral Dutch adjective for fair-skinned or white-skinned people, roughly equivalent to the older English usage of ‘fair-skinned’ or ‘pale.’ The woke movement pushed to replace it with wit (literally: white), a term the movement’s critics argue was chosen for its negative connotations and its resonance with the English-language framework of racial identity politics. The title plays on this: ‘White or Blank’ captures the Dutch debate about which word to use, though English loses the tonal difference between the two.]

About fifty years ago, many sacred cows were knocked over. In recent years, quite a few new ones have been erected in their place. The new taboos originate in the woke movement — a quasi-religious phenomenon that claims to champion oppressed groups. Its language police are particularly active. The result of this pressure is that many media outlets are bending over backwards to use the ‘correct’ terminology, such as ‘wit’ (white) instead of the traditional Dutch term ‘blank’ (fair-skinned). Until recently, woke had relatively little support in the Netherlands. So how is it that such a small group of activists wields so much influence?

The JA21 Woke Conference

Last Sunday — 20 February 2022 — the political party JA21 (the right-wing liberal party Juiste Antwoord 21) held a Woke Conference. In the announcement, JA21 stated that it was alarming how people were trying to silence ‘contrarian opinions.’ The evident intention, then, was to give those opinions a platform. Historian Zihni Özdil and Professor of Legal Philosophy Andreas Kinneging delivered speeches on what ‘woke’ actually is, after which the panel discussed woke, racism, and the childcare benefits scandal (toeslagenaffaire) that has shaken the Netherlands.

Translation tweet: ‘The call to silence contrarian opinions is growing louder. This is alarming, because according to JA21, open debate is the oxygen of a functioning democracy. That is why we are organising the JA21 Woke Conference! Come and join the conversation! (1/2)’

Talitha Muusse emphasised the originally good intentions behind woke: combating oppression and racism. Unfortunately, the discussion that followed focused mainly on racism and whether or not institutional racism exists in the Netherlands — even though Özdil and Kinneging had made substantive points in their speeches about woke’s darker sides: groupthink, censorious impulses, and exclusion.

The organisers had also invited defenders of woke — but none had been willing to defend their positions in what they apparently considered the den of a ‘knuckle-dragging right-wing’ lion. Given that refusal, we can safely assume that nearly everyone present was, to some degree, critical of woke. There was no need to choose words carefully to avoid offending sensitive souls in the audience. And yet — whenever skin colour came up, the terminology was entirely woke: ‘witte Nederlander’ (white Dutch person). Not ‘blanke Nederlander’ (fair-skinned Dutch person).

Internalised

The Dutch woke activists almost certainly did not watch the conference — but they could have done a victory dance. Even woke’s critics, in 2022, are dutifully following the language rules imposed on them. Even they have adapted to woke’s demands. Were the ‘contrarian’ attendees even aware of their own self-censorship? Quite possibly not. The new vocabulary has in all likelihood already been internalised: ‘Ugh. ‘Blanke Nederlander.’ You just don’t say that.’

Clarice Gargard

Were the arguments against the word blank actually compelling at the time? A widely cited piece on the subject is ‘Why white people are no longer ‘blank’‘ by Clarice Gargard, published in April 2016. The piece was held together by a series of far-fetched claims — that blank carried more positive connotations than wit, and that some historical injustice therefore needed correcting. To establish this, Gargard consulted a dictionary from 1864, without explaining why that particular dictionary should serve as the authoritative source.

Perhaps she was hoping to find a rich trove of discriminatory language so shortly after the Dutch abolition of slavery. At any rate, she took issue with the phrase ‘in contrast to the negroes’ — to which she added, in her article: ‘(nasty people).’ The dictionary in question rated blank and wit as roughly equally positive — which gave no basis whatsoever for preferring wit. Gargard duly invoked slavery and colonialism, but this actually undermined her case. In precisely those eras, wit and blank were used interchangeably; blank only became the dominant term in the twentieth century.

The Real Reason

The actual motivation behind the proposed change became clear in the final paragraph of Gargard’s piece: ‘Finally, a quote I came across online, which I gladly share with anyone who feels even slightly oppressed or discriminated against because of the use of ‘white’: you know you have privilege when equality feels like oppression.’

No doubt Gargard intended this to pre-empt any objections — if you have a problem with this, it’s your privilege talking — but in doing so she revealed what she was actually after: branding fair-skinned people with an unwanted label, so that they could ‘for once’ experience feeling oppressed and discriminated against.

Translation tweet: If we can refer to people from Africa, the Caribbean and South America as ‘black’ or ‘people of colour’ because of their skin colour… why can’t we simply call people from Europe and North America ‘wit’? Finally, have a read of this article. And for anyone who feels oppressed or discriminated against because of the use of the word ‘wit’: “You know you’re privileged when equality feels like oppression.”

People saw through it

Did no one notice that this language shift was born of misplaced resentment? Some did. In November 2016, philosopher Ger Groot wrote in the respectable daily Trouw: ‘’White’ for ‘fair-skinned’ has from the outset been an expression of offensive contempt. (…) The relish with which it is wielded today betrays how much that undertone persists. That is why many fair-skinned people refuse to be described in those terms.’ That hit the nail squarely on the head.

Why should any population group be expected to accept a label for itself that is deliberately derogatory? Gargard argued that blank was too positive — it needed to be made more negative. Precision was not the goal. Nor was ‘correcting a historical injustice.’ The goal was to demean white Dutch people. Any resistance to this was then dismissed with a condescending smirk as white privilege.

The Media switched to ‘White’

It was clear what the activists’ real arguments were, and yet many media outlets went along with the woke narrative. Since then, NRC, Volkskrant, Trouw, the NOS (the Dutch public broadcaster), and RTL have all switched from blank to wit. The Algemeen Dagblad appears to sidestep the issue. The Telegraaf is alone in taking a principled stand. As editor-in-chief Paul Jansen wrote:

‘It is absolutely necessary to name and combat racism in our society. At the same time, we do not adopt the radical racial agenda of identity politics as our own. (…) It does not accord with editorial policy to use ‘white’ deliberately, precisely because the term ‘white’ is an expression of the radical ideology described above.’

Intimidation

During the Woke Conference, journalist Roderick Veelo raised a subject that unfortunately received no further attention: the intimidation tactics used by woke activists. The clip in the tweet below, from two years earlier, is worth watching — Eric Kaufmann explains the mechanism with admirable clarity.

Woke activists succeed in creating taboos that choke off debate. The linguistic battle over the term blank was framed in such a way that anyone defending the word was automatically branded a racist. ‘Racist’ is arguably the worst insult in twenty-first-century Dutch society, and many people were intimidated into silence. But this has nothing to do with substantive argument. It is emotional blackmail.

We Have Allowed Ourselves to Be Held Hostage

The real problem, of course, is not that a handful of extremist activists try to impose their norms on everyone else. The real problem is that so many people allow it to happen. We let ourselves be taken hostage. We keep ceding ground, and when the insatiable activists claim the new ground, we simply take another step back. And another. And another. All to avoid being called a racist. And in doing so, the space within which we can avoid that accusation shrinks ever tighter.

Its Totalitarian Character

Professor Kinneging made a sharp point in his Woke Conference speech when he highlighted the totalitarian nature of woke: dissenting views are simply not permitted. That is precisely why, in 2016, a genuine substantive debate about blank versus wit was never on the table. Woke does not want debate. It wants compliance with the doctrine. Groupthink is the norm, and whoever refuses to conform is not merely a dissident — someone who refuses is a Bad Person: a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, a far-right extremist. By that logic, saying ‘I am fair-skinned’ is a fascist act.

Translation tweet: ‘#ikbenblank is trending on the Twitter dominated by fascist, cowardly, anonymous trolls. Sometimes I genuinely don’t know why I’m still here.’

Indoctrination

Too many media outlets and politicians have allowed themselves to be held hostage by woke activists. They have begun to reproduce its narrative wholesale. Twenty years ago, Zwarte Piet (Black Pete, the Dutch Christmas helper figure) was not considered racist, and saying ‘I am fair-skinned’ was not considered fascist. Even today, many Dutch people would raise an eyebrow at both claims — but open a newspaper or turn on the television, and you see something else entirely. And the messages we receive continuously do something to us. Unconsciously, we come to regard the new norms as normal.

At the Woke Conference, apart from the two presenters, six people took the floor — none of them known for their docility: Zihni Özdil, Andreas Kinneging, Lale Gül, Roderick Veelo, Talitha Muusse, and Annabel Nanninga. Six critics of woke. Özdil may have used the word wit deliberately; for the other five, I doubt it. They appear to have unconsciously adopted the dominant narrative.

Avoiding Debate Is Dangerous

Frankly, this gives me chills. This is what happens when we give ground to the entirely unreasonable demands of a small group of loudmouths. This is what happens when the large majority of the Netherlands finds it too inconvenient to push back. When the large majority allows itself to be blackmailed and intimidated. This is what happens when we allow extremists to exempt themselves from debate.

There is nothing wrong with extreme opinions. Let them come. Give them a platform. But the moment those opinions go unchallenged — the moment their arguments are no longer dismantled — those extreme opinions can embed themselves in our collective consciousness. They become something close to religious conviction. And wherever religious conviction becomes the norm, persecution of heretics is never far behind.

The Consequences

The largest ethnic group in the Netherlands is now almost invariably referred to using a term that is deliberately derogatory. The country’s most popular celebration has become so contentious that the arrival of Sinterklaas triggers riots. Reports on violence against gay people or women are unwelcome when the perpetrator group is classified as protected under the woke hierarchy. Immigration in this already overcrowded country cannot be critically discussed.

It is a shame the Woke Conference did not shine a stronger light on the most dangerous aspect of woke: its hostility to open debate.

 

This article originally appeared in Dutch.

You can support Maaike van Charante at repelsteeltje.backme.org

Want to stay up to date with new articles and podcasts? Follow Maaike on Twitter.