I agree the cookies are good, though a little dry for my tastes. But I was writing about how I feel that the name of my ethnic group is used to name a food item by people who are mostly NOT in that ethnic group. Just as with negerzoenen, it FEELS hurtful. Just like the whole Zwarte Piet debate, just because the intention might be pure (which I agree in the article, the intention is not anti-Semitic), that doesn’t change the effect it has on people. Not intending to be racist or anti-Semitic doesn’t mean it’s not racist or anti-Semitic. I don’t see why using names like Jodenkoek and Negerzoenen are necessary to have open discussions about anti-Semitism or racism. The history is there either way.

It is exactly the other way around! By having these names refer to these products you contain Jews as part of the Dutch history, in the form of this delightful cookie (which is also a very positive one). Taking out the name automatically removes this piece of history. It removes the chance of our kids to ask ‘why is that called a Jew cookie?’ and thus the chance to have an open discussion about it. Same goes for negerzoenen. The exclusion that you fear is hereby initiated and thus has the opposite effect.
Why are we making this all so difficult in our society? It’s a damn good cookie. I enjoy it regularly and it have absolutely no negative associations to Jews because of it.
On the contrary!

So they’re not uniquely Dutch things!

Judekakker are popular in Norway, but I haven’t seen them in Sweden.

Haha! No idea! Doesn’t it come from England? And what about filet americain? (that’s pureed raw beef). I don’t think any American eats that!