"If you give me a bite of your cupcake, I'll free you" would never be allowed today. It was a faux pas of ignorance. This could be considered entirely racist. It can also be seen as parody of the past. Making fun of the stupidty of the idea of slavery. If you see the latter view as "unreasonable" remember that the other side will probably see your side as unreasonable as well. I would sooner side with the racist view, than the latter - but I can see the latter and can see it being valid. I was Wesley's age when this show was on television. I watched this show. I'm from the white audience. I watched many shows like this. Saturday morning cartoons were like this.
I admire you for encouraging us to see both sides of an issue. This is generally what I would do. When it comes to racism however, I have this weird tendency where I am usually one-sided against the racist thing. A joke about slavery is unacceptable in this context. Entirely unacceptable. I don't care if it "points out the stupidity of slavery". That is not for white people (in this context) to do. That is bullshit. It is not a parody of the past. It is a stupid joke about a racial atrocity being told by members of the group that committed the atrocity. Who do they have in mind as an audience? Ah yes, other members of that same group. This joke does not de-power the concepts of slavery or racism, it trivializes them and brings peace of mind to to the majority group. If you start seeing jokes about slavery, you are less inclined to feel bad about it. "Oh hey, we can all look back and laugh now!" Disgusting and utterly unreasonable. I am very inclined to consider both sides of an issue, but still I will hold a view that is entirely polarizing. These kind of jokes are wrong and bad and a white show for a white audience has absolutely no right to tell them in any point, ever.
The easiest way to include a group of people you know very little about is through stereotypes. Are they racist? Maybe. But it is inclusion. Is that an excuse? Yes, it is. A valid one.
Oh dear. I'll get to this in a minute.
Fast forward to today. Wesley and I are in our 30s now. We got a person from my generation at the helm of EA. Not saying that means problem solved (It's EA after all) but I think it is a good thing. Our generation has succeeded in many ways. Does anyone here remember in the 90s when black americans were getting angry that white americans were trying to 'steal their culture'? Black culture got large in the US in the 90s. Fresh Prince, Martin, BET, and more popped up. This new generation created the term "wigger" in the late 90s. Black people started saying nigga positively all the time but whites couldn't say it. Black culture was proactively resisting the white culture of my generation trying for inclusion by getting involved.
Black culture was resisting white culture? I want to be respectful in all of my replies but the only thing coming to mind for this is "NO SHIT SHERLOCK". White people couldn't say ******? Good. White people should never say it, and more to the point, they should never want to say it. Unless you are quoting someone who said it? And yeah, a formerly oppressed culture is being protective about their culture? Honestly what do you expect. Slavery is over, yay, but it's effects are not forgotten and racism still happens a lot. Basically, Black culture resisting white culture? Not a mystery, totally understandable.
We, as gamers, came off cartidges and went to CDs. With the PS1/N64 era, we saw Nintendo stay cartooned and PS1 try to make "M" games for those who were wanting more adult content than Nintendo would provide. Gaming played it safe and pandered to the majority white audience. Minorities got representation but usually only in the case of stereotypes and usually as comic relief stereotypes specifically. Some were racist which was easier for my generation to recognize and some were not.
[...]Classic Tomb Raider Lara was heavily 'slut shamed' as sexist[...]
Okay, I'm going to address the stereotype thing now.
I get where you are coming from. Because I am a comic book nerd, let me use a few examples from comics of minority characters brought in as stereotypes. Luke Cage, Black Panther, Wong, Ororo Munroe - Today, these are (generally) well-rounded characters who are divorced from their one-note identities of the past. Though they may be partially defined by their ethnicities, just as real people are, ethnicity is not their sole defining feature. Though some weren't too bad at the start, a few of them were really blatant stereotypes (poor Luke Cage).
Okay, you might say, so introducing stereotyped characters is a good way to introduce minority characters without being too jarring to a non-minority audience?
Ahh, understandable how we might reach this conclusion, but it is yet another example of that most common of all logical fallacies, the trademark-human confirmation bias. You can search for examples that support your hypothesis, but how many you find is meaningless - you must first search for examples that disprove your theory.
You see, there are stereotypes that have done nothing for minority representation in media, and non-stereotyped minority characters that were well-received.
There is another point I want to make, which I will save for the end because I like building suspense.
First off though, it's all well and good to point at a few racist stereotypes from back in the day and say "Hey they turned out okay". But there was so much awful terrible harmful shitty stuff too that is simply not excused. Why does the arbitrary line you drew around the time of Mr. Belvedere even matter? If we are talking about media in broad terms, let's go all the way to black face productions in theaters. This revolting stuff doesn't get a pass.
And secondly, what about the non-stereotyped characters that did fine? To mention another name from geekdom, Lieutenant Uhura from Star Trek. I've seen every episode of the original series and though a minor character, she is for the most part presented without stereotyping or racist goggles. If we were arguing examples of feminist characters in this era, well... Ehhhhhh... But as a black woman? Sure, she was professional. A few times she was called on to do unorthodox work outside of her job description and succeeds (such as in "Who mourns for Adonais?" s2e2, in which Spock notes his faith in her as an expert) and she demonstrates the ability to fill the spot of a navigator if requested. Basically, she was as competent as anyone else on the bridge. In the episode "I, Mudd" she is shown as having her own interests and agenda, being swayed to abandon her job and accept the gift of immortal life as an android, but later in the episode she proves her loyalty to the federation over personal gain. She takes joy in music, she relishes in teasing Spock, she brings both levity and professionalism to her role on the Enterprise. When her mind is wiped in "Nomad" and she must relearn English, we see that she is more comfortable speaking Swahili, so her culture is not swept under the rug.
Nyota Uhura was a minority character (almost) completely free of stereotype or racism. She graced the small screen in 1966, some 19 years earlier than Mr. Belvedere's slavery joke. She was inoffensive to and accepted by white audiences and went on to have the controversial inter-racial kiss. I don't see how that kiss would have been any less controversial had Uhura been a walking stereotype. More importantly however, she is often cited as inspiration to young black men and women who watched Star Trek as kids. Man, Uhura had it all - Okay, maybe she didn't have the limelight she deserved, but she was a positive minority character in the sixties who bridged the cultural gap.
So in conclusion to the stereotype thing: There is absolutely no reason to suggest that racially stereotyped characters were a positive thing or had any kind of positive effect. The means through which you arrived at this conclusion were, as Spock might say, entirely illogical. What use is there for racist jokes and stereotyped characters when we can see non-stereotyped characters who were successful? Why do you choose to see the stereotyped racist minority characters from early video games as forgivable, when we have proof that they could have been like Uhura or many others? Why are you so eagerly adopting an apologist stance for racist characters in video games when there is nothing to suggest that they were the only way to introduce minority characters?
Oh, and that thing you probably forgot I was building suspense for?
"Some were racist which was easier for my generation to recognize and some were not."
Who fucking cares. Excuse my french, but who. Fucking. Cares.
You are justifying what you have admitted was racist because it was easier for non-minority people to swallow.
You are justifying racism because it was easier for non-whites.
You are justifying racism because it was easier for non-whites.
Guess what? Minority representation is not for you. It's not for white people. It's not there to help white people accept minorities, you should be doing that on your own. Minority representation is there for the minority and it is not okay to make it racist because for some reason, according to your reasoning, white people will accept racism before they accept well-rounded minority characters.
If I could I would type that last sentence a million more times. But I won't. This time.
The problem is that people tend to think the TvW series and attacking gaming from the 'femenist' or 'civil rights activist' view is the right approach and has any effect. But it doesn't. Whites are a majority. Whites don't always know many minorities.
I find it really problematic, all the scare quotes you are putting around things like feminism but... Okay. I just want to say this for posterity's sake because I haven't clarified it yet in this thread. "Whites are a majority" is sort of a broken statement. We are talking, to be clear, right now primarily from a North American and European standpoint? Because obviously white people are not... A global majority. Furthermore, Whites are not a constant majority. I think you are being awfully subjective. Yes, where I live (Ireland), caucasian whites are a majority. Many American and European cities however, and specific neighbourhoods, are predominantly non-white, or whites are one of the smaller groups. Please keep this in mind Because it's not really true to say Whites are a majority. I've said it a few times in this thread, but I suppose I meant it in relation to other groups in the context of what I was saying. However the belief that whites are simply a majority whenever it comes to video games and video game audiences and just north america in general is a) a myth b) fallacious because you could say that games target whites because they are the majority, or maybe whites are the majority because games only target them.
So keep this in mind. I'm not even really trying to correct or argue with you here, I'm just clarifying the context in which this discussion takes place.
This right here is a stereotype I see in minorities a lot. Minorities tend to be way too fucking hard on a kid with a dream. Unless its a doctor or lawyer or businessman or something 'respectable' to their culture. (Conformity - you all have it too) This comes in the form of making fun of them, sarcasm, or verbal scolding.
Baffling. Utterly baffling. I don't know where you are getting this. That is a trait of parents in general, if anything, so you "noticing it in minorities" is likely due to a personal bias (which we all have, I'm not calling you racist or anything dramatic like that). However you blatantly admitted that this fact comes purely from stereotypes you've heard and things you have noticed. Things that you, in your surroundings, have subjectively noticed, and not recorded. That is what we call "Statistically Insignificant", to be kind.
-snipped things about this gen and tropes versus women-
Plenty I'd like to say but I don't want to derail this thread into another TVM debate. Far too many of those. Interesting comments on what the future has in store.
BONUS CONTENT: [...]Being white doesn't save you from discrimination.[...]
It certainly doesn't! In some places. In the situation you described, however? Oh wow it absolutely does. You are not the victim of discrimination, at least not in the way you are described. It is a pity that people judge you for your hairstyle, they shouldn't, but unfortunately due to atrocious hate crimes being associated with that hairstyle people often don't have a choice.
However, in the context I previously established, a white person can not be discriminated against or made the victim of bigotry or racism at the hands of a minority person or person of colour.
It can not happen.
It simply can not, it is not possible.
Being judged by your appearance is not the sum total of what discrimination is. It sucks, but it is not discrimination in the same meaning of the word as what is experienced by members of an ethnicity or group that has been the subject of oppression.
Discrimination is composed of cultural and historical context. Even the stereotype you have been wrongly associated with is connected to oppressors of minorities, not the oppression of your own group. Do you not see the significance of that?
