Zombies and the White Man's Burden

[Russ Pitts]

Zombies and the White Man's Burden

This month's target of internet invective is the Resident Evil 5 trailer. This one has been under a lot of scrutiny of late, mainly because, for the first time ever, the antagonists of a videogame are poor black villagers (never mind that they've been zombified, they're still poor black villagers), and the protagonist is white. For some folks, this is unacceptable, and they see no way to do anything about it. Cue: moral outrage.

Permalink

 

[Goofonian]

I highly doubt this would have been intentional on capcom's part. For starters they are Japanese, so all the black vs white BS that goes on in america would be pretty bloody irrelevant to them. But mostly, its just really easy to see how they came up with the idea for the game setting.

They take the main character from the RE series and put him in a game. He happens to be white. He's been like that since he was born, or at least created.
They decide that they want bright light to play a big part in the game mechanic, so the game is set in africa. Where it happens to be really sunny a lot of the time.
The game is set in africa, so the villagers are black. I dare you to challenge me on this.
Its resident evil, so you shoot the villagers because they are zombies/possessed/something new and they are trying to kill you.

The word for people who complain about this sort of stuff is "ignorant". For the sake of politeness I won't mention the other words I personally would call these people.

 

[Ajar]

The word for people who complain about this sort of stuff is "ignorant".

I think it's possible to be informed and still be somewhat uncomfortable with the whole thing. I was uncomfortable slaughtering Spanish "zombies" in RE4, particularly when I learned that the virus infecting them was in fact curable. [Added: For that matter, I was uncomfortable with the realization that I'd slaughtered a comparable number of Latino rebels in Mexico in Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter.]

The RE5 trailer takes that to a whole new level. There's an obvious and disturbing parallel with the real world, here: a white man is massacring black people in an African town to contain an outbreak of an extremely dangerous blood-borne virus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS]. I think what makes people uncomfortable isn't just that it's white-on-black violence instead of white-on-Spanish violence or white-on-white violence, it's that the scenario is terrifyingly plausible.

I'm not outraged, myself. I loved RE4 despite my discomfort, and I largely agree with Russ: inadvertent though it probably was, Capcom's game will be very interesting from a moral standpoint. I'll almost certainly buy and play the game when it comes out, but I'm not willing to condemn those who are upset.

 

[Bongo Bill]

Some people will take any excuse to be offended. I can see why; making yourself a victim, or making somebody else a victim and rushing to their defense, gives you power and sympathy. It puts you on the right side of the conflict. That there shouldn't be a conflict in the first place never seems to occur to these people.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I can see what I want to see in just about anything I look at, if I squint the right way. It's a task made easier by our willingness - our insistence, really - on framing everything we do now with everything we've done in the past. I'm not qualified to speak on the so-called "culture of victimhood" we seem to be living in, but I can't help wondering when the injustices inflicted upon someone's "people" stop being relevant to that individual's own experience.

 

[Ajar]

I can see what I want to see in just about anything I look at, if I squint the right way.

Well, then, is there any combination of ethnicities that you don't think would be appropriate in a RE franchise game? I can think of a few examples that would cause a similar outcry, though perhaps for somewhat different reasons:

Arab protagonist and Jewish zombies;
Arab protagonist and American zombies;
Russian protagonist and Chechen zombies;
American protagonist and Native American zombies;
Indonesian protagonist and East Timorese zombies;
Japanese protagonist and Chinese zombies.

I think context matters. I'm not suggesting that Capcom should change the setting of their game or that they shouldn't have set it there in the first place, though. I'm simply suggesting that we shouldn't be surprised by, disappointed in, or dismissive of the outcry.

 

[Goofonian]

If the outcry is justifiable, then me being dismissive of it is equally justifiable.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter how much people whinge because racism has very little to do with "protecting the children", so there won't be any political interest or ESRB scandals. The game won't get banned in Australia/Germany/England and I will get to play it and remain happy while I ignore all the people writing there opinions in to the tabloids.

 

[Ajar]

If the outcry is justifiable, then me being dismissive of it is equally justifiable.

I haven't said your dismissiveness is unjustifiable. I don't think it's particularly useful, though. There's a discussion to be had here, if we're willing to get down off our "you people don't know what you're talking about/are just seeing what you want to see" high horse, and I think we as gamers need to realize that just as much as the people who are spouting ill-informed outrage from high horses of their own. [Added: I think it's interesting that Malygris referenced a perceived culture of victimhood, because in a way we gamers have one ourselves. It seems to me that in some contexts we collectively think of ourselves as a pariah community, gaming with pride while the rest of society looks on with disdain. Efforts to regulate the sale of videogames to minors and the backlash against said efforts are one example. We sometimes respond to perceived attacks with scorn. I don't think this is particularly useful or productive.]

Like I said, context matters, and discussing some games in their broader social context can be pretty fruitful. Having said that, I think the discussion will be even more interesting once we've had a chance to actually play the game.

 

[TomBeraha]

a side note that I'm not quite sure how to relate directly to this: Does anybody else feel that gamers on the whole are being a little foolish for simultaneously suggesting that this isn't an issue, and that because it's a game, and that it's got a story that provides the reasoning we shouldn't be worried about it? Aren't we always trying to get people to understand that games DO matter, that they are a SERIOUS medium, that the messages in games have value? If we do intend to suggest that games are important and need to be taken seriously on one front, we also need to accept that if individual games can be taken offense to we need to address why.

I personally sincerely doubt that Capcom has any intention of making the game a vehicle for white people to shoot black people in. I don't think that that is the issue at hand, I think the true reason people are uncomfortable is because like Ajar said, it's all too plausible. Do the diseased have the right to live at any cost? (including the non-monetary effects of a economic collapse from treating those people?) *Shrug* It's a wonderful area for debate and discourse. While I think that the average person shouldn't be offended by it, people are still offended by "A Modest Proposal", and that one was intentionally inflammatory. Those who are offended should still be given a chance to voice their reasoning and explain their points of view as they are no less valid then my own.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Right or wrong, it seems how long people hold on to an injustice has a lot to do with how much better or worse the former oppressor is doing in economic terms. Mutual economic prosperity seems to heal wounds far better than time.

I'm not sure this argument holds water in regards to race relations in the US. The former oppressor of American slaves is, and always has been, doing quite well economically. If what you mean to say is that it's tied to the sharing of that wealth, then you may be on to something.

 

[Goofonian]

I think the true reason people are uncomfortable is because like Ajar said, it's all too plausible.

I think I have to disagree with you there. In this case it seems to me that the outrage is caused (or at least fueled) by a very small group of people who think that capcom is making a white person shooting black people game. And as is always the case, its the vocal minority that make the headlines.

You make a good point about whether we need to decide if we want games to be taken seriously or not, but I don't necessarily think we should be limited to choosing one side or the other. There is room for games that address serious issues and there is room for "popcorn games", so to speak. Given the history of the series, I'd be extremely hesitant to put a Resident Evil in the serious basket.

I think it's possible to be informed and still be somewhat uncomfortable with the whole thing. I was uncomfortable slaughtering Spanish "zombies" in RE4, particularly when I learned that the virus infecting them was in fact curable. [Added: For that matter, I was uncomfortable with the realization that I'd slaughtered a comparable number of Latino rebels in Mexico in Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter.]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit and the conclusion that I've come to is that your right. It is very possible to be informed and still uncomfortable. Infact, I think that is a good thing. It means you have a conscience, and explains why you might choose the good path in KOTOR despite the evil path potentially being more fun. BUT, there is an enormous difference between realising that a game contains morally questionable content and feeling wrong about playing through said content, and actually getting to the point of public outrage. No matter how serious the content may be, it is still just a game. And you can bet your a** that nowhere in the game will it suggest, imply, or even hint that any morally objectional game related activities would be ok in the real world.

edit: On a side note, the virus (it was more of an infestation really) in RE4 was only curable in its early stages. My understanding was that the villagers were well past the point of no return.

 

[Bongo Bill]

If you really wanted to throw fuel on the fire, you could bring up the old bit about "Why do only some ethnicities need protection from being turned into zombies and gunned down by video game characters?"

 

[Andy Chalk]

Yup--I meant something closer to the latter, that if the victims are doing roughly about as well as their former oppressors, there isn't much talk of that victimhood. In America, you'll rarely hear anyone talk about the period of 'No Irish Need Apply' or the period of indentured servitude because, well, most Irish people are doing pretty well in America.

But aren't the victims in this case - black Americans - also doing fairly well for themselves? Or is there still a perception of imbalance between blacks and whites in America?

 

[FunkyJ]

American protagonist and Native American [enemy];

Um, pretty sure that every single "Western" game could show you there's little to no outcry when it comes to this.

I think Russ's point of Zombies (and all video game enemies) being the "Other" is spot on, and it's ok to Americans when the "other" is Arabs, or Germans, or French, or Russians, or Spanish, because there's no sense of guilt that's built up. However, if it's Jews or Africans / Blacks, there's massive outcry.

For example, how many essays and blogs are there about the Iranian game where you shoot Israelis? Compare that to those looking at the Arab killing in Americas Army, or Tom Clancy games.

Or how many essays and blogs and reviews mention CJ is black? Does the unnamed one in GTA III get constantly referred to as white?

 

[TomBeraha]

An interesting thought from reading FunkyJ, Does the act of including a black person or a Jew in a game and identifying them as such make a political statement regardless of your intentions?

 

[Bongo Bill]

If the author intended to say it, then it's a statement, and you're safe to assume the author thinks that. If the author did not intend to say it or to not say it, it's an interpretation, and it's much more likely that the opinion is one that the audience fixates on (whether they agree or disagree with it) - though it's still quite possible that some Freudian shenanigans are afoot on the part of the author. If the author specifically intended to not say it, then it's some combination of an ulterior motive and zealotry on the part of the audience.