Worgen said:
a better question is are the Japanese racist, and yes they are, really most cultures are pretty racist, when it comes down to it the US is probably one of the least racist around.... for the most part
Monkfish Acc. said:
Yeah, the japanese never actually got that it's not cool to portray black dudes as these clowning people with comically large lips.
They're not racist, there's no hatred involved. Just a litte ignorant, I guess.
Values dissonance at its finest.
emeraldrafael said:
I'm sorry, thats just funny.
Anyway, I would say yes. But all Japanese are inherently racist.
Defense said:
Barret has stereotypical traits, but he isn't a stereotype. He is an environmental terrorist who lives in a bar and tries to support his adopted white daughter as much as he can. Sazh isn't really a stereotypical character either, save the 'fro and the guns, but saying Sazh is stereotypical for his afro is like saying Jacob from Mass Effect 2 is stereotypical for his big nostrils.
However, Japanese companies can be extremely ignorant of races because there aren't much black people in Japan, so they base it off of characters in movies and other forms of media.
Bara_no_Hime said:
Have you seen the "black" crows in Disney films of the 70-80s? Or any of a dozen other American cartoons from before 1990? Yeah.
I'm just not sure why you think that Square stands out from the rest of Japan (who are known world-wide as pretty damn racist). At least Square acknowledges that other races exist. They may only be familiar with those races from TV shows from the 80s, but at least it's a sort of progress.
I find it funny that when we talk about Japan, we do it in sociological terms--like, "the Japanese are culturally racist"--rather than really assessing the severity of the actual depiction, and the individuals responsible. As Bara no Hime pointed out, there's been
a lot of racism in North America, too, but I don't feel like we'd just assume racism in American or Canadian games is a write-off because "Americans are racist" (not a totally surreal claim, either, given its unique racial tensions).
badgersprite said:
Judging Japanese portrayals of different peoples by American standards doesn't really make sense though. Japan doesn't exactly have a black community, now does it? So you see they aren't making fun of black people, they're depicting foreigners. In other words, they're depicting black people and white people the way they see them depicted in the media they get from America.
Uh, Japanese girls read fashion magazines that are laden with images of white, western males. But often portrayals of black people in Japanese media are grossly prejudicial. So I'd say we're not just talking about the depiction of "foreigners" at large, here.
mireko said:
That depiction of black people was common in slavery-era America (and later, but I'll admit I'm undereducated on this topic), which is part of why it's so distasteful to us. Coming from Japan, it doesn't really mean anything since they weren't involved in that part of American history.
Consider Dead Island's 'lynching' logo. It wasn't considered inappropriate for a European release, but the American cover was changed due to unfortunate implications. The imagery simply means something else in a different region.
It's still stereotypical and crude, but I don't think there was any racist intent behind it.
[sub]That said, Square isn't what I would call racially progressive. Or any other kind of progressive.[/sub]
I think it's a fallacy, though, to assume that racism has to be
intentional rather than just culturally manifested.