The Racism Blame Game

[The Consequence]

The preferred term is a world away from an offensive slur. As white or Caucasian. Or this an apple, what kind of apple is it. Red, green, etc. A cultural difference is also different from a lack of choice.

So you are plainly incorrect in saying "you're going to offend someone despite best intentions," but even if I gave you that point, an attempt is still a world better than blatantly not caring at all.

You spend 3 hours making a character, put a helmet on them, and never see their face again. BUT, you have the choice in making them look like whatever you want them to (or whatever many choices the game gives you) which obviously is important to you since you've spent 3 whole hours on it. Now you personally don't care about the skin tone slider option, well okay. That's fine for you. But in those 3 hours in creating a character, i sure would like all the options I can get, because hey, perhaps I won't throw a helmet on my character. Perhaps I want to see their cool hair, and blue skin.

snip, snip, by the way.

 

[DerMacht]

Libtards are angry point the finger and call white poeple racist like you always do fucking leechers...

 

[Dastardly]

The Racism Blame Game

Shamus takes on racism.

Read Full Article

The folks behind the projects, holding the purse strings, are chickenshit, that's definitely a big problem. Handling diversity is such a hard issue, and they're afraid to be the ones to tackle it (because while they're busy tackling it, all of the other play-it-safe studios sneak in behind them to snag the loot).

On the other hand, though, I think there actually is a bit of blame on our side of the cashier counter. Already in this thread, we've had comments made about your inclusion of Angelina Jolie and Will Smith as your examples of diversity in Hollywood. These comments boil down to one of two problems:

1. "But Angelina Jolie is white" (or white-ish, or similar comment). To far too many people, diversity must mean making the color different. And hey, it might just put a group on the defensive when they're hearing people yell, "Anything but white!"

If the diversity advocates could be a bit less specific about what they don't want (which tends to put that group on the defensive), and be more specific about what they do want to see (More women/less sexuality, more hispanic protagonists with realistic accents and personalities, asians other than ninjas, etc.) they might get better results.

Yeah, you'll still have those hyper-defensive people who still see it as an attack on Fort Whitey, but you'll thin their ranks considerably.

Corollary to 1: There are other ways besides race to increase the variety among protagonists. Just changing personality types, physique, gender, or age could also be a good step. Not every instance of "tackling diversity" must mean the same thing. That wouldn't be very "diverse."

2. "But Will Smith is an exception" (often the implication is that he's not "black enough" or something). This is where I can understand (though not agree) with the moneychangers. If you have two groups, one is huge, and the other is being impossible to please... well, damn, it's easy to see where you want to sell your product.

Now, again, I don't agree with that assessment. I simply think the "He's not black enough" crowd sounds bigger than it actually is, and the studios are allowing themselves to be fooled to make the easier buck. But you can see the problem, right?

There's a difference between saying, "This is a good first step. What's next?" and saying, "Because you didn't leap to my side instantly, I don't accept your offering." This is something I've learned as a teacher.

If a kid is doing wrong things, yes, you need to correct him. But also, you need to recognize and point out when he is doing it right, too. Otherwise, you aren't providing guidance toward what you want, but only away from what you don't. Program someone for "error avoidance," and they'll quickly learn the fastest way is just to stop trying.

And just like this teacher-student dynamic, it's easy for both sides to wait for the other to make the first move. I'm tempted to stand my ground and say, "Hey, when you do it right, I'll give you some praise. But not until then." But what reason am I giving that child to seek my praise? None. I'm giving them reason to avoid my derision.

Of course, the big problem is that "we" (the public) are not a singular Teacher entity. We are a Teacher with a bajillion heads and voices. It's going to be hard to unify our message, and even harder to get folks to accept the step-by-step offerings we'll get.

Of course, the easiest way to get the production companies out of their hidey-holes is to convince them to lower the cost of making games, thus the cost of buying games, and thus increase their own ability to take risks. THAT part is 100% not our fault.

 

[Something Amyss]

The folks behind the projects, holding the purse strings, are chickenshit, that's definitely a big problem. Handling diversity is such a hard issue, and they're afraid to be the ones to tackle it (because while they're busy tackling it, all of the other play-it-safe studios sneak in behind them to snag the loot).

They're chickenshit because of their estimation of US, the consumer. They think we won't get behind minorities. Now, whether it's us or just their perception of us is a debate, though I think we largely demonstrate this.

If the diversity advocates could be a bit less specific about what they don't want (which tends to put that group on the defensive), and be more specific about what they do want to see (More women/less sexuality, more hispanic protagonists with realistic accents and personalities, asians other than ninjas, etc.) they might get better results.

I've NEVER seen a better outcome from asking "why not more gay characters/black characters?" So I don't think this is true.

2. "But Will Smith is an exception" (often the implication is that he's not "black enough" or something). This is where I can understand (though not agree) with the moneychangers. If you have two groups, one is huge, and the other is being impossible to please... well, damn, it's easy to see where you want to sell your product.

Smith IS an exception. Not because he's not really black or anything, but because blacks don't get a lot of major leading roles, especially in serious roles. Hell, look at George Lucas talking about Red Tails. They had trouble getting that project off the ground because Hollywood really didn't want to fund a black-focused movie that wasn't a comedy.

Smith is still an exception in Hollywood. He may count as black in my eyes (and no reason he shouldn't), but he's hardly the norm. He's a minority in Hollywood, no racism intended.

There's a difference between saying, "This is a good first step. What's next?" and saying, "Because you didn't leap to my side instantly, I don't accept your offering." This is something I've learned as a teacher.

Did you learn not to lead or distort discussions? Because that seems to be an issue here.

This has been the state of Hollywood for like, 3-4 decades. It's not a "good start" scenario. It's a stagnant one. Will Smith has kind of been the "token" in Hollywood for over a decade now. That alone should be telling. In 16 years of Smith as an actor (post Fresh Prince), what has really changed?

Nothing?

But also, you need to recognize and point out when he is doing it right, too.

I hope you're not teaching your students that kind of false equivalence. At least, I'm assuming this is related to the topic at hand, despite the fact that neither Hollywood or the game industry are particularly doing anything particularly right.

And just like this teacher-student dynamic, it's easy for both sides to wait for the other to make the first move.

False Equivalence count: 2.

Of course, the big problem is that "we" (the public) are not a singular Teacher entity. We are a Teacher with a bajillion heads and voices. It's going to be hard to unify our message, and even harder to get folks to accept the step-by-step offerings we'll get.

We have no unified message, to boot. Many people don't give a damn about diversity in games or movies or anything else. Many others will defend this practice, either because it's what they want or just because they don't like what they see as accusations of racism. Even if they are not accusations of racism.

One of the big problems as a gaming community is that even when we do have specific affirmative requests (and they've appeared on here), people get hostile at the notion that things are anything but perfect in terms of games and women/minorities. You cannot mention or even allude to, unintentionally, racism/sexism without screaming fanatics.

Of course, the easiest way to get the production companies out of their hidey-holes is to convince them to lower the cost of making games, thus the cost of buying games, and thus increase their own ability to take risks. THAT part is 100% not our fault.

That's crap. We can stop demanding bleeding edge graphics, one of the big elements of the production costs. We can stop feeding into a system which has become so obscenely profit-driven that merely increasing your profits by 20% or more in a single year is not enough. That's one of the reasons games can be moderately successful and still see their developers shut down and sequels canceled. And even if we pulled those things off, they would probably still produce predominantly white male protagonists.

It may not be 100% our fault, but it is certainly not 100% not our fault.

 

[JayDig]

I think in the first scripts for Alien(1) or whatever it was originally titled), the characters were identified by quasi-futuristic non-racial last names, leaving gender and race a matter of opinion in casting. Seems like a good way to go if your story doesn't require contempory social politics.

In the end though, they cast a female lead protagonist but alongside white collar white guys, a blue collar black guy and a shrill, over-emotional woman. Oh well, 30+ years ago.

 

[-|-]

This entire article is total straw-man.

The fact is that it is entirely our fault. Publishers don't care what's in games, all they want is maximum return on their investment - and that really is ALL they want. The bean counters will have the sales numbers etc, they know what characters and themes make the most money. If they accuse the collective gaming public of preferring 30 something white guys then they are almost certainly correct. If they are wrong they stand to lose millions of dollars.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should ask themselves this: If you had to invest $1M in a game and the only choices are AAA shooter with black guy or AAA shooter with white guy (and those were the only choices)- which one would you pick?

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I've never understood why someone needs to be the same race as a character to relate to them. How well written a character is and what emotions they express/feel affects whether or not I relate to them. All the generic protagonists are harder for me to relate to simply because I can't tell them apart and therefore have nothing much to go on.

 

[Dastardly]

They're chickenshit because of their estimation of US, the consumer. They think we won't get behind minorities. Now, whether it's us or just their perception of us is a debate, though I think we largely demonstrate this.

And I agree, in a numerical sense. Most people feel comfortable with characters whose culture and appearance are similar to their own, and most people in this country are white, so the math tells folks that more people will buy "white things."

Also, most folks out there making games are white males. Maybe it's that they just default to this particular type of character, or maybe some of them just don't feel comfortable writing for a demographic group to which they don't belong... and maybe feel it'd be awkward to call up a black friend and say, "Hey, I'm trying to write a black guy. Tell me some black stuff..." (Or something more reasonable sounding. You get my point, I'm sure.)

I've NEVER seen a better outcome from asking "why not more gay characters/black characters?" So I don't think this is true.

And I have. So, I guess we can agree that purely anecdotal "evidence" doesn't really hold? You'll get more mileage out of asking for something specific than you will out of saying, "Anything but X." Why? Because the folks behind X feel that is an attack on them, and (as we've already agreed) they make up the majority.

I've already allowed that a vocal minority will always perceive any such request as an "attack." They're to be ignored. However, I think you misunderstand a key to my point: simply saying "more gay characters" is not specific.

In what ways should we indicate the character's sexuality? How "gay" should he be -- and what exactly does it mean for a character to "be gay?" (I mean, couldn't Admiral Ackbar be gay? We never see him in a romantic situation, so it's plausible.) What role should his sexuality play in the overall story, and in his characterization? How can we avoid making him a caricature of homosexuals, rather than a representation of a homosexual?

My point: People are sort of asking for these things, but they're not being clear about what they want. Since this is the kind of question it's very hard to answer without being offensive, the safest answer is often none.

Smith IS an exception. Not because he's not really black or anything, but because blacks don't get a lot of major leading roles, especially in serious roles. Hell, look at George Lucas talking about Red Tails. They had trouble getting that project off the ground because Hollywood really didn't want to fund a black-focused movie that wasn't a comedy.

You misunderstand. I know that Will Smith is an exception to the "most leading males are white" idea. I'm talking about those who feel he is an exception when he is cited as a black leading male. Instead of saying, "Will Smith is a good example, but he's just one," there's too often this sense that, "Will Smith doesn't count," for some reason. (Usually some variation of him being the "wrong kind of black.")

Did you learn not to lead or distort discussions? Because that seems to be an issue here.

Since you provided no support for this statement, we'll just assume you typed it accidentally somehow. Now, on to the point you've made:

This has been the state of Hollywood for like, 3-4 decades. It's not a "good start" scenario. It's a stagnant one. Will Smith has kind of been the "token" in Hollywood for over a decade now. That alone should be telling. In 16 years of Smith as an actor (post Fresh Prince), what has really changed?

Samuel L. Jackson. Cuba Gooding, Jr. Antonio Banderas. Denzel Washington. Zoe Saldana. Jackie Chan. Jet Li. We've made just a hair more progress than you seem to be indicating. Again, I'm not saying, "Look! We're there!" I'm saying that when we don't at least recognize the progress being made, we appear impossible to please... and that leads folks to stop trying at all.

I hope you're not teaching your students that kind of false equivalence. At least, I'm assuming this is related to the topic at hand, despite the fact that neither Hollywood or the game industry are particularly doing anything particularly right.

False equivalence?

The attitude you've expressed is exactly the problem I'm talking about: If you're going to fuss and fume that they've done nothing right, they're not going to bother playing your little game.

The "false equivalence" here is that you clearly equate "not doing enough" with "doing nothing at all." I agree that we haven't done enough. But nothing at all? It's untrue, and it's a counterproductive line of discussion.

And just like this teacher-student dynamic, it's easy for both sides to wait for the other to make the first move.

False Equivalence count: 2.

"You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means."

Unless you're talking about my teacher-student comparison, in which case you're failing to understand how the market works. We, the consumer, "teach" (through our spending habits) producers what to produce. If we teach them that we won't buy minority-focused products, they learn that (as they already have).

And if we teach them that small steps in the right direction are not enough, they're not going to risk a huge leap (in light of what we've already taught them about our preferences).

If you want another analogy, consider training an animal. How do you think a trainer teaches a parrot to spin around, hop twice, and put a coin in a cup? Does he just berate the parrot until it does all of those things? No. He goes through a process called "shaping," in which he rewards the parrot for each little step the parrot makes in the right direction. Each time, he moves the reward back a bit, waiting for the next "step" to occur, and then immediately rewarding it. Eventually, the bird learns a complex behavior despite an incredible difference in intelligence and language.

We have no unified message, to boot. Many people don't give a damn about diversity in games or movies or anything else. Many others will defend this practice, either because it's what they want or just because they don't like what they see as accusations of racism. Even if they are not accusations of racism.

Yeah, I already said that. And those people can't be reasoned with, so there's no point even letting them pretend they have a vote. Instead of standing and screaming at the wall, we should be looking for a door.

One of the big problems as a gaming community is that even when we do have specific affirmative requests (and they've appeared on here), people get hostile at the notion that things are anything but perfect in terms of games and women/minorities. You cannot mention or even allude to, unintentionally, racism/sexism without screaming fanatics.

The world is full of jerks. The internet is the last place they can play freely.

But again, I have yet to see truly specific requests. People asking to see "more representation" for a particular group are making a few mistakes:

1. They assume every member of the group shares a common concept of the group itself.
2. They assume people in that group are currently in positions to make these products, or
3. They assume people outside that group automatically know how to handle the portrayal of that group in a way that pleases its members (see #1).

 

[loa]

I dunno, I take more offense that almost all games apparently need "generic dude" as their protagonist character design than that racism claim.

 

[Freechoice]

Generic white guy is a shield for a weak plot in most instances. If you take a look at a Japanese game the choice of a white character is a statement about what type of story they're getting ready to tell. Altair and Ezio were who they are because of the environment they were put in.

Games with better stories can use a character's ethnicity to add additional flavor to the game's world. Get better writers and I guarantee you'll see more diversity in game characters.

Sir, I must respectfully say that that is a bunch of bullshit. Ethnicity and gender don't determine the intrigue of a character. A weak plot is a weak plot regardless of which flavor of the pudding rainbow the protagonist's skin is and you'll find that the overwhelming majority of good stories do feature a white guy and could have been transposed with a minority/female and STILL would have been a good story.

Also, ethnic issues can easily lose focus when in games set outside of the modern era or combat heavy games because of either lack of racist context or the downplaying of racial differences because the color of someone's skin is irrelevant when, at any given moment, they may be red and in many places.

Also also, Altair was middle Eastern.

Gamers need to have a character they can relate to.

...need to have a character they can relate to.

This phrase ALWAYS pisses me off! It is constantly used as an excuse to shove some horrid, and poorly written, character into a show/movie/whatever. Of course what makes a character "relatible," (turns out this isn't an actual word by the way), is always based on superficial things like skin color (ugh), gender (sigh), age (*facepalm*), and so on.

I KNOW. People are fucking stupid. And not just fucking stupid. Fucking egotistical too.

 

[xqxm]

If you're making a game, feel free to use whatever race, gender, age or species you want for the main character. What you absolutely shouldn't do, however, is shoehorn anything in in the name of diversity. That's how absolute dross is born.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Y'know, funny thing: blacks are overrepresented in the military as a whole (by about 50%)*. You'd think, with all the military dudes we've got as protagonists, we'd see a lot more black soldiers.

*Blacks make up 12% of US population, and 18% of soldiers.

They do make an appearance, but usually as support character and have a habit of dying (e.g. Dom from Gears of War)...

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I see where the OP is coming from and while his point is fair, it's also wrong. I will use bullet points for the why of it all (as I may meander). Please don't reply "Doesn't apply to me!"...whether you are special or not isn't for me to decide, I'm talking in broad terms:

- The generic white protagonist is not him/herself much more than a placeholder for the player to project onto. The "everyman" is widely used in literature and film as well. All movies have generic white male protagonist and hot female side-kick/love interest. Doesn't need to be that way, but it's the safest bet. Men want to project onto the hero, live the adventure and get the girl. Women want to be the girl, glamorous and desired.

- The relateable thing is understandable. It can't justify never using non-cookie cutter protagonists, but it's the same in most media. Look at any cover of any womens' magazine and it's an endless stream of airbrushed, idealised women. I agree that this isn't a good thing, but it is where the money seems to be.

- The point I'm ultimately making...if the protagonist is black, female, obese, ugly, homosexual, evil/cruel, a racist, an arab, an animal or an alien then the game/film/story will need to be about that fact. For example, why say the protagonist is homosexual, if not to explore his/her sexuality or otherwise make a point about that fact? If it's irrelevant to the story, why even mention it?

There are many films with an all black cast and even if that's not the main point of the story, the fact that the characters are black is usually crucial to the plot. It implies different cultural norms, language and the rest. Why for example is there not a Call of Duty game where the protagonist is Russian and the enemies are American? Or controversially, an Afghan fighting US troops?

 

[bLAZay00]

Generic white guy is a shield for a weak plot in most instances. If you take a look at a Japanese game the choice of a white character is a statement about what type of story they're getting ready to tell. Altair and Ezio were who they are because of the environment they were put in.

Games with better stories can use a character's ethnicity to add additional flavor to the game's world. Get better writers and I guarantee you'll see more diversity in game characters.

Sir, I must respectfully say that that is a bunch of bullshit. Ethnicity and gender don't determine the intrigue of a character. A weak plot is a weak plot regardless of which flavor of the pudding rainbow the protagonist's skin is and you'll find that the overwhelming majority of good stories do feature a white guy and could have been transposed with a minority/female and STILL would have been a good story.

Also, ethnic issues can easily lose focus when in games set outside of the modern era or combat heavy games because of either lack of racist context or the downplaying of racial differences because the color of someone's skin is irrelevant when, at any given moment, they may be red and in many places.

Also also, Altair was middle Eastern.

Let's take a look at things objectively: let's take The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as an example. If it was just Blondie and Snake Eyes, it would be a rather forgetable story about the chase for gold. You throw in the wily Tuco and all of a sudden the movie has genuine heart and soul. And, well... since I'm on a western kick, what about the Wild Bunch? Again, we have the Mexican character and his village's plight elevating a bunch of shiftless hardcases to something almost noble.

Let's even take the example of Altair. Jerusalem becomes a kind of Casablanca as the nation in control is still relatively in flux. The antagonistic culture clash doesn't preclude an exchange of knowledge, but it makes it so that shifts in power can happen based on the most innocuous bit of lore. And yes, I know that Altair and Ezio were in different regions of the world, but parts of Spain have been invaded and held by Arabs around 711 a.d. There was already a basis of cultural exchange in place, which made the setting choice a little more interesting for people into that kinda thing.

The mise en scene of a story is crucial to the way the characters interact with one another. You set a story about the border between France and England in 2012 and you have a relatively boring trip on a highway. Go back a couple hundred years and things get a bit more interesting. A writer's job is to take into account things like cultural and temporal differences. Good writer's make this look easy. The Song of Fire and Ice series makes this point excellently. While there are noble knights, the vast majority of people are more interested in politiking for personal gain than forming ranks against an impending apocalypse. Ethnicity (genuine ethnicity not just whether a guy is a little browner than the other guy) should be a major aspect in any story. If you took out "dalish elf" and inserted "black guy" around the 1920's you get similar issues: a people removed from their land of origin trying rediscover what makes them unique in a world that doesn't really care about their trials. Context is everything when you are writing a successful character.

I frankly don't see what you're taking issue with here. If you're railing against bad writing, then I'm with you, but your argument isn't here with me.

Sorry about going on. I tend to keep things shorter than this.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Maybe a game should come out, where all of the characters are the colour of light tea, and are from a mixed background of all the former peoples of earth. Make it a sci fi game or something. All tea coloured, speak Chinese and hate the whitey white that remain.

Then after this, perhaps we can get back to making good games, and fitting ethnicity into relevant historical context and not giving a shit about it again.

 

[The.Bard]

Yay, another Shamus article where he complains about things and offers no solution to the problem! Wheeeeeee!

Racism? C'mon, Shamus. Racism requires effort. The reason why the white guy is always the protagonist has nothing to do with race and EVERYTHING to do with people being LAZY.

How much research do you do for a white male pro-tuh-gone-ist? That's right- NONE. He can say anything, wear anything, do anything. He's vanilla blahh... literally and figuratively. White people have no cultural requirements, no lingo to look up. White people are like Zombies. Call them white and call it a day - a gun and some choice catchphrases, and off he goes!

But a Turkish protagonist? Research, bro. You can't have a Turkish man shouting "Time to kick ass and chew bubble gum!" without the choice seeming superficial. Turkish culture, clothing, phrases, dialects, etc. need to be researched. And what is the game's goal with this move? To share Turkish culture? To say something unique about the Turkish place in society? If he's Turkish "just cuz," then congrats on a whiffed opportunity!

Variety for the sake of variety is a superficial diversity. Halo 4 could come out and show that Master Chief is Korean and then never touch the issue again. But would that really change how you interact with the game? Would it FEEL different? Nope. So for a Korean MC to CHANGE how you interact with the game, it can't be superficial. That cultural diversity needs to rise to the top. Which brings us back to our old friend... RESEARCH!

For an example done right, see Prey. They didn't make Tommy a Native American "just cuz." They built the culture and story around that concept. Work was done. Effort was put in. This takes time and money.

Diversity needs to be driven by the creative forces with a story to tell, not demanding the bald white guy concept vacate your lawn like some elderly hooligan. In other words, I think the solution lies more in bringing fresh blood with fresh new perspectives *INTO* the gaming industry. The narrative choices and perspectives will ORGANICALLY change as a result, not because people like you demanded it.

Writing articles that say "I am pissed about this. I have no helpful suggestions to contribute. I'm just pissed." isn't really HELPING. You are essentially beating your donkey for going the wrong way, whilst - and at the same time - shouting "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!"

That doesn't help the donkey find the right way. You need to, ya know, direct him. WITH LOVE.

 

[Ukomba]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/brown_hair.jpg

It's funny that the picture includes Shepard, given you can make Shepard any gender/color you want. You can even make him/her what ever sexual orientation you want, including xenophile. Why not include a white skinned, brown haired Revan or Dragon Age 2's Hawke. Go ahead and throw some white, brown haired characters from Sky Rim, Dragon age 1, WoW, or SWTOR in there while your at it.

 

[zefiris]

being unable to distinguish between the two enough to realize that racism pretty much doesn't exist in countries like the USA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHA. Good joke, you're way too obviously pretending, though, because nobody would truly believe the nonsense you wrote.

I mean, the USA is a country where a white nighbourhood watchman can shoot a black kid who did nothing wrong, and what the police will do is intimidate witnesses that saw what happened, and cover up evidence for the white guy killing an innocent black kid armed only with skittles (you know, the sweets). Nobody would claim such a country has no racism. The USA has racism in spades.

Turning the TV on gets you a lot of it. "Evil muslim invader from Kenya", for example. Or Arizona laws that end up costing the state money just so non-white people can be pushed around.

If he lived in Kenya, he'd probably be considered white.

On the other hand, we have people saying this, so maybe you truly were serious. Oh dear.

Sticking a brown haired white guy as the lead pretty much avoids those kinds of risk.

However, this risks that people like me simply won't give them their money. I have other things to buy that weren't made by scaredycats.