Subject:
|
Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:40:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
780 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> Jason Rowoldt wrote:
> "Does it seem marketed toward non-blacks? (A term I use from your comments,
> as I have a real problem in trying to judge that fine line as to who is black
> and who isn't, based on skin tone or cultural preference. I'd rather us all be
> just human beings)."
>
> I'd agree with this statement wholeheartedly.
No one in any argument here has suggested that skin color has any effect on
a person's human-ness.
> But, as an interesting aside, I'm looking at a couple pieces of literature.
**snip of several recent, anecdotal examples**
These are fine, of course, and it's great to see that Lego has opened its
marketing to a broader cross-section of consumers. However, the examples you
give are all rather recent, and the yellow minifig has been around since the
early 70's. Do we have any examples of sales or marketing literature from
that time that was similarly broad in scope? I don't recall any, though I may
be wrong.
> So really, is LEGO marketed any less towards any particular race? I would
> think not - because LEGO is a truly worldwide company, and the literature
> I've seen portrays people of a variety of different races being involved
> with LEGO bricks.
The point is that, when the minifig was introduced, marketing was more
caucasian-oriented, and many have inferred, right or wrong, the uniformity of
minifig color to indicate a "racial" characteristic.
> Back to the quote - I am again in agreement with Jason's statement. We are
> all human beings. That's the first thing that ties us all together, our
> humanity, and secondarily our distinct genetic variations.
The following is idle speculation--not directed at anyone in particular:
Considering that the AFOL community (in the US, at least), to judge by all
of the pictures I've seen on the web, and from other adult shoppers I see at
stores, reflects a sharply skewed demographic. Since we are not speaking
among an even remotely integrated community, I have to wonder how the noble
platitudes of "we're all one race" would stand in an environment truly
representative of the world's population and displaying a much broader range
of experiences re: race.
> I leave now with the strong feeling this was used by people to cry racism.
> That's unfortunate, because (at least from my POV) LEGO is not acting with any
> racial motivation whatsoever in its product line.
I haven't read every message in the thread, but I don't recall anyone
actually asserting racism as the issue. Rather, people have expressed their
concerns that a possible yellow Lando minifig will seem more odd than a yellow
Han minifig. Further, Lego might not pursue "any racial motivation" in its
product line, but, as many have pointed out, the fact that Duplo offers a
multi-hued figure pack demonstrates irrefutably that Lego sees some benefit in
offering more than one color of figure.
> On a lighthearted sidenote, I know someone who made their own black minifig,
> and it was really cool! He is black himself, and what I appreciated the
> most is he didn't take on an attitude that it was an injustice needing to be
> corrected - he did it because he wanted a fig to represent himself.
This is the essence of the problem, isn't it? If your friend saw the need
to alter a minifig (blasphemy to some Lego purists) to represent his skin
color, then the "yellow represents everybody" argument fails obviously fails,
at least for your friend. Does it seem likely that your friend is the only
person to feel this way? I grant you, when I set out to make a "me" minifig to
put on my desk, I sought one with glasses and brown hair and didn't bother
with "white" skin. If I were blue or green, however, it would require a
greater suspension of disbelief for me to imagine the pale yellow figure to
represent my skin color.
Interestingly, MegaBloks figures several years ago were white, and they look
really weird. In the last few years, though, they've offered a range of skin
hues.
> And his attitude towards it was positive, fun, and definitely constructive to
> the hobby. He didn't have any overt political agenda in creating his own
> custom minifig.
Neither do we have such an agenda here; we're asserting that a non-yellow
Lando/Mace/Panaka minifig would be cool and would do a better job of
representing the character than the yellow minfigs now in use.
It is interesting that so many (not you specifically, Tim) wish to dismiss
the argument out of turn as racially-motivated, when in fact it is not.
Instead, it is a matter of how effectively a character can be depicted. The
Star Wars group has been littered with complaints about the color schemes of
the Millennium Falcon and Darth Vader's TIE Fighter, but no one rose up to
dismiss those concerns as "racist" or "ship color-ist". It was generally
agreed in those cases that the inaccurate colors prevented satisfactory
representation of the respective ships, without any forced subtext of racism.
Why, then, can we not discuss a minifig's color without calling it racism?
> And yes, when I was a kid, I was one who wanted to see black minifigs
> introduced, and was curious as to why they didn't make them.
When did this change? And why?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
| "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Fz4rAo.HHF@lugnet.com... (...) literature. (...) its (...) you (...) the (...) may (...) But what does that matter? That was done in the past, and this is today. The question is, how will (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
