Subject:
|
Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:26:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
817 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > 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.
>
> I'm afraid I don't see this as 'the point' at all. If anything, its great
> that TLC has expanded its market in recent past - that's a step in the right
> direction. Why complain about what they have done years ago when they're
> changing stuff that is being done now.
Certainly it is great that TLC has in some ways opened its eyes to a broader
demographic, but it is unfortunate that certain spectres from their past still
linger. Because minifigs have persisted more or less unchanged for over two
decades, it is not unreasonable to infer that the policies regarding minifigs
at the time of their inception remain in place (in some form or another)
today. In short, I'm not complaining about what they did in the past, but
rather I'm taking issue with what they've done in the past and continue to do
in the present.
> For Lego to even attempt to be politically correct is a no-win situation.
Like "race card," "politically correct" is a knee-jerk term and should be
applied with caution. At any rate, since political correctness is not what
I've been proposing, I see no need to refute this point.
> The person who can look at another person and not see a skin color, not see a
> disability is the one who isn't racist, or isn't discriminatory.
I have met no one in my entire life who truly fits this criterion, and I
would greatly like to meet such a person. Everyone has preconceptions based on
individual experiences that form their expectations of people. This is
unfortunate but true.
> Yes, there is a skewed demographic in place. Is it unfortunate, is it not?
> That's not for me to decide. And is it a direct effect of the way TLC has
> marketed its product? Only surveys and studies could tell you that.
You're missing my point; I'm not saying Lugnet's demographic is responsible
for TLC's marketing. It's fine for a bunch of us to sit around discussing the
problems of minifig representation when we're not presented with a sizably
disparate perspective. You and I are two average caucasians speculating on
the problems of race, and I expect our experiences are markedly different from
other people in the world, not represented here on Lugnet, who would
nonetheless have valuable insights to contribute to the discussion.
> The Duplo figures was something that I had totally forgotten about. And
> IIRC, they've been doing that for quite some time. Tell me, are those figs
> available in the retail catalogs, or only through S@H? I believe I only saw
> them in the S@H catalogs.
I don't understand the signficance of the products' inaccessibility. Would
Duplo be more of a factor if they were available in every retail store?
> > 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.
>
> It may fail for him, but I'm saying that he chose not to make a huge issue
> about it. He didn't cry racism when he made the fig,
Hold it. Aside from the aforementioned unhelpful poster, who here has cried
racism? Why is it so important for those in opposition to the subject to
label the discussion as racist? That seems, to me, an overly convenient way
of dismissing the matter without dealing with it.
> EVERYONE at the event (Legoland CA, Kidvention) absolutely loved the fig and
> thought it was cool, and hilarious! But he didn't use that platform to talk
> to us all about discrimination. He had fun with it.
That's great, but it would have been nicer if kids could pick minifigs to
represent themselves without having to undergo major customization work. If
minifig yellow truly depicted every "race" then your friend would have found
no reason to customize his in that way.
> > 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.
>
> Vaguely recalling the white figs - my best friend had some, cause to his
> mom, 'they're all Legos.' :\ They did look rather silly, and even
> horror-film-ish.
The ones I have don't have separate legs, either, so they're even weirder!
> > 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.
>
> I would agree. Following TLC's current path with Star Wars sets, it would
> be logical for them to pursue this. But I feel they can contain the feature
> to their Star Wars products, which are under license.
>
> But - I'll bet that those sets will FLY off the shelves, for people to
> gather up those colored minifig heads and hands.
So obviously there is a demand. Even if we accept the apocryphal "TLC says
yellow is ALL races" argument, why wouldn't they want to sell to such a
lucrative market?
> 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.
>
> Read the few references in my post in reply to Eric - that's where I feel
> this has become racially motivated.
Fair enough, but you can't dismiss the argument itself because of one
goofball's spew, nor can you hold anyone else responsible for his drivel. I
find his "discourse" objectionable not only because of its limited content but
also because of its counterproductive effect on the discussion.
> > 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?
>
> How does the color of a spaceship relate to racism, even in the least??
Exactly! It doesn't relate, even in the least, just as our discussion of
the value of a non-yellow Lando/Mace/Panaka figure doesn't relate to racism,
even in the least. Despite continued pressure to make it a race issue, and
despite the troll-like contributions of one thoughtless poster, that's not
what the essence of the debate is about.
> Its a difference between paint scheme,
> and human (or whatever life form if we're referring to Star Wars) genetics.
True, but the fact that people have complained about the "paint scheme" of
the Millennium Falcon set indicates that it is important. Why is the
portrayal of a character any less so?
> Because as I said earlier, there will always be someone to play the race, or
> discrimination card, and TLC (nor any other company) can't satisfy everyone.
> Too many protests, too many lawsuits. They should just stay out of it
> alltogether.
Alas, as you've agreed in a reply to one of Bruce's posts, it's too late for
that. Whatever the answer may be, the head-in-the-sand approach TLC has taken
so far doesn't appear to be working. However, dismissing the debate as
a "politically correct" "race card" is unfair and premature, since it fails to
take into account the actual spectrum of opinions and experiences in this case.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
| "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Fz54Kp.E62@lugnet.com... (...) broader (...) still (...) two (...) minifigs (...) do (...) Alright, I'm beginning to understand you now. (...) be (...) what (...) Yup. The issue of 'political (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
