| |
I don't usually like to get involved in these sorts of debates (anymore...
though I used to) But this post had a comment or two that caught my eye.
In lugnet.starwars, Terry Prosper writes:
> I remember reading an article in which someone from TLC stated that minifigs
> head were all yellow so there would never be any racist discrimination with
> the products, yellow representing a neutral color, even if most of us seem
> to think that yellow is flesh, so it is discriminating against other skin
> tones like asians, blacks, etc.
Speaking only for myself, I always thought of the yellow color as simply the
color in which minifigs were made. Nothing more, nothing less. It
certainly does not represent a 'flesh' coloring in the way that Crayola used
to manufacture a crayon called that. And to me, unless I'm way out of line,
it really doesn't represent a natural skin color for any human being. It's
nicely neutral that way. Neutral in the sense that it doesn't represent
*any* race or coloring, and is therefore discriminating against no one.
> I remember that TLC produces some Far west sets with indians in it,
> yellow-headed. They had different eyes and pattern on their clothes, which
> was enough to distinguish them from the cowboys. I think something like
> that shoul;d be done for Mace and Lando.
I tend to agree. I think the facial printing is enough to distinguish one
character from another. Should they try to reproduce specific people or
races? Well, that's another debate altogether. :)
> Now don't get me wrong, I think it would be more realistic to see Lando in
> brown. I've got nothing against it, but imagine for a second that TLC
> produces brown minifigs head for these 2... Don't you think they will be
> obligated to produce many other brown heads and hands and legs ans arms and
> torsos since they will have accepted to say: yellow is flesh, so all our
> previous minifigs were caucasians.
See comments above. Again, I don't feel that the yellow ever did or was
ever intended to represent caucasians. I never looked at a minifig and
said, "hey, he looks just like me." Rather I always felt that, "hey, he
looks just like a minifig."
Had the LEGO company originally intended for minifigs to look like
caucasians, then I suspect they might have made them in a more peachy/pink
'flesh' tone as Crayola did with their crayons. But since we all know that
'flesh' color is completely unimportant, I think it was wiser that they
picked a bright primary color that could represent all people; not just one
race.
> PS: I have read my message carefully. English is not my primary language,
> but i'm almost 100% sure that I didn't say or implied anything that could be
> interpreted as racist. If so, please note that in no way was it my
> intention. I'm totally against all forms of discrimination and against
> racism. If by any mistake I've said something the wrong way, I'll correct
> it if you would kindly tell me how to re-phrase it.
Your message was well-received. As a monolingual person I have great
respect for anyone who can express complicated thoughts in a 2nd (or 3rd)
language. And you did just that.
On a silly side note:
Let's all just be thankful that LEGO didn't originally decide to make
minifigs in blue. Otherwise there'd be people up in arms believing that
they were discriminating against this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/offbeat.blue.candidate/index.html
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lando poll
|
| I remember reading an article in which someone from TLC stated that minifigs head were all yellow so there would never be any racist discrimination with the products, yellow representing a neutral color, even if most of us seem to think that yellow (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.starwars)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
