Hatta wrote:It's impossible to define race consistently anyway. Race is not a biological phenomenon, it's an invention of society.
As for Jade, I think she's deliberately racially ambiguous.
Of course, to both accounts.
Actually I've felt kinda iffy about the entire concept of this thread really. Isn't trying to call attention to the lack of racial diversity of gaming racist in itself?
I've been thinking about this thread lately, and it's interesting that there really isn't a lot of diversity outside of the fighting game genre. Last night I was trying to think of games with Mexican characters. Outside of fighting games, I could only come up with Call of Juarez and Total Overdose as games that included Mexican character, and a few games that use Mexican iconography like Grim Fandango and Viva Pinata.
Maybe fighters are more racially diverse because Street Fighter II was subtitled "The World Warrior" and featured fighters from different countries, and since SFII was hugely successful, every fighter after it has tried to copy SFII to some degree and it has led to more diversity in this genre than any other. Part of what made each character cool in SFII was that they represented a different nationality and regional fighting style. At the same time, fighting games also tend to have overly typified caricatures of their races. I mean, come on, El Fuerte shouts out things like "Tostada Press" and "Fajita Buster" in SFIV. Who says that?! Yet, somehow, the obvious stereotyping in fighter characters has never really struck me as particularly mean spirited, though it is often silly.
In terms of playable fictional characters, there aren't that many racially diverse lead characters in any other genre besides fighters. I think racial diversity helps makes fighting games more interesting, at the same time, relying on obvious stereotypes also makes them potentially more racist. I personally would like to see more racial diversity in video games. Too many games are set in similar locations and have similar characters whether we are talking about about race or not. I think if game companies challenged themselves to include more varied ethnicities and did the research to represent different cultures authentically, then video games in general would benefit by becoming a more rich and varied medium.
AppleQueso wrote:Actually I've felt kinda iffy about the entire concept of this thread really. Isn't trying to call attention to the lack of racial diversity of gaming racist in itself?
It's racial, but not racist.
In fact, I think it's more racist to never think about it. Much of modern day racism comes in subtle forms from a "color blind" mentality that pretends that there aren't differences in cultures and inequities across races where there clearly are. I think we need to be able to talk about race and culture in order to understand how we are the same and how we are different, and to understand racial privilege and disadvantage. I think pointing out that games don't have much in the way of diversity is just saying, hey, there's this whole big group of people in the world that aren't represented in a major medium and they could potentially contribute to it and bring something unique if we could just get past the assumption that the video game market is and always will be a market for white and asian men.
I think it's like what Nintendo called "the great blue ocean" when they began realizing that they could market games to a casual audience. I think there is a potential audience for games representing other cultures that is just not being tapped into very effectively by the gaming industry.
Last edited by J T on Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hatta wrote:It's impossible to define race consistently anyway. Race is not a biological phenomenon, it's an invention of society.
That's as absurd as it gets. I guess that black people looking, well, black is also "an invention of society"?
If you are not a biologist you shouldn't say what is and isn't biologically sound.
Differences in outward appearance between people are biological phenomena, race is the method with which society chooses to categorize those differences. I don't think Hatta is arguing against the existence of the external differences but I think he's saying that since the categories of race are social distinctions they aren't scientific enough to be used in biological discussion.
"There are two ways to get enough. One way is to continue to accumulate more and more. The other is to desire less." G.K. Chesterton
Croooow! wrote:Differences in outward appearance between people are biological phenomena, race is the method with which society chooses to categorize those differences. I don't think Hatta is arguing against the existence of the external differences but I think he's saying that since the categories of race are social distinctions they aren't scientific enough to be used in biological discussion.
Croooow! wrote:Differences in outward appearance between people are biological phenomena, race is the method with which society chooses to categorize those differences. I don't think Hatta is arguing against the existence of the external differences but I think he's saying that since the categories of race are social distinctions they aren't scientific enough to be used in biological discussion.
Race is a biological term.
Well I look like an idiot
"There are two ways to get enough. One way is to continue to accumulate more and more. The other is to desire less." G.K. Chesterton
Well the language can get confusing, but yes, race is usually meant to mean the biologically based anatomical traits that can differentiate groups within a species. What Hatta and Crooooow! are talking about is more aptly labeled as ethnicity or "racial groups", which are complex systems of beliefs, behaviors, and traditions within a race. These develop and change through culture and are primarily a social phenomenon. It's similar to the distinction made between sex and gender.
This is also why there is so much confusion about racial/cultural differences though. Not only are the terms confused, but the biological and social components of what we are talking about are confused as well. In fact, to make things even more complicated, the biological attributes of a race often play a role in creating the culture of an ethnicity, and cultural differences can affect biological adaptation. There's a whole nature/nurture thing going on here, not to mention all the possible individual differences that could appear for any one member of these groups.
J T wrote:Well the language can get confusing, but yes, race is usually meant to mean the biologically based anatomical traits that can differentiate groups within a species. What Hatta and Crooooow! are talking about is more aptly labeled as ethnicity or "racial groups", which are complex systems of beliefs, behaviors, and traditions within a race. These develop and change through culture and are primarily a social phenomenon. It's similar to the distinction made between sex and gender.
This is also why there is so much confusion about racial/cultural differences though. Not only are the terms confused, but the biological and social components of what we are talking about are confused as well. In fact, to make things even more complicated, the biological attributes of a race often play a role in creating the culture of an ethnicity, and cultural differences can affect biological adaptation. There's a whole nature/nurture thing going on here, not to mention all the possible individual differences that could appear for any one member of these groups.
General_Norris wrote:^They changed her for US release? What the hell man?
I mean, it's like they were to take a very Japanese game and after making all asian characters white they turned one of them into a Black Best Friend (TM)
