Support NeoGAF

[RexNovis]

There were so many black people in 16th century England, free ones, that Queen Elizabeth wanted to deport them all. It's estimated that in Victorian times there were twenty thousand in London alone. It's such a strange idea that a black european is an anomaly. There have been black people in Britain since ancient Rome.

Those of you claiming there was a sizable population of minorities in Victorian London are spreading some serious FUD. Most estimates put the black population at roughly 0.05% of the 20 million living in all of England at the time.Asians fell in at roughly 0.075%. The nation was overwhelmingly white with the largest minority being those of Indian and Middle Eastern descent totaling in at a whopping 1.5% of the total population. It was the most racially homogenistic period of the country's history thanks to French, Roman and Norse invasions in the past and heavy immigrant migration from the colonies in the early 1900s.

source

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913
Could be of help, but great in its self

By the end of the American War in 1783 there was a population of between 5,000 and 10,000 black men and women living in the capital, a central ingredient to the ragout of cultures and lives that made this a world city. From its high-point at the end of the eighteenth century the West Indian and African communities of London went into relative decline. Following the abolition of the slave trade and a generation later, of slavery itself within the British Empire, there remained fewer new recruits to this population. Nevertheless, London remained the centre of a worldwide empire that both attracted black men and women from the colonies and ensured the city would form the nexus for an evolving anti-imperialist politics.
In the nineteenth century, as the overall size of the black community declined, a higher proportion came to be associated with the port and employment as seamen, though a small number of black men and women continued to be found in other trades.

source

Not to mention the time was characterized by its very racist and chauvinistic attitudes in which Britishness was constructed around white visions of identity, rooted in imperial attitudes and assumptions. The dominant view is that the black presence in Britain was not significant before large-scale immigration after the Second World War.

source

All the assertions of large ethnic minority populations in Victorian England are flat out false. Kindly stop spreading blatant lies as facts.

 

[karasu]

Those of you claiming there was a sizable population of minorities in Victorian London are spreading some serious FUD. Most estimates put the black population at roughly 0.05% of the 20 million living in all of England at the time.Asians fell in at roughly 0.075%. The nation was overwhelmingly white with the largest minority being those of Indian and Middle Eastern descent totaling in at a whopping 1.5% of the total population. It was the most racially homogenistic period of the country's history thanks to French, Roman and Norse invasions in the past and heavy immigrant migration from the colonies in the early 1900s.

source

FUD? 0.5% of 20 million is 100,000 or so. That's five times more than what I mentioned.

 

[RexNovis]

FUD? 0.5% of 20 million is 100,000 or so. That's five times more than what I mentioned.

0.05% please reread

Those of you claiming there was a sizable population of minorities in Victorian London are spreading some serious FUD. Most estimates put the black population at roughly 0.05% of the 20 million living in all of England at the time.Asians fell in at roughly 0.075%. The nation was overwhelmingly white with the largest minority being those of Indian and Middle Eastern descent totaling in at a whopping 1.5% of the total population. It was the most racially homogenistic period of the country's history thanks to French, Roman and Norse invasions in the past and heavy immigrant migration from the colonies in the early 1900s.

 

[karasu]

0.05% please reread

damn 5am posting. Well, the figure I've seen most often is anywhere from 15 to 20 thousand during that period.

 

[Wiktor]

I think Geralt from Rivia fits.

In regular fantasy race is very fluid, but Witcher isn't regular default fantasy. It's heavily slavic fantasy, so having anything but white slavic lead would be like making a white lead in african/asian/arabian fantasy. Especially since just like those other examples slavic culture hasn't been explored much in this medium.

 

[Wulfram]

There were so many black people in 16th century England, free ones, that Queen Elizabeth wanted to deport them all. It's estimated that in Victorian times there were twenty thousand in London alone. It's such a strange idea that a black european is an anomaly. There have been black people in Britain since ancient Rome.

Well, (greater) London in 1881 had a population of 4,709,960, so that'd suggest that the game should have 1 in 235 of it's characters be black. Of course it depends when your figure is actually from, since London was growing at something like 20% a decade

Which would mean that a black major character is plenty plausible, but not something that should be expected.

 

[karasu]

Well, (greater) London in 1881 had a population of 4,709,960, so that'd suggest that the game should have 1 in 235 of it's characters be black. Of course it depends when your figure is actually from, since London was growing at something like 20% a decade

Which would mean that a black major character is plenty plausible, but not something that should be expected.

I completely agree.

 

[Oersted]

Isn't that kind of the norm, since many games are based on white male experiences/sagas/myths and stories?
You defend America against the russian invaders but not, for example, as african fighting against slavery or as a native american against colonization.

 

[Mango The Magician]

Not sure how justifiable Link's race really is for the rest of the franchise. OoT does have a Crusader type plot though, with the evil Moorish desert people and all that.

Huh. o____o

Well, the Gerudos aren't really evil, they're just unlucky enough to have been the race that Ganon is from, which in later games is actually something that has been downplayed significantly. But yeah, OOT was kinda crusader-like.

I would say I'd draw the line with this. For the sake of this particular thread, while there's two races at play here, there's nothing explicitly racially-charged going on in the general mythos of Link and whatnot being depicted in legends. Link himself could be female and Pacific Islander and the Gerudo made into Canadians and it would basically have the same ramifications. It doesn't help that some of the darker elements like this (going into exploring racial politics, like in Majora's Mask) have been downplayed pretty substantially in the later titles, with more of an emphasis being placed on fighting for power or dominion or vanquishing evil or what have you. These examples usually require a call-response dichotomy in-universe: that is, it's made clear X is happening because character is race A, and Y affects character because they're race B. While the racial element is there on the surface, it's more of an extension of the factions at play or good versus evil than anything outright racial. Now, if Ganon was being targeted because he was a Gerudo, or if Link would face issues in Hyrule if he were Gerudo (which, let's be serious, he probably wouldn't because he's prophesized to defeat evil), that'd be one thing, but ultimately I'm going to say the Majora's Mask example is the only Zelda-related one I've heard so far that would really apply within this thread. I hope I helped clear a bit of what I'm looking for up for you.

Ah, I see, I misunderstood what exactly the thread was asking for, in that I was thinking of just something that would justify it, be it racially-charged or not. Plus, I really don't think there'd be a difference in how Link would be treated if he started out a Gerudo or anything like that, it'd just literally be the same story with a different starting area. I do think it is kinda interesting how they use the concept of "living up to legend" though. Likewise, Link was the only example I could think of off hand, but to be fair I really can't think of any minority characters that go out of their way to try to explain themselves, as the race and the gender of the character seems to just be something that has no real baring on the plot unless the plot is about the differences in which people are viewed. However, it's possible that I just don't consume enough games where it matters as I tend to prefer games where the characters themselves are more important than the plot, in that the more whimsical the better, so yeah. I will say though, that I don't think a character should have to explain what they are, they should just be, permitting historically or culturally accurate plots of course, in that there's no rhyme or reason as to why Mango The Magician a character I created, is a girl, she's just a girl. However, I don't think this is a justification to change any longstanding characters i.e. Link.

Anyways, thanks for the clarification, sorry if I sorta changed the topic slightly; I'll try to think of an example that'll work now.

 

[RexNovis]

damn 5am posting. Well, the figure I've seen most often is anywhere from 15 to 20 thousand during that period.

Yes for the entirety of England not London specifically. So that's 15k to 20k out of the 20 million in all of England at the time.

Well, (greater) London in 1881 had a population of 4,709,960, so that'd suggest that the game should have 1 in 235 of it's characters be black. Of course it depends when your figure is actually from, since London was growing at something like 20% a decade

Which would mean that a black major character is plenty plausible, but not something that should be expected.

Nah see my previous post. Black population was 0.05% of the total population which would mean 1 in 2000 people in London would be Black. Not even close to the same ballpark as you are throwing in.

 

[User 73706]

Isn't that kind of the norm, since many games are based on white male experiences/sagas/myths and stories?
You defend America against the russian invaders but not, for example, as african fighting against slavery or as a native american against colonization.

This falls under "writing what they know." And, again, the intent of this thread is to cover specific characters, not just the white male protagonist or otherwise at large. I don't mind people attempting to defend Marcus Fenix, etc. but keep the broad strokes to a minimum. "White male experiences" are pretty narrow when we have a gaming industry that covers things from drag racing to space operas to abstract freerunner time trials to even weirder stuff like whatever Scorn's trying to pull off. Sagas, myths and stories are also taking a smorgasbord of elements from other cultures anyway; see God of War covering a subversion of the Greek god lineup, Destiny having some highly Eastern influences such as the Fallen Devil Walkers resembling Tachikomas, and so on.

 

[Lime]

This is a cool thread. Great OP!

I am sorry that I don't have a lot to contribute with at this point, but I thought the protagonist (Walker something?) in Spec Ops The Line impacted the theme of the game more than it would have. I.e. in terms of its colonial/imperialistic message, it works better with a White Western Dude than someone else. The narrative wouldn't have worsened if we had to play Adams, but it did have a different effect by having the player being forced into the trope of White soldier dude arrives in an alien country and fucks shit up.

The source material and inspiration probably determined this a bit as well, with Heart of Darkness - Apocalypse Now - militaristic video games.

 

[User 73706]

"a white male done 'wrong' would be one that doesn't actually justify their circumstances via heritage or culture, e.g. Marcus Fenix"

"This is about their culture actually defining them to an extent."

Is this a case of "I don't know much about the setting, so I'm going to assume things" or is it a failure to see how Marcus being Gorasni, Kashkuri, Pesanga would be different than his Tyran background?

Or is this an application of real world "white culture" to a fictional setting that has it's own world history set up with no connection to our own? Because then that makes the use of Marcus as an example even more silly.

There's nothing preventing made-up races being used as examples, but Gears of War as a game really wouldn't experience a radical departure from its image if the protagonist were Dom or Cole or even a woman, as evidenced by their inclusion in GoW 3. Again, it's a pretty straightforward example of "black and white ganged up on green" - and while prejudices may exist, they aren't doing anything substantial to affect the gameplay. If Marcus Fenix would have experienced radical social prejudice as a Space Easterner in the EU or something, that's one thing, but the formula of "humans fighting aliens" in this case has a pretty heavy focus on just that. Cole isn't being chided by his squadmates for being Space Black, Dom isn't for being Space Spanish, etc. The point of the thread is to illustrate examples where modifying qualities of the character would have not just an affect on appearance or backstory, but playable plot and actual gameplay. If you were black in RDR you'd probably be facing a whole lot more enemies in cutscenes and out, Trevor in GTAV is the only one that'll take meth from Online players, etc.

 

[staticneuron]

Not sure how justifiable Link's race really is for the rest of the franchise. OoT does have a Crusader type plot though, with the evil Moorish desert people and all that.

Huh. o____o

Since race is a social construct, this begs the question, "Why is Link considered white?"

All the assertions of large ethnic minority populations in Victorian England are flat out false. Kindly stop spreading blatant lies as facts.

Saying there around 20,000 blacks in London at that time is a lie?


Source: BBC

By the 18th Century, it is thought as many as 20,000 black servants lived in London. They even had their own taverns where they greeted defeat of the "Somersett case" and the victories of the abolitionists with raucous good humour.

and

In around 1600, the presence of black people had become an issue for the English government. Their numbers recently increased by many slaves freed from captured Spanish ships, the presence of black people suddenly came to be seen as a nuisance. In 1601, among the Cecil papers still held at Hatfield House, we hear this:

"The queen is discontented at the great numbers of 'negars and blackamoores' which are crept into the realm since the troubles between her Highness and the King of Spain, and are fostered here to the annoyance of her own people."

The "great numbers" were mainly galley slaves and servants from captured Spanish vessels, and a plan was mooted to transport them out of the country. Was this the first example of government repatriation? In July 1602, Cecil was putting pressure on the merchants, one of whom wrote:

"I have persuaded the merchants trading to Barbary, not without some difficulty, to yield to [ie pay for] the charges of the Moors lately redeemed out of servitude by her Majesty's ships, so far as it may concern their lodging and victuals, till some shipping may be ready to carry them into Barbary…"

But I wonder if the BBC is an untrustworthy source for you.

Wiki and Gerzina (some silly PHD)

Around the 1750s, London became the home of many Blacks, as well as Jews, Irish, Germans and Huguenots. According to Gretchen Gerzina in her Black London, by the mid-18th century, Blacks comprised somewhere between one and three percent of the London populace.

why?

Source History Today

As slavery in the New World became a major institution – transforming the demography of the region as surely as it revolutionised the local economies, those English ships trading with Africa and the slave colonies returned home filled with tropical produce – and with the occasional coffle of slaves. Returning sailors, military and government officials retiring to England and of course planters coming home, brought with them black slaves. In the colonies, whites had surrounded themselves with black domestics; in England the number of black servants offered some indication of an ex-colonial's position or wealth. Soon the habit became fashionable in English propertied circles and blacks were imported to satisfy fashionable taste. But in essence the black slaves sold into England were little more than the flotsam and jetsam of England's burgeoning Atlantic empire.

source Nationalarchive.gov.uk

Although we do not know their numbers, there are some (rather contradictory) clues. In 1764, for example, the Gentleman's Magazine estimated that 20,000 Black people lived in London, a figure accepted by the anti-slavery campaigner Granville Sharp. In 1772, Lord Mansfield put the number in the country as a whole at 15,000.

on the contradiction

One problem is that Black and Asian people are not always identified in the records. Sometimes - for example, in many army service records - a person's complexion is described, and sometimes the records may say that she or he is a 'Black', 'Negro' or 'Moor'. But frequently no such indication is given. Nor is there any way of being certain how many Black and Asian people lived here - nor, indeed, what the total population was, since the first national census was not taken until 1801 (and even that was of limited scope).

Often, it is impossible to tell whether Black people referred to in records were free or enslaved. It should not be assumed that a person described as a 'Negro' in the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries was a slave. Many Black people were never enslaved. And those that were, might be granted or buy their freedom, or claim it when they entered the military.

source BBC again

African and English people also shared the same cramped social spaces - from below-deck quarters at sea, to Newgate gaol cells. They drank gin at the same taverns, and danced together at mixed-race hops. This lack of segregation, combined with the relatively small number of black people in Britain (even in London there were not many more than 10,000, around 1 per cent of the capital's population), created a fleeting and vernacular multi-culturalism.

We get this type of confusion as well about how many were involved in the slave trade for specific countries. Since blacks were treated as objects the only ones tallied were those that survived. Those that died in captivity before transit and those that died during transit is not counted. In addition, one questions if mixed denizens were counted as well because even to this day, some that cannot be clearly defined as one race can get away with defining themselves.

EDIT: in addition to this we are also talking about years between the 1600 and the 1800, which leaves alot of room for the numbers to change. Your old bailey quote was about 1783 and given what was happening at the time it isn't a stretch to believe that number could have doubled in over 100 years.

Oh you mean like the Serbian scientist named Nikola Tesla they have making weapons and gadgets for them? Yes the cast is 90%+ white because that fits the time period. Even so they include a person of non caucasian descent. People really seem to have a hard on for hating on The Order.

And Just out of curiosity... are you saying that someone who is Serbian is NOT considered Caucasian? Either you are thinking Caucasian race which is a catch all for people with pale skin or you are talking about the Caucasus people. Either way, you can define the entire cast as Caucasian race or don't use that term at all because they are not from the Caucasus region.

 

[Albinon]

Gears of War as a game really wouldn't experience a radical departure from its image if the protagonist were Dom or Cole.

I don't really disagree with you here, but that would be because they're all Tyran, and thus have the same cultural background.

or even a woman, as evidenced by their inclusion in GoW 3

Again, don't really disagree, but female Gears don't start seeing more frontline action again until GoW3 because of the situation's demand for it. It's not like they aren't around, as some of the best soldiers from the Pendulum Wars were women.

Cole isn't being chided by his squadmates for being Space Black

Because he's not Space Black, he's Tyran. He's just like everyone else.

Dom isn't for being Space Spanish

Because he's not Space Spanish, he's Tyran. He's just like everyone else.

You're injecting divisions you perceive in the real world into a fictional setting where those racial and cultural divisions aren't depicted by skin color. That's why I see the use of GoW as an example to be relatively silly, as you're implying barriers between characters that aren't there, whether out of ignorance of the setting or for the sake of making an argument. It's not even a "black and white ganged up on green" scenario, as there is plenty of time *before* the green man came on the scene and the relations between characters were the same. You're assuming that because Cole, Dom, and Marcus have different skin colors that there is some big difference between them, but there isn't.

I get what you mean by it changing the plot and gameplay, and the you're example of RDD is fitting, as it would play out a lot differently if the primary character was black, hispanic, or whatever. But for that to work in Gears, it wouldn't as simple as switching out for Cole or Dom, because they have the same background. It's kind of a "you're right, but for the wrong reasons" scenario.

If Marcus Fenix would have experienced radical social prejudice as a Space Easterner in the EU or something, that's one thing

If he had been Gorasni, he'd be a POW, if not dead (as seen with Garron). If he was Pesanga, he would be treated as a friend but not receive recognition for his actions. If he was Kashkuri, he would be an ally. But if he been from any one of the cultures of Sera that was not Tyran, he'd more than likely be dead. Shit kinda becomes homogeneous when you fry the majority of the populated centers on the planet.

 

[User 73706]

I don't really disagree with you here, but that would be because they're all Tyran, and thus have the same cultural background.



Again, don't really disagree, but female Gears don't start seeing more frontline action again until GoW3 because of the situation's demand for it. It's not like they aren't around, as some of the best soldiers from the Pendulum Wars were women.



Because he's not Space Black, he's Tyran. He's just like everyone else.



Because he's not Space Spanish, he's Tyran. He's just like everyone else.

You're injecting divisions you perceive in the real world into a fictional setting where those racial and cultural divisions aren't depicted by skin color. That's why I see the use of GoW as an example to be relatively silly, as you're implying barriers between characters that aren't there, whether out of ignorance of the setting or for the sake of making an argument. It's not even a "black and white ganged up on green" scenario, as there is plenty of time *before* the green man came on the scene and the relations between characters were the same. You're assuming that because Cole, Dom, and Marcus have different skin colors that there is some big difference between them, but there isn't.

I get what you mean by it changing the plot and gameplay, and the you're example of RDD is fitting, as it would play out a lot differently if the primary character was black, hispanic, or whatever. But for that to work in Gears, it wouldn't as simple as switching out for Cole or Dom, because they have the same background. It's kind of a "you're right, but for the wrong reasons" scenario.



If he had been Gorasni, he'd be a POW, if not dead (as seen with Garron). If he was Pesanga, he would be treated as a friend but not receive recognition for his actions. If he was Kashkuri, he would be an ally. But if he been from any one of the cultures of Sera that was not Tyran, he'd more than likely be dead. Shit kinda becomes homogeneous when you fry the majority of the populated centers on the planet.

I would consider this a fair rebuttal. Fenix's individual character would definitely be justified in that case, whereas I'm still more in the mindset of "the protagonist [whether or not that happens to be Marcus Fenix]," so you're in the right.

 

[Cocaloch]

Well, (greater) London in 1881 had a population of 4,709,960, so that'd suggest that the game should have 1 in 235 of it's characters be black. Of course it depends when your figure is actually from, since London was growing at something like 20% a decade

Which would mean that a black major character is plenty plausible, but not something that should be expected.

What you're failing to account for is that black subjects were A. For the most part not considered British and B. Were not seen as equally capable as white people. The Victorian Era is literally the height of rascism. Malthusianism and Darwinism had convinced most Britons that white people, teutons in particular, were not only better than everyone else, but that their domination of literally everything was the inevitable future that the world had been moving towards for all of its history. The domination of the white race was seen as the end of history in the Hegelian sense.

Your issue seems to be that you believe that Victorian society was equitable enough that representation in an elite group would be expected to be roughly proportional, which is of course pretty ridiculous.


You could have a black character as a member of the main cast sure, but you can't just handwave these issues. The game would have to actively address what it would mean for a non-white person to be in this position if it wants to make any claims to being Victorian in setting. Heck if an native, non ascendancy, Irish person was on the team you would have the same issues.

Of course if the game is just going for a kind of Victorian visual style then sure, you wouldn't need to address things like Black and Irish people being in this elite group. It's just if the game is making any claim to being a Victorian setting instead of a Victorian style then you can't just ignore race.

Stuff

This is pretty bizarre to me. I'm not much of demographer but slavery was essentially rendered illegal in England in 1569 so I'm not really sure what these mentions of slavery are really about. Moreover the demographic questions you're raising aren't limited to figuring out race. The main method used before 1800 in determining British Demographics are parish records, and the Cambridge Group, which is doing most of the work on the subject, has run into tons of problems with it.

I'm also going to point out that some of the numbers that you're using actually align with his pretty well.

in addition to this we are also talking about years between the 1600 and the 1800, which leaves alot of room for the numbers to change. Your old bailey quote was about 1783 and given what was happening at the time it isn't a stretch to believe that number could have doubled in over 100 years.

This is an argument from ignorance which is incredibly dangerous in historical work. In the absence of evidence of a large black population at your end point, you need to be able to show that there was a strong trend towards growth and that other factors wouldn't have had much of an effect on this to make your claim.

 

[zeldablue]

Link is white...because...

He has pale skin and he's from a race of "chosen, blessed" people who also happen to have pale skin. This wouldn't mean much normally, but there are other human tribes all over and around Hyrule. The Gerudo and Sheikah are visibly darker skinned. And some of the humans outside of Hyrule happen to be black. (Coro, Hena and Iza) And most of the time the other races are travelers, merchants and tourists. The Happy Mash Salesman, for instance, looks extremely stereotypically Chinese.

Though in SS they added a black Hylian, so now I'm just confused. I assumed Telma was half Gerudo and half Hylian. Obviously Hyrule is based off of the real world. There are characters who look white, Arabic, Gyspy, Native American/Eskimo, black, East Asian and a lot of other stuff. And that's before you incorporate the sub human races that are probably based off of racial stereotypes.

Hyrule is suppose to be a holy place and a hotspot for everyone to travel and see. It's basically closest to Italy or something from the renaissance era. That would mean lots of foreigners.

Also Link had a huuuuge nose in OoT, which is something the Japanese do to insensitively differentiate a caucasian male from a "normal" male. >___>

 

[Mango The Magician]

Link is white...because...

He has pale skin and he's from a race of "chosen, blessed" people who also happen to have pale skin. This wouldn't mean much normally, but there are other human tribes all over and around Hyrule. The Gerudo and Sheikah are visibly darker skinned. And some of the humans outside of Hyrule happen to be black. (Coro, Hena and Iza)

Though in SS they added a black Hylian, so now I'm just confused. I assumed Telma was half Gerudo and half Hylian. Obviously Hyrule is based off of the real world. There are characters who look white, Arabic, Native American/Eskimo, black, East Asian and a lot of other stuff. That's before you incorporate the sub human races that are also probably based off of racial stereotypes.

Also Link had a huge nose in OoT, which is something the Japanese do to insensitively indicate a caucasian male. >___>

I don't know if all Hylians are intended to be only white. I mean we know that

Spoiler

Hylia

most likely was, and the Hylians came from her, but I always assumed that Hylians could have any skintone, while races like Gerudos, Zoras, and Gorons are all sorta just "less human." Not in a demeaning way, but in the sense that they're further from physically being human, then the Hylians. But that's just my interpretation. Also, I think you have OOT confused with say ALttP, as they've specifically mentioned before, that they tried to trim his nose in OOT as one of the wives of the higher-ups felt that too many popular Nintendo characters had "goofy noses."

Spoiler

This sounds condescending on my part, sorry about that, and the fact I'm always so quick to jump on posts about Link.

 

[zeldablue]

I don't know if all Hylians are intended to be only white. I mean we know that

Spoiler

Hylia

most likely was, and the Hylians came from her, but I always assumed that Hylians could have any skintone, while races like Gerudos, Zoras, and Gorons are all sorta just "less human." Not in a demeaning way, but in the sense that they're further from physically being human, then the Hylians. But that's just my interpretation. Also, I think you have OOT confused with say ALttP, as they've specifically mentioned before, that they tried to trim his nose in OOT as one of the wives of the higher-ups felt that too many popular Nintendo characters had "goofy noses."

Spoiler

This sounds condescending on my part, sorry about that, and the fact I'm always so quick to jump on posts about Link.

Oh believe me. I <3 Link and his huge nose.

It's still a white guy caricature type of nose though. And yeah, I think Hylians can come in all colors now. But that really wasn't the case earlier. They totally retconned that in. >___>

Heck, in the Japanese version, they are way more transparent about Hylia being the White Goddess and

Spoiler

Demise

being the Black Demon. If they didn't have that one token Black Hylian...it would've felt pretty racist.

Also, the Sheikah and Gerudo are just as human as the Hylians. D:< The Hylians consider themselves closest to the Gods so they've got a superiority complex problem that's pretty apparent in Twilight Princess.

 

[Mango The Magician]

Oh believe me. I <3 Link and his huge nose.

It's still a white guy caricature type of nose though. And yeah, I think Hylians can come in all colors now. But that really wasn't the case earlier. They totally retconned that in. >___>

Heck, in the Japanese version, they are way more transparent about Hylia being the White Goddess and

Spoiler

Demise

being the Black Demon. If they didn't have that one token Black Hylian...it would've felt pretty racist.

Also, the Sheikah and Gerudo are just as human as the Hylians. D:< The Hylians consider themselves closest to the Gods so they've got a superiority complex problem that's pretty apparent in Twilight Princess.

I just don't remember his nose being that big in OOT, I mean it was in the 64 game, but I feel like that was more of a graphics thing than say something similar Ganon's huge nose, and they fixed it in OOT3D. Anyways, as for the Hylians, I think it was more of an oversight than anything else, I mean at one point, they might have treated the Hylians as being one specific culture but somewhere down the line the term just became a catch all of anyone that isn't Human, Gerudo, and so on. As for their standings, I've never thought of it before, but I guess you could consider the Gerudos to just be a different race similar to the races on Earth, but like I said I always thought that they were further removed physically, like the other humanoid races. Also, yeesh at that Japanese SS plot, I get what they were going for, but that would've been bad. :/

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

I believe the Knights of The Order are actual descendants of Kig Aurthur's Knights of the Round Table. I imagine they want the newer generation characters to visually represent them.

As ridiculous justifications go, this is a good one.

Of course if the game is just going for a kind of Victorian visual style then sure, you wouldn't need to address things like Black and Irish people being in this elite group. It's just if the game is making any claim to being a Victorian setting instead of a Victorian style then you can't just ignore race.

So they went through the trouble of justifying werewolves in Victorian London but black people were just one step too far?

Ok then.

 

[Toxi]

The context of fiction is determined and created by the writer. Separating the character and the context is nonsense, because both are constructed with each other. Even with historical fiction, the moment you write something fictional you alter the context and the characters within that context.

 

[Cocaloch]

As ridiculous justifications go, this is a good one.



So they went through the trouble of justifying werewolves in Victorian London but black people were just one step too far?

Ok then.

They don't justify werewolves in Victorian London. The conceit of the game as I understand it is Victorian London, but with the supernatural/steampunky weapons. Every abstraction from the Victorian setting that has nothing to do with that premise makes that setting less meaningful. Which of course isn't an issue if they don't find the setting to be as important as the aesthetic or something. The game isn't even out, and I honestly haven't been following it much so I don't really know if they are using the Victorian era in any meaningful way. If the Victorian setting isn't particularly relevant I feel like having a black person in the main cast without a lot of explanation would be okay, but if it is quite relevant to the game outside of artstyle and they have a black character with pretty much no explanation then I think you're doing a disservice to the historical representation of traditionally oppressed peoples.

 

[User 73706]

They don't justify werewolves in Victorian London. The conceit of the game as I understand it is Victorian London, but with the supernatural/steampunky weapons. Every abstraction from the Victorian setting that has nothing to do with that premise makes that setting less meaningful.

...so, if the current motif is "Victorian London but with x," plain and simple, would it not be easy enough to be "Victorian London but with equality?" I'm pretty sure the fact that they're waging a war with technology rivaling that of WWI or even WWII with the occasional sci-fi weapon on top of that, and Tesla being a manufacturer, it's already a pretty far departure from Victorian London. Anyone who's looking for an authentic 1:1 experience of life in Victorian London probably isn't going to be using The Order as a pedestal. There's no need to defend that notion of "meaning."

If the Victorian setting isn't particularly relevant I feel like having a black person in the main cast without a lot of explanation would be okay, but if it is quite relevant to the game outside of artstyle and they have a black character with pretty much no explanation then I think you're doing a disservice to the historical representation of traditionally oppressed peoples.

This seems like a pretty silly justification. Minorities aren't deliberately out looking for mediums where they're underrepresented or subjugated. A person of color isn't going to be mad that a game "retcons" a racially-oppressive social hierarchy out of existence. If they were looking for authenticity, maybe, but 1886 threw any notion of authenticity out the window when they decided you'd be hunting werewolves with infrared goggles and tesla capacitors.

 

[Cocaloch]

...so, if the current motif is "Victorian London but with x," plain and simple, would it not be easy enough to be "Victorian London but with equality?"

Sure, you could do that. Each abstraction makes the actual setting have less impact. Though to be honest I'd say a racially progressive late 19th century Britain would be much less similar to what we actually got than a Britain where werewolves were real. I doubt the later would have been the basis of late 19th century imperialism.

*edit for your edit*

I don't think the stuff you added makes for a that's a particularly strong argument. If the setting is in anyway actually relevant to what they are trying to do with the story or themes of the game additional abstractions damage the importance of the setting. If it is more or less just an artstyle, or if they just wanted to have any old setting, then sure abstract away. The setting clearly isn't very important to what is going on,

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

Sure, you could do that. Each abstraction makes the actual setting have less impact. Though to be honest I'd say a racially progressive late 19th century Britain would be much less similar to what we actually got than a Britain where werewolves were real. I doubt the later would have been the basis of late 19th century imperialism.

LMAO.

They don't justify werewolves in Victorian London. The conceit of the game as I understand it is Victorian London, but with the supernatural/steampunky weapons. Every abstraction from the Victorian setting that has nothing to do with that premise makes that setting less meaningful. Which of course isn't an issue if they don't find the setting to be as important as the aesthetic or something. The game isn't even out, and I honestly haven't been following it much so I don't really know if they are using the Victorian era in any meaningful way. If the Victorian setting isn't particularly relevant I feel like having a black person in the main cast without a lot of explanation would be okay, but if it is quite relevant to the game outside of artstyle and they have a black character with pretty much no explanation then I think you're doing a disservice to the historical representation of traditionally oppressed peoples.

Doing them a disservice by including them in a work of fiction? Are you serious?

 

[RexNovis]

Since race is a social construct, this begs the question, "Why is Link considered white?"



Saying there around 20,000 blacks in London at that time is a lie?


Source: BBC



and



But I wonder if the BBC is an untrustworthy source for you.

Wiki and Gerzina (some silly PHD)



why?

Source History Today



source Nationalarchive.gov.uk

on the contradiction



source BBC again



We get this type of confusion as well about how many were involved in the slave trade for specific countries. Since blacks were treated as objects the only ones tallied were those that survived. Those that died in captivity before transit and those that died during transit is not counted. In addition, one questions if mixed denizens were counted as well because even to this day, some that cannot be clearly defined as one race can get away with defining themselves.

This game takes place in the 19th century which is why my sources which reference a steep drop off in Black and Asain populations at the beginning of the 19th century are more relevant. It is well known that prior to the close of WW1 the 18th century was the most populous for minorities in Britain. Holding these up as proof is like using a 1912 census as proof of current minority population in the US. They arent applicable.

THe baileys source was quoted as proof of a steep drop off in population going into the 19th century and the other sources directly cite estimations of population in the 19th century. So in conclusion it is not reasonable to use numbers given from the previous century as an indication of the population at the end of the 19th century. I gave the population the benefit of the doubt and calculated it as if it were static whch we know to not be true and instead be an overestimation. So that 0.05% is being generous.

EDIT: in addition to this we are also talking about years between the 1600 and the 1800, which leaves alot of room for the numbers to change. Your old bailey quote was about 1783 and given what was happening at the time it isn't a stretch to believe that number could have doubled in over 100 years.

As stated above the old bailey quote was more useful as a barometer for the trends in population going from one century to the next. From this article its obvious. So given the article, no its not a stretch its a falsity. We have documented evidence showing a steep drop off in minority populations at the end of the 18th century. So if anything your estimation should assume a notable decrease in population.

And Just out of curiosity... are you saying that someone who is Serbian is NOT considered Caucasian? Either you are thinking Caucasian race which is a catch all for people with pale skin or you are talking about the Caucasus people. Either way, you can define the entire cast as Caucasian race or don't use that term at all because they are not from the Caucasus region.

I did not realize caucasian also included Middle Eastern descent. You are correct Tesla is Caucasian. But the demographics of the cast are exemplary of the demographics at the time given what we know about the minority population numbers.

 

[Cocaloch]

LMAO.

Thanks for your deep insight.

Doing them a disservice by including them in a work of fiction? Are you serious?

I mean it may not be the biggest deal, but yes. People take most of their ideas about history from popular media, most of which is fiction. If you'll read what I wrote I never said it does the individuals that were involved a disservice, that just depends on how important you think history is and isn't really a discussion I'd like to get into. Instead I said it does a disservice to their historical representation the effect of which again depends on what you think about history.

Either way I feel like you're being fairly hostile here, and that really isn't doing much for anyone.

For one thing I feel like there are a plethora of games that have far far flimsier reasons for not having minority characters.

person of color isn't going to be mad that a game "retcons" a racially-oppressive social hierarchy out of existence. If they were looking for authenticity, maybe, but 1886 threw any notion of authenticity out the window when they decided you'd be hunting werewolves with infrared goggles and tesla capacitors.

A thing doesn't have to be 1to1 accurate to be a representation of something. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think they know a bit more about Renaissance Italy for playing the Ass Creed games. We seem to be at an impasse here, because we have fundamentally different ideas about what it means to portray history, which already has a very complicated relationship with the fictional, fictionally.

 

[zeldablue]

Thanks for your deep insight.

It is pretty funny from a suspension of disbelief perspective. Like, we've trained our minds to be more accepting of werewolves over race representation.

I think I'd be cool to see some semblance of representation. Even if it's as a servant/butler or maid/wet nurse. Flemish painting of the 1500's had black people in them, depicted as kings, servants, soldiers and slaves...I'd imagine they were more interested in representation then than you are now. xD

Either way...this has nothing to do with the main topic. White males who are justifiably white males due to the context of the story.

 

[Cocaloch]

It is pretty funny from a suspension of disbelief perspective. Like, we've trained our minds to be more accepting of werewolves over racial equality.

I don't think I've trained my mind in such a way. I think that werewolves existing would have far far less of an impact on British society of the late 19th century than racial equality would have.

I think I'd be cool to see some semblance of representation. Even if it's as a servant/butler or maid/wet nurse. Flemish painting of the 1500's had black people in them, depicted as kings, servants, soldiers and slaves..

I feel like you're misrepresnting what I was saying. My main argument was that if the game is taking its setting seriously, then it would need a narrative justification for a non-white, and I mean non-white by the actors' definitions so possibly excluding eastern Europeans and certainly the native Irish, member of the main team.

I'd imagine they were more interested in representation then than you are now. xD

This was unnecessary. I'm plenty interested in representation. I believe that there are systemic issues with the industry that are leading to video games simply not representing non-whites enough or respectably. I don't know where in any of my posts here I have given any other impression.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

Thanks for your deep insight.

You tell me werewolves (which do not exist) would be less out of place than black people (who not only exist, but existed in the setting during the time period) and wonder why all I can offer you is to laugh in your face?

I mean it may not be the biggest deal, but yes. People take most of their ideas about history from popular media, most of which is fiction. If you'll read what I wrote I never said it does the individuals that were involved a disservice, that just depends on how important you think history is and isn't really a discussion I'd like to get into. Instead I said it does a disservice to their historical representation the effect of which again depends on what you think about history.

By that logic they're doing a disservice to the history of London by putting werewolves in there.

Either way I feel like you're being fairly hostile here, and that really isn't doing much for anyone.

Take it how you like, I'm merely pointing out that I think your arguments are ridiculous.

For one thing I feel like there are a plethora of games that have far far flimsier reasons for not having minority characters.

"Someone else did something worse" wasn't an effective argument in primary school.

 

[Cocaloch]

You tell me werewolves (which do not exist) would be less out of place than black people (who not only exist, but existed in the setting during the time period) and wonder why all I can offer you is to laugh in your face?

I'm not saying that, and you are quite grossly misrepresenting my points. I only said that a black member of the main team would need a narrative justification. The existence of werewolves probably would have little to no impact of the social, economic, or political structure of the British empire. Meanwhile the actual British social and political system, and depending on who you are talking to economic system, were actually based on a concept of racial superiority.

"Someone else did something worse" wasn't an effective argument in primary school.

I'm not saying someone did it worse. I'm saying that in this case a justification might exist, but the game isn't really out yet so there is no way of knowing.

 

[RexNovis]

It is pretty funny from a suspension of disbelief perspective. Like, we've trained our minds to be more accepting of werewolves over race representation.

I think I'd be cool to see some semblance of representation. Even if it's as a servant/butler or maid/wet nurse. Flemish painting of the 1500's had black people in them, depicted as kings, servants, soldiers and slaves...I'd imagine they were more interested in representation then than you are now. xD

Either way...this has nothing to do with the main topic. White males who are justifiably white males due to the context of the story.

There very well could be representation. We know for a fact part of the game is set in Whitechapel and t would be entirely reasonable from a historical context to see minorities there. None of us have played the game yet so we have no idea whether or not there will be. But suggesting that a member of the main cast should be a minority is not only ignoring the population demographics at the time but ignoring the fundamental racism and chauvinism that defined Victorian London. Without these underlying prejudices influencing ideals and policy it would not be Victorian. As crazy as the arc gun and the werewolves may be, nothing about them violates or redefines the entire period like eliminating or ignoring racism would. In a sense racism and chauvinism are Victorian London. It shaped literally every single thing that occurred during the period. Some of you should really read some Rudyard Kipling and his works concerning Victorian Imperialism to get an idea of the historical context we are dealing with here.

 

[zeldablue]

I don't think I've trained my minds in such a way. I think that werewolves existing would have far far less of an impact on British society of the late 19th century than racial equality would have.

I suppose.

I didn't really mean to say equality, I meant to say representation.

Even though racism exists and still does...on the individual level there were ways to win respect and fairness. I'm sure it was hard, but "oppression" is something that people were and still are able to sneak out of. If they really wanted to, they could've made a minority that people respected.

I mean...Africans weren't just hated, they were also romanticized and idealized by Europeans.

This was unnecessary. I'm plenty interested in representation. I believe that there are systemic issues with the industry that are leading to video games simply not representing non-whites enough or respectably. I don't know where in any of my posts here I have given any other impression.

I didn't mean to insult. Sorry.

I'm just saying, there were famous master artists who traveled to get black people and bring them back home to study, draw and obsess over. I'm saying they were much more curious and in love with diverse representation in their religious and secular paintings, compared to how the modern person deals with this subject.

 

[Cocaloch]

I suppose.

I didn't really mean to say equality, I meant to say representation.

Even though racism exists and still does...on the individual level there were ways to win respect and fairness. I'm sure it was hard, but "oppression" is something that people were and still are able to sneak out of. If they really wanted to, they could've made a minority that people respected.

I mean...Africans weren't just hated, they were also romanticized and idealized by Europeans.

As noble savages, which is problematic for representation for a number of peoples to this day. Also while some individuals were able to overcome the system somewhat, I am not aware of any British Military officers that were not European.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

There was a discussion about this in other threads, but it seems like the Order 1886 crew fits OPs criteria. An all-white cast makes sense, based on the time and setting of the game.

Makes more sense when you realise those guys are from the 6th century and found a super serum that keeps them young. That's excalibur welding Arthur Pendragon leading the team.

Records of british black people go back to about the 14th century at the earliest.

It's not to say they couldn't have a black character in the game but obviously making them a part of a group that are all 6th Knights is a tad ludicrous.

 

[RexNovis]

Makes more sense when you realise those guys are from the 6th century and found a super serum that keeps them young. That's excalibur welding Arthur Pendragon leading the team.

Records of british black people go back to about the 14th century at the earliest.

It's not to say they couldn't have a black character in the game but obviously making them a part of a group that are all 6th Knights is a tad ludicrous.

They arent the knights from the 6th century they just take on their names sort of like titles within the Order itself. Galahad is not actually Galahad. He inherited the name from the previous man who was called Galahad. We have no idea how old these particular knights are.Just that some are MUCH older than others.

 

[DevilFox]

Discussing about The Oder team? Lol I knew it. Let's wait for its release first, shall we?
We had a identical discussion few months ago (my first ban :'( ) with the same arguments and it led to nothing.
What we know is that The Oder is based on reality and it adds a little fantasy in it but it desperately try to be as real as possible with locations, society etc. Even weapons are not totally fantasy made, we know that RaD did some research to create crazy weapons that could've been possible with a little push (and again, a grain of fantasy).
We should also consider that some of the knights have 100+ years (or more) and they belong to an Order founded more than 1000 years before. It's not that hard to imagine them all white. I mean, it's easily acceptable and anyway, we don't know much about all the other knights.

Shortly, it would be better to talk about a game we know.

 

[Cocaloch]

Makes more sense when you realise those guys are from the 6th century and found a super serum that keeps them young. That's excalibur welding Arthur Pendragon leading the team.

Records of british black people go back to about the 14th century at the earliest.

It's not to say they couldn't have a black character in the game but obviously making them a part of a group that are all 6th Knights is a tad ludicrous.

If this is true, I actually think that would be more of a justification for a black main character. Since they wouldn't have been products of this particular historical situation. They wouldn't have any real characteristics besides Romano-Welshness, which is so unknown of a historical identity as to be totally meaningless.

*edit oh okay I see that it isn't what actually is going on.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

I'm not saying that, and you are quite grossly misrepresenting my points. I only said that a black member of the main team would need a narrative justification. The existence of werewolves probably would have little to no impact of the social, economic, or political structure of the British empire. Meanwhile the actual British social and political system, and if you are depending on who you are talking to economic system, were actually based on a concept of racial superiority.

Unlike werewolves?

You are telling me that actual, physical evidence of the supernatural would have less impact than the black people who were actually there?

I'm not saying someone did it worse. I'm saying that in this case a justification might exist, but the game isn't really out yet so there is no way of knowing.

For one thing I feel like there are a plethora of games that have far far flimsier reasons for not having minority characters.

Yeah... that's not what you said.

Makes more sense when you realise those guys are from the 6th century and found a super serum that keeps them young. That's excalibur welding Arthur Pendragon leading the team.

Records of british black people go back to about the 14th century at the earliest.

It's not to say they couldn't have a black character in the game but obviously making them a part of a group that are all 6th Knights is a tad ludicrous.

One thing, not all of Arthur's knights were British.

 

[Cocaloch]

Unlike werewolves?

You are telling me that actual, physical evidence of the supernatural would have less impact than the black people who were actually there?

No. I'm saying it would have less impact than a racially equal British empire, moreover I don't think that is close to a contentious statement, though it is quite bizarre.

Yeah... that's not what you said.

In most of my posts I have been going off of the assumption that the setting would be important to the story. I mentioned multiple times however that this was an assumption, and that if the Victorian stuff was just visual fluff then what I'm saying holds no water.

One thing, not all of Arthur's knights were British.

We have literally no evidence for a historical Arthur's knights, in fact he almost certainly wouldn't have had any knights since the feudal system didn't exist in such a manner in the 5th and 6th centuries. Ironically your wider point here is actually plausible. It's fairly reasonable to posit that some African mercenary troops could have been available to a historical Arthur.

 

[Giever]

You tell me werewolves (which do not exist) would be less out of place than black people (who not only exist, but existed in the setting during the time period) and wonder why all I can offer you is to laugh in your face?

One way to look at it so that you might understand some others' perspectives on it may be something like this: Adding something foreign to Victorian London (for example, werewolves) doesn't outright alter the sort of mental landscape the average person has of Victorian London. They just take 'thoughts about setting X' and add 'concept Y'.

Removing one of the most glaringly obvious aspects of Victorian London (for example, extreme racial prejudice) has somewhat of a different effect than if you were to just add some fantastical thing to the setting.

Peoples' minds aren't so simple as to work solely in terms of some kind of believability index, so it's not that odd to see someone who has no problem adding a fantastical concept, but has some difficulty removing an ingrained aspect of the setting that they're already aware of.

I don't personally care very much one way or the other what The Order does with the racial makeup of their cast. I generally want better and more varied representation across the board, but one game in particular with at least some kind of justification for its homogenous cast doesn't bother me too much. I just would like some people here to understand that there are people out there who absolutely aren't harboring some kind of subconscious racist notions that do still hold the sorts of opinions that you're ridiculing.

 

[User 73706]

I mean it may not be the biggest deal, but yes. People take most of their ideas about history from popular media, most of which is fiction. If you'll read what I wrote I never said it does the individuals that were involved a disservice, that just depends on how important you think history is and isn't really a discussion I'd like to get into. Instead I said it does a disservice to their historical representation the effect of which again depends on what you think about history.

Either way I feel like you're being fairly hostile here, and that really isn't doing much for anyone.

We seem to be at an impasse here, because we have fundamentally different ideas about what it means to portray history, which already has a very complicated relationship with the fictional, fictionally.

Maybe it's just the way you worded it, but you're making it seem like you think it's a bad idea to give everyone equal rights and representation in a game about killing werewolves because... more people have wrote about werewolves and steampunk, meaning it makes more sense for the developers to think those are more traditionally Victorian England than minorities who already lived in England at the time? Are you assuming that it's more "accurate" in popular culture to feature electrical weaponry and fabled beast-men than it is to include an occasional character of color, the latter of which were historically present at the time?

Regarding the bolded: I'm going to make this very, very clear. This is not the type of debate that hinges on pure, distilled subjectivity. There is no way to realistically play the "it's your fault for not caring about this enough" card. This is not a conversation about dishonoring history. History tells us that people of color had a relatively substantial community in the era, with positions in a variety of trades. Now, it's true that the white upper class were dominant at the time, but the key issue here is assuming that all people of color in Europe at the time were emaciated doormats in the first place. Some served royalty; some were brilliant composers. It's not a hard leap to make, by proxy, that one could possibly find their way into the ranks of an organization like The Order, whose drive to eliminate beasts would far surpass the drive to institutionally suppress those of their own kind. More numbers, more experiences, more great minds could naturally be subsumed.

As an aside, I would also like to establish that the "quit dwelling in the past" defense is highly frowned upon even within the black community. I'll digress, it's natural that people of color have a sense of heritage and history, and want to celebrate elements of positivity from their diverse pasts. Tracing their lineages back to their original homes in Africa, honoring civil rights leaders, respecting those who managed to claw out of the muck of systemic racism and found lucrative positions in life in harshly xenophobic times. That being said, you have no reason to assume black people want works of ficfion to recreate their plight to a T. You are not going to offend a people by welcoming them. If it were a historically accurate game about Victorian London priding itself on detail that tried to tiptoe around the issues of the classism brought about through racist origins, that would definitely raise some eyebrows. But this is a work of fiction. Nowhere on the game's box is it going to say "most accurate representation of Victorian London to date." It's taken great strides to establish artistic liberties. There is not a sane victim of prejudice on earth that would wish to perpetuate the notions of fear and hate in a fictional environment.

He's being hostile because you're unironically suggesting something outright paradoxical. Let's play your game and take these things at a perceived "accurate" valuation. If werewolves were real, it shakes up substantial notions established by both fact and physics, including evolution, conservation of energy, parasitic commensalism, metabolism, properties of particular compounds such as silver and their newfound ties to the arcane, lunar cycles, and potentially opens the door to magic's inclusion in the real world, if we attempt to analyze the origin of werewolves. That serves to breed a world so imperceptibly alien to our own that its outcome is outright esoteric. Now, let's see what happens if everyone's given equal rights in Victorian London: a single powerful city's sociopolitics are shaken up to a degree and a white-dominant patriarchy dissolves. Not a state's, not a federation's, not a country's, not a world's. A single city happens to have made some strides of activism. The world, as a collective whole, continues business as normal while London enjoys a post-racial environment. If you were to make the argument that these revelations were made in Victorian London and then explored in a modern era, sure, the world may have some different views on culture and it wouldn't be completely "faithful" to our world. But this is still a chronistically self-contained hypothetical about Victorian London, which is already comparing mountains to molehills in terms of variations. That's why he's getting upset.

I've already said all I need to say, but to conclude, there are some strong insecurities at play for you to realistically suggest a localized establishment of equality would somehow jeopardize or even offend a people. There is no disservice in representation. There is no subjugation in inclusion. There is no faithlessness in fiction.

 

[Jumplion]

This is a very interesting thread, one that I'm actually fairly glad exists to some extent. I still think the larger issue of representation of characters other than the perceived "standard" white, heterosexual, male is overall the bigger problem and has its roots in many, many cultural and systemic, well, roots, but having a time and place to discuss, or criticize, healthy/unhealthy representations of whiteness, maleness, and heterosexuality/heteronormativity is a discussion that is still worth having.

I've got two characters that spring to mind. Most of my favorite white guys are ones that take the concept of the stereotypical "white guy dudebro" and twist it, and also make sense more when you look at it from an outside looking in perspective rather than just in-game, but anyway;

Captain Walker from Spec Ops: The Line

The whole game is a huge critique on the dudebro type of games out there, so it really makes sense for the main character to be a standard dudebro on the surface only to be torn down to be revealed what he truly is; a representation of the players desire to be a "hero". He's less a character in and of himself and more of a representation of the player, but still I think the specific design and presentation of the character makes sense and is easily justified in the context of the game.

Joel from The Last of Us

Primarily because of the ending, it got me thinking of how selfish Joel is and how, in most any other type of game, he'd be the standard hero trying to save the girl. But in the end, he's a selfish psychopath, and it's not entirely his fault. He's hardened over the years because of the situations he's been in. I don't think him being a minority or him being a woman would have made the ending and revelation of his true character as gut-punching as it was to most people, precisely because in any other game he would have been portrayed as moral and just and justified in all his actions by the end.

Honorable Mention: Bro Force
Kind of cheating, more on "bro culture" than white dudes, but I love how it references nostalgic action heroes and dress it up in the truly absurd way that it was really meant to be.

 

[sasliquid]

I shall argue for Joel from The Last of Us. He must be a man because of the fatherly bond he developed with Ellie. He is a white man born into a world where he is expected to be THE provider and when he no longer has as much control he becomes a much worse person. I don't think I can do a great job justifying it but I feel themes of toxic masculinity are quite central to the character.

Also the main character from Spec-ops: The Line (Walker?) for being the White man who goes into a foreign nation to make everything "better"

Edit: damn it

 

[zeldablue]

As noble savages, which is problematic for representation for a number of peoples to this day. Also while some individuals were able to overcome the system somewhat, I am not aware of any British Military officers that were not European.

True. I didn't realize we were arguing about having a black guy in the main main cast. At the same time though...why's there a woman in the cast? Doesn't that take suspension of belief too?

Hmm...I dunno.

On topic though:

Uhhh. I mean...

There are very few games that really tackle race in general. o____o

Maybe Snow from FFXIII? He thinks he's the hero and everyone likes him? And he gets away with doing bad stuff until his character change?

 

[Cocaloch]

Regarding the bolded: I'm going to make this very, very clear. This is not the type of debate that hinges on pure, distilled subjectivity. There is no way to realistically play the "it's your fault for not caring about this enough" card. This is not a conversation about dishonoring history.

I'm sorry if I worded that to make you think I was saying you didn't care enough. What I was getting at is that I believe we have fundamentally different ways of conceptualizinghistory that make it to where we can't really find common ground in the argument. Which is of course totally fine. People use history in millions of different ways for millions of different things each day.

 

[bishoptl]

I don't think I've trained my mind in such a way. I think that werewolves existing would have far far less of an impact on British society of the late 19th century than racial equality would have.

That is certainly an interesting construct.

 

[zeldablue]

That is certainly an interesting construct.

I think he just means it wouldn't be 1800s Britain without the racism.