Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

My case? I answered your questions... you wanted more? If you want to start throwing that around perhaps you can give me a better reason than "just that it seems to me more likely" before asking me to present my case.

LOL, you didn't justify your answer at all. Have a good one.

Edit: Specifically, you didn't justify this:

Equally as likely is probably a better way of putting it.

But if you don't feel inclined to, that's cool. As I said, have a good one.

 

[staticneuron]

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.

Actually the Slavery Abolition act was passed in 1833 was what abolished slavery in England. Before that was the Slave Trade Act 1807 which abolished the slave trade but not slavery itself. I am not sure what happened in 1569 to make you think that was the turning point.

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.

Actually it isn't really ignorance when I am providing a ton of links and explaining a possible reason for the increase and confusion in numbers. All I am saying is that the numbers simply could have double in 100 years due to the fact that slavery was still going on and the behavior of slave owners bringing them into the country on top of multiple other issues. In the face of all that I posted and the sources I am a bit surprised you would come to that opinion. If you look at most major population growths in which a nation doubles a particular ethnic group within 100 years, in most cases it is done by organized travel or immigration and not natural.

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.

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.

I specifically pointed out your Old Baileys quote because the estimation centered around 1783 . The other quotes i posted showing the contradictions were 1764 (20k in London alone) and 1772 (15K in entire country).

In the late 19th century it is noted that the events happening ended the black population immigration into London... but what happens to population already there? It is simply stated that they integrated with society and some small black populated dockside communities were created in Canning town, Liverpool, and Cardiff. So they didn't just disappear in a puff of smoke nor were rounded up and pushed off the pier after the abolition act, but still remained in England. And by historical records of events happening even though it wasn't large there was still a steady influx of black immigrants. WWI and WWII saw large influxes during those periods as well but only during the wartime periods.

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.

I guess you can say that but given what we know already about the main characters, this is something in which the organization should be much older than that given time period and there is no saying that they have encountered and possibly recruited people of different nationalities in that time period.


What I find so fascinating though is that, it is easy to use time period to Justify the mains character race, if they were the most populous, it seems as if there need to be a huge explanation if they weren't in the majority at the time. We know they exist and society was stacked against them but that shouldn't negate an appearance under any circumstance.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I imagine some of you were uncomfortable with black people and hispanic people appearing in Dragon Age Inquisition. Or Vivian being of high societal standing. Or Vivian talking down to white characters.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

So you think writing a story about an order with strong ties to the Round Table legend that has characters representative of those characters (and, using my crystal ball, I bet the characters are

Spoiler

the original Knights of the Round Table

) is a ridiculous justification? Is there no legitimate reason to have a story with minimal minority presence? I'm genuinely confused at what you think is a legitimate reason.

Also, the devs have made it very clear that the setting is important to the story they are telling. Would racial equality make sense based on the setting?

(Yeah, yeah, werewolves aren't real, blah blah blah... why bother with a setting at all in that case? Every change the devs make to a setting makes it less representative of the setting they want to convey. If they want to make a game in Victorian London with werewolves and special tech, they should. I see no onus to change the social paradigms that existed, as it would detract from the "feel" of being in Victorian London.)

Ah yes, I suppose it is incredibly important to strive for "accuracy" when representing a fictional group who may or may not be another fictional group.

So people of colour = too alien for the setting but werewolves = just fine?

Right.

 

[User 73706]

LOL, you didn't justify your answer at all. Have a good one.

Edit: Specifically, you didn't justify this:


But if you don't feel inclined to, that's cool. As I said, have a good one.

I took "equally as likely" as being a quip of cynicism regarding game devs not wanting to stray away from dudebro buzzcut types rather than something to be taken literally.

 

[Night Angel]

Ah yes, I suppose it is incredibly important to strive for "accuracy" when representing a fictional group who may or may not be another fictional group.

So people of colour = too alien for the setting but werewolves = just fine?

Right.

Way to misrepresent my argument, brah.

 

[Dead Man]

I took "equally as likely" as being a quip of cynicism regarding game devs not wanting to stray away from dudebro buzzcut types rather than something to be taken literally.

Ah, in that context it makes more sense. Not the sense I got but if it was the intended sense then that is cool.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

LOL, you didn't justify your answer at all. Have a good one.

Edit: Specifically, you didn't justify this:


But if you don't feel inclined to, that's cool. As I said, have a good one.

And you didn't justify your statements either, your point? I'm not even sure why you're trying to push this issue.

 

[Giever]

In my ongoing defense of the potential non-racist basis of people holding simultaneously the two beliefs that: 'werewolves are totes reasonable in this Victorian London setting' and 'if there were a black main cast member, maybe there should be some explanation as to why people aren't racist/upset' I'd like to cite Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a movie about cartoon characters being actually real, and they are filmed with actual cameras to make cartoons. They interact with regular people, and they also have their own crazy Toon World, where a bunch of physically nonsensical shit happens. As ridiculous as werewolves are, toons existing in the real world is even more ridiculous. Despite that, you will still have people making images like this (which I found on some plot hole site somewhere):

My contention here is that people, nerds especially, are ridiculous. They get bothered or hung up on ridiculous things. It is pretty much guaranteed that some percentage of the people that hold the two beliefs I described above simultaneously are doing so from some kind of racist basis. But it seems like there's a heavy implication that anyone who feels that way is getting that view from some kind of racially motivated background, and I find that obviously not to be the case.

Furthermore, I do think we all do this sort of thing to some extent, that is, having weird standards over how we suspend our disbelief. So although I say it's ridiculous, I only say that when trying to speak from a totally rational perspective. In other words, I think it's sometimes ridiculous, but also understandable. Most times people experience these sorts of 'contradictions' are probably cases like with Who Framed Roger Rabbit above, where no harm is being done to anyone by that weird thought process. Since it's about something more serious with The Order, that's when these kinds of hangups get put under more scrutiny, and we have the situation we're at now.

Disclaimer: I, personally, don't really think that it's particularly valuable for The Order to exclusively have white protagonists. But I also try to view individual games in a bubble and not judge them by the current trends throughout the industry. So unless a game is being explicitly offensive, I generally don't begrudge it too much, even if I do want to see better and more varied representation throughout the industry as a whole. In regards to concerns over why I should give a shit, then, I'd like to point out that I'm a former Philosophy major who is now out of academia, so places like this is where I can get my fix sometimes for these kinds of discussions. I'd also like to point out that I don't just do it for that pleasure, though, I also do get kind of legit bothered when I see people making the kinds of blanket generalizations I'm attempting to address. Thanks for your time!

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

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.

 

[twobear]

Actually the Slavery Abolition act was passed in 1833 was what abolished slavery in England. Before that was the Slave Trade Act 1807 which abolished the slave trade but not slavery itself. I am not sure what happened in 1569 to make you think that was the turning point.

The Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery throughout the British Empire, but it had been established earlier (I don't know exactly when) that English common law did not support the practice of slavery and hence that slave ownership was not legal in England itself.

People have said to be before that this basically meant that a person who was a slave was immediately free as soon as they were on English soil, although I'm sure that's a romantic portrayal rather than a realistic one.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

I took "equally as likely" as being a quip of cynicism regarding game devs not wanting to stray away from dudebro buzzcut types rather than something to be taken literally.

Sorry, didn't mean that at all Sub. I did mean that using equally as likely would be less likely to start an argument over "who is more likely" which is a stupid argument to be having.

 

[Dead Man]

And you didn't justify your statements either, your point? I'm not even sure why you're trying to push this issue.

I was hoping either for agreement that both were unlikely and the actual likelihood for both was vanishingly small, or to have a discussion where you presented your evidence for your claim, then I presented mine, but it never got that far because you just went off into snark land.

I don't think I pushed any issue.

Edit: I'm on your fucking side of the debate for fucks sake. The only thing you seem to be disagreeing with me about is the relative likelihood of an Indian or African man on the team. You trying to correct hotnheavyload over their statement is what prompted the little piece of posting here. If you didn't have a point to make, why reply at all? If I am only replying to the point you raised, how am I pushing anything?

 

[D i Z]

Eh, before you get all pissy about a simple question, you do realise that not all of Africa was part of the British empire, right? You do also realise the British relationship with Africa was different to that of India, right? Or do you think it is as likely that an Australian and Canadian be on the team as an African?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it seems to me more likely (not that that should prevent either skin colour being represented) that an Indian person would be included rather than an African one. But both would be fine on the team.


What? Are you spinning that as a racist statement by me?

I'm pointing out that an African from the same era (or black from another) and an East Indian folkstory created by Westerners are no different. How is that not easy to see? How about we don't tank this thread with bs, eh?

So I'm just gonna say it if it wasn't already out there. Is the resistance to the notion of black people existing in London a the time of The Order that much of an aberrant idea that it requires so many mental gymnastics as this?

 

[Shy]

i really wish someone would address my point, as i feel it's a good one.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm pointing out that an African from the same era (or black from another) and an East Indian folkstory created by Westerners are no different. How is that not easy to see? How about we don't tank this thread with bs, eh?

Are you saying that calling for brown characters is racist against black people? Or are you saying that including scientifically literate characters is patronising? Or are you saying that any Western writer should not create a brown character? Or are you upset that I used a western origin character to illustrate my point? I don't get your point. Sorry.

All I did was use the only fucking example in all of literature that I could think of to illustrate what I meant.

Edit: I'm tyrying to argue for more inclusiveness and representation and it just seems utterly not fucking worth it. I would love to not tank the thread, but this snarky posting by everyone in here is just making the conversation impossible. The worst possible interpretation is assumed of all posts.

Edit2: Re: your edit -

So I'm just gonna say it if it wasn't already out there. Is the resistance to the notion of black people existing in London a the time of The Order that much of an aberrant idea that it requires so many mental gymnastics as this?

Read my fucking posts. Fucking hell. You are just looking for a fight, fuck off with that noise. Here, I'll help you out.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it seems to me more likely (not that that should prevent either skin colour being represented) that an Indian person would be included rather than an African one. But both would be fine on the team.

Fucking hell.

 

[redcrayon]

What I find so fascinating though is that, it is easy to use time period to Justify the mains character race, if they were the most populous, it seems as if there need to be a huge explanation if they weren't in the majority at the time. We know they exist and society was stacked against them but that shouldn't negate an appearance under any circumstance.

I think the issue is more what the writer either subconsciously or consciously associates with their setting, not necessarily what would be the most interesting, reasonable, original character, however unlikely. Loads of great fictional characters are unlikely, that should go without saying.

For example, let's switch this around. I'm English. Let's say I dream up a historical-ish, fantasy-ish story about cowboys and monsters in the mid-west. My main influences for this aren't data, or any interest in actual American history. They are westerns. My story takes as it's influence the cowboy programmes and films I watched with my dad, already filtered through both my childhood memories and those of the US TV and film writers forty-odd years ago. It would probably contain bits of True Grit, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, High Noon, Bonanza, the Magnificent Seven, etc etc etc. As much as I might knuckle down and do the research, in reality what I want to make is a fiction based on fictional stereotypes, rather than one based on reality. If all my influences are square-jawed white guys, as a hack the laziest option is that I want Clint Eastwood as the lead.

That's a minor problem with games being stuck in genre fiction, we're retelling childhood dreams of heroes and villains, monsters, cowboys, detectives, knights, space soldiers and dragons, just as writers fifty years ago were doing. But the audience has changed and grown into adults, and the main problem is now writers that still want to tell the same stories. Probably also why I shouldn't be a writer.

 

[zeldablue]

Now that I think about it...there was a Swiss Saint who was black. And knights as well. I did a report on African presence in Medieval Europe.

I don't really think that would have fizzled out after Europe became LESS isolationist. (Though the slave trade really dampened things.)

You guys make me question myself. I know the media tells us a specific story and most things cut out the presence of minorities and women, but if you actually do some research, they were definitely there.

Morien, a knight, was there with King Arthur. And Saint Maurice was also a knight.

I mean...I suppose there are a billion reasons not to depict something like that, but at the same time...you totally could.

Edit: I spent months looking at European paintings and statues of knights of African descent. There were also many depictions from the Three Kings story. I'm not crazy! D:

 

[D i Z]

Are you saying that calling for brown characters is racist against black people? Or are you saying that including scientifically literate characters is patronising? Or are you saying that any Western writer should not create a brown character? Or are you upset that I used a western origin character to illustrate my point? I don't get your point. Sorry.

All I did was use the only fucking example in all of literature that I could think of to illustrate what I meant.

Edit: I'm tyrying to argue for more inclusiveness and representation and it just seems utterly not fucking worth it. I would love to not tank the thread, but this snarky posting by everyone in here is just making the conversation impossible. The worst possible interpretation is assumed of all posts.

My point was as clear as stated. You obviously got it, because you danced around it with as many examples as you could muster.

Edit: Also not trying to derail, or not see the other side of the discussion. The other side is just so inconceivably stupid, I don't know why you would align with it.
What I did say before that you might have not seen was this amazing need to erase a people and their works from this time period.

 

[staticneuron]

The Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery throughout the British Empire, but it had been established earlier (I don't know exactly when) that English common law did not support the practice of slavery and hence that slave ownership was not legal in England itself.

People have said to be before that this basically meant that a person who was a slave was immediately free as soon as they were on English soil, although I'm sure that's a romantic portrayal rather than a realistic one.

I see what you mean now. I had to go to the wiki on that one.

In a 1569 court case involving Cartwright, who had bought a slave from Russia, the court ruled that English law could not recognise slavery, as it was never established officially. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments. It was upheld in 1700 by the Lord Chief Justice John Holt when he ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England.

And

Despite the ending of slavery in Great Britain, the United States continued to rely on it as an institution in the South, and the West Indian colonies of the British Empire also kept slavery. British banks continued to finance the commodities and shipping industries in the colonies they had earlier established that relied upon slavery, despite the legal developments in Great Britain itself. In 1785, the English poet William Cowper wrote:

"We have no slaves at home – Then why abroad? Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free, They touch our country, and their shackles fall. That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud. And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then, And let it circulate through every vein."

Makes sense now that, the description of notable blacks in that time period were referred to as servants and not slaves. I wounder how that conversation went, when the slaves were taken from the colonies to be servants in England.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

I was hoping either for agreement that both were unlikely and the actual likelihood for both was vanishingly small, or to have a discussion where you presented your evidence for your claim, then I presented mine, but it never got that far because you just went off into snark land.

I don't think I pushed any issue.

Edit: I'm on your fucking side of the debate for fucks sake. The only thing you seem to be disagreeing with me about is the relative likelihood of an Indian or African man on the team. You trying to correct hotnheavyload over their statement is what prompted the little piece of posting here. If you didn't have a point to make, why reply at all? If I am only replying to the point you raised, how am I pushing anything?

Why would I agree that the likelihood for either was minute when that was never a point you made? Why would you expect me to present evidence when you didn't? Why would you accuse me of going into snark land when our very first interaction is you saying this?

Equally as likely as an African person? If you say so.

 

[Dead Man]

My point was as clear as stated. You obviously got it, because you danced around it with as many examples as you could muster.

Edit: Also not trying to derail, or not see the other side of the discussion. The other side is just so inconceivably stupid, I don't know why you would align with it.

I didn't get it, I just threw out every possible meaning of your post I could think of. Fucking hell, how hard is it for you to take a fucking post at face value?

I'll be back later to see if the thread is a bit more worthwhile.

Edit: It is a good thread idea, Sub-Zero, just not working well at the moment.

If you would, calm, and return.

:/ Not going to bother replying to you until you can read a fucking post. Until you agree that I said an African or Indian on the team would be fine and you apologise for suggesting otherwise I will not be responding to you.

 

[karasu]

One of Arthur's knights had a black son named Morien who was added to the legend by the Dutch in the 1200's or so. A black member of The Order could absolutely be justified because even in the face of racism there were black who mingled in English High Society. In Europe generally there was Saint Jerome. Christoph Le Moor, hell Shakespeare's black characters, etc.

 

[Night Angel]

I imagine some of you were uncomfortable with black people and hispanic people appearing in Dragon Age Inquisition. Or Vivian being of high societal standing. Or Vivian talking down to white characters.

Sounds like you're ready to name and shame, which certainly isn't the point of this thread.

Personally, I thought the diversity in DAI was refreshing. Instead of relying solely on the elves to portray issues of race/diversity, they crafted good human characters of different races. They also didn't harp on the races of some (Viv), she was just a POC in a position of power and no one (IIRC) thought it was strange or commented negatively about it, which was great. I hope more devs do the same.

But DAI is a fictional world where the devs could build its history, politics, and social classes. They did not have to (choose to) work within the bounds of established history, and as such had more freedom to do what they wanted. Which is not to say that devs absolutely have to stick to history, but if that's their goal I don't see it as an illegitimate reason to emulate the setting they want.

And before someone accuses me of yet more bullshit: I know minorities existed in Victorian London. I am only questioning the likelihood of a minority being represented in a group of English royalty/knights

Spoiler

(of the Round Table)

.

Edit: did not know about sir Morien. Interesting stuff. Would have been cool if he/his descendent was in the Order. (But once again, I don't see it as a necessity, nor do I judge RAD for not including an obscure -based on my knowledge of Arthurian legend- knight rather than the ones everyone knows.)

And that's it from me about that game, based on the suggestion below.

 

[D i Z]

I didn't get it, I just threw out every possible meaning of your post I could think of. Fucking hell, how hard is it for you to take a fucking post at face value?

I'll be back later to see if the thread is a bit more worthwhile.

If you would, calm, and return.

:/ Not going to bother replying to you until you can read a fucking post. Until you agree that I said an African or Indian on the team would be fine and you apologise for suggesting otherwise I will not be responding to you.

It's your way to have. I'm not here to agree with you. Quit retroactively replying if you don't have anything to say.

 

[hotnheavyload]

Equally as likely is probably a better way of putting it.

History shows that Queen Victoria had a certain affinity for the India she never visited. She had Indian attendants in her service and even held one of the men, Abdul Karim, in high esteem, elevating him above everybody else in her household.

This to me is the reason why an Indian would be more likely.

 

[D i Z]

One of Arthur's knights had a black son named Morien who was added to the legend by the Dutch in the 1200's or so. A black member of The Order could absolutely be justified because even in the face of racism there were black who mingled in English High Society In Europe generally there was Saint Jerome, Christoph Le Moor, hell Shakespeare;s black characters, etc.

Maybe pics and stuff will help.

 

[staticneuron]

I think the issue is more what the writer either subconsciously or consciously associates with their setting, not necessarily what would be the most interesting, reasonable, original character, however unlikely. Loads of great fictional characters are unlikely, that should go without saying.

For example, let's switch this around. I'm English. Let's say I dream up a historical-ish, fantasy-ish story about cowboys and monsters in the mid-west. My main influences for this aren't data, or any interest in actual American history. They are westerns. My story takes as it's influence the cowboy programmes and films I watched with my dad, already filtered through both my childhood memories and those of US TV writers fifty-odd years ago. It would probably contain bits of True Grit, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, High Noon, Bonanza, the Magnificent Seven, etc etc etc. As much as I might knuckle down and do the research, in reality what I want to make is a fiction based on fictional stereotypes, rather than one based on reality. If all my influences are square-jawed white guys, as a hack the laziest option is that I want Clint Eastwood as the lead.

That's a minor problem with games being stuck in genre fiction, we're retelling childhood dreams of heroes and villains, monsters, cowboys, detectives, knights, space soldiers and dragons, just as writers fifty years ago were doing. But the main problem is poor writers and why I shouldn't be one.

I totally understand that. At the same token though I find it kinda sad that rules for story/world building about one setting would be established and adhered to by a different fictional story. I guess the social dynamic and the emotions required to highlight minorities in that time period would either take research or be sidestepped entirely.

Now that I think about it...there was a Swiss Saint who was black. And knights as well. I did a report on African presence in Medieval Europe.

I don't really think that would have fizzled out after Europe became LESS isolationist. (Though the slave trade really dampened things.)

You guys make me question myself. I know the media tells us a specific story and most things cut out the presence of minorities and women, but if you actually do some research, they were definitely there.

Morien, a knight, was there with King Arthur. And Saint Maurice was also a knight.

I mean...I suppose there are a billion reasons not to depict something like that, but at the same time...you totally could.

redcrayon, brings up a good point in which you "could" but sometimes why deal with a cultural aspect you know nothing about? People are sensitive to this even in fictional settings, (looking at RE5 here) but instead of using that as an opportunity to educate, we got a lot of hatred and condemnation. I wouldn't blame the game creators from not going near anything that could be perceived as inflammatory.


EDIT: speaking of minorities in westerns.

Awesome stuff.

 

[NHarmonic.]

It's hard for people to permit minorities in their fantasy when they'd rather not have them in their reality.

On topic, unless the game is supposed to be a reenactment of historical events without any fun stuff I don't see what games would require average demographic protagonists.

Great post. That first phrase is spot on, specially.

 

[Giever]

I'd like to suggest, although I'm personally enjoying the The Order discussion, that it might be a good idea to add, as a rule, that we don't discuss games that aren't actually out yet? It would get rid of all of the The Order nonsense which is flooding the thread, and it's also just a good rule in general for the topic at hand.

Spoiler

Man, it's annoying to keep typing "the The Order" but I don't really know how else to write it, given its title.

Just a suggestion.

Great post. That first phrase is spot on, specially.

It's not really a great post, because it kind of makes a blanket generalization of anyone who has a certain opinion about where that opinion originates from, and it paints them all as really awful scum (in other words, racists), when they may not actually be racially motivated at all in their intent or thoughts. It's inflammatory and not conducive to an open and civilized discussion, especially considering the topic of the thread.

 

[redcrayon]

I totally understand that. At the same token though I find it kinda sad that rules for story/world building about one setting would be established and adhered to by a different fictional story. I guess the social dynamic and the emotions required to highlight minorities in that time period would either take research or be sidestepped entirely.

Oh, absolutely, it is sad. That's why it's always great when a writer finds a new spin on a classic genre (hint: unlikely hero is a good start) and why the first homage to something is great, then it turns into a genre, then later a rut (see: zombie games, that now encompass every genre and setting ). Let's hope The Order and Codename Steam have found something new to say about steampunk.

 

[Dead Man]

If you would, calm, and return.



It's your way to have. I'm not here to agree with you. Quit retroactively replying if you don't have anything to say.

Fine. I'm waiting for an apology from you and an acknowledgement that I said both African and Indian people would be fine on the team. Until then I will continue to believe that you either cannot read or are just a hateful person.

 

[ChamplooJones]

I've always hated the belief that any minority in a majority white cast would need some narrative justification for being there.

 

[D i Z]

Fine. I'm waiting for an apology from you and an acknowledgement that I said both African and Indian people would be fine on the team. Until then I will continue to believe that you either cannot read or are just a hateful person.

That's a stretch. Apparently, I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems. You really would be that petty? Ok, take this to PM.

 

[zeldablue]

I totally understand that. At the same token though I find it kinda sad that rules for story/world building about one setting would be established and adhered to by a different fictional story. I guess the social dynamic and the emotions required to highlight minorities in that time period would either take research or be sidestepped entirely.



redcrayon, brings up a good point in which you "could" but sometimes why deal with a cultural aspect you know nothing about? People are sensitive to this even in fictional settings, (looking at RE5 here) but instead of using that as an opportunity to educate, we got a lot of hatred and condemnation. I wouldn't blame the game creators from not going near anything that could be perceived as inflammatory.


EDIT: speaking of minorities in westerns.

Awesome stuff.

RE5 opened as a trailer with Chris mowing down mobs of black people.

If you didn't know they had parasites...it looks pretty insensitive. It's not the same thing as acknowledging blacks who were held in high esteem during a time where that actually happened.

After all, if they caught a Moor and the Moor converted to Christianity, he'd be given a much better chance at life. This is what allowed them to be apart of the culture. And they could potentially gain high esteem from there.

 

[Dead Man]

That's a stretch. You really would be that petty? Ok, take this to PM.

Fuck off with that. Yes, I am sticking to this. You implied I was racist and implied I didn't want black people in the game. Both are wrong, and until you apologise you will be one or the other of those two options. You misread my post and launched an attack that was both misguided and pretty fucking ignorant. I will not take this to PM's. You accused me in public, apologise in public. All I'm asking for is for you to correct yourself. You made wrong statement about a poster, it's not that hard to say you wrong and continue on with the thread, is it?

Edit: Also, what's a stretch?

 

[hotnheavyload]

Nothing Dead Man has said could possibly be interpreted as racist.

 

[Dead Man]

Nothing Dead Man has said could possibly be interpreted as racist.

Apparently not. Thanks for the support though. I will be back later to catch up.

 

[D i Z]

Fuck off with that. Yes, I am sticking to this. You implied I was racist and implied I didn't want black people in the game. Both are wrong, and until you apologise you will be one or the other of those two options. You misread my post and launched an attack that was both misguided and pretty fucking ignorant. I will not take this to PM's. You accused me in public, apologise in public. All I'm asking for is for you to correct yourself. You made wrong statement about a poster, it's not that hard to say you wrong and continue on with the thread, is it?

Edit: Also, what's a stretch?

The comments in question IN CONTEXT

Seems odd they are all Americans. Oh well. Good they are at least diverse Americans.

Strange that.

An Indian in The Order would be awesome, get some Captain Nemo up in there. We need more brown, tough, science minded characters.

Yeah...cos we all know East Indians are as stereotypically smart as they get.

Nothing Dead Man has said could possibly be interpreted as racist.

Review the posts. I never once said that. What I did suggest (see above) was that realism seemed to take a backseat to appreciation of stereotypical traits (Captain Nemo being a substitute) Nemo is a result of the British Empire having "some" appreciation for the goods that they got. Now why Dead Man has to always get his knickers in a twist whenever he hears something that he doesn't like ( then cuss, kick and make demands) that has zero to do with me. This is our first actual interaction. I don't do demands though.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

History shows that Queen Victoria had a certain affinity for the India she never visited. She had Indian attendants in her service and even held one of the men, Abdul Karim, in high esteem, elevating him above everybody else in her household.


This to me is the reason why an Indian would be more likely.

Which is great, assuming of course that the Indian character was a servant.

I'm not trying to have an argument here, I simply think that eliminating hierarchies is the best way to discuss something like this. I'm not sure why it's so important for one to be more likely than the other.

I think we've derailed the thread more than enough, wouldn't you agree?

 

[redcrayon]

Edit: Also, what's a stretch?

It usually means that you're reaching, that it's tenuous, that kind of thing.

Not that I want to get involved. Now I want to go write a story about an Indian cowboy fighting monsters for some reason instead.

 

[Dead Man]

Review the posts. I never once said that. What I did suggest (see above) was that realism seemed to take a backseat to appreciation of stereotypical traits (Captain Nemo being a substitute) Nemo is a result of the British Empire having "some" appreciation for the goods that they got.

Okay, so you are pissed primarily that I used Nemo as an example then. Cool. He is the only dark skinned scientifically literate popularly known character I could think of. I was calling for more characters like that, and you cast that as racist because you thought I was propagating some stereotype. Basically, you are not worth paying attention to, thanks for clearing that up. I'll enjoy the thread more now.

It usually means that you're reaching, that it's tenuous, that kind of thing.

Not that I want to get involved. Now I want to go write a story about an Indian cowboy fighting monsters for some reason instead.

LOL, yeah, I know the meaning of the word, I was wondering what part of the post he quoted was a stretch. But yeah, now I want a story like that.

 

[redcrayon]

Nemo is a result of the British Empire having "some" appreciation for the goods that they got.

You know Jules Verne was French, right?

He only gets associated with the rest of the Brit crowd due to Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

 

[hotnheavyload]

Which is great, assuming of course that the Indian character was a servant.

I'm not trying to have an argument here, I simply think that eliminating hierarchies is the best way to discuss something like this. I'm not sure why it's so important for one to be more likely than the other.

I think we've derailed the thread more than enough, wouldn't you agree?

Haha, yes I agree.

 

[Dead Man]

You know Jules Verne was French, right?

Don't think he does.

 

[D i Z]

You know Jules Verne was French, right?

He only gets associated with the rest of the Brit crowd due to Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Funny, cos the films that kept his story relevant are British from the 60's.

Don't think he does.

I happen to be British. And I know what I'm talking about when it comes to his story and how it's disseminated. Keep going though.

 

[redcrayon]

Funny, cos the films that kept his story relevant are British.

True, but those films weren't exactly made by the British Empire goods appreciation society. That's the British Museum.

Spoiler

JOKE

Doesn't Nemo also hate the British Empire in the stories?

 

[staticneuron]

RE5 opened as a trailer with Chris mowing down mobs of black people.

If you didn't know they had parasites...it looks pretty insensitive. It's not the same thing as acknowledging blacks who were held in high esteem during a time where that actually happened.

After all, if they caught a Moor and the Moor converted to Christianity, he'd be given a much better chance at life. This is what allowed them to be apart of the culture. And they could potentially gain high esteem from there.

True, but the game and the actions in it are framed in the world of RE. The intro to RE5 evokes the intro to RE4. As such I am sure they were looking at the point of view that this makes sense in the context of the video game world, not that this might be seen as offensive to those in real life. It wasn't that Chris mowed down these people "because they were black, he was shooting them because they were infected. And at this point, seeing as how RE5 is the seventh RE game to be released, the creators most likely didn't think that gamers would not understand that they meant no offense because the same situation played out in multiple countries with multiple races already.

I am not sure how the rest of your post relates to that.

 

[D i Z]

True, but those films weren't made by the British Empire goods appreciation society. That's the British Museum.
Doesn't Nemo also hate the British Empire in the stories?

Hate the British Empire? Ummm. Yes. For obvious reasons. And the French were not much better.
And to a person that feels that his story makes more sense (or is more appreciated) than an African in Britain despite the massacre that we all know happened. Where does that come from? Again, there is an entire history erased that doesn't get easier to live with because we replace one set of brown people with another. I can't believe I'm even arguing this point.

 

[redcrayon]

And to a person that feels that his story makes more sense (or is more appreciated) than an African in Britain despite the massacre that we all know happened. Where does that come from? Again, there is an entire history erased that doesn't get easier to live with because we replace one set of brown people with another. I can't believe I'm even arguing this point.

Dude, I'm only arguing against you declaring that Captain Nemo was a result of 'the British Empire showing some appreciation for goods they got'. That's blatantly untrue. I'm not arguing anything else.

I suspect it was popular due to it being a great story with a great character with a great motivation, written by a great writer capable of penning a tale from a different perspective to his own. Sometimes that's enough.