• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Diet Racism is a real problem

Status
Not open for further replies.

gblues

Banned
I look at this forum as being full of posters who mostly on the journey to being woke, some closer than others. and a few have yet to begin the path because of willful ignorance and a refusal to accept their own ingrained racism exists.

This is how I see myself. The really fun thing is that being a white dude I have zero frame of reference, by which I mean that I have no idea where I am on that path or how close I am. It's all relative. I can say with certainty that I am closer today than I was a few years ago, but I don't feel close enough to apply the term "woke" to myself. I can almost guarantee the second I do, some backward-ass thing will pop in my head (or worse, out of my mouth), and I'll realize I still have a long ways to go.

So, with regards to the OP: yeah, it is. Some of us are working on it, honest.
 
I don't really get why always Hollywood gets so much hate for using white leads and not say Germany for using white lead in their movie or Japanese for Japanese leads for their movies, China Chinese leads, Bollywood Indian leads and so on.

Visibility + options they ignore
 

Skilletor

Member
I don't really get why always Hollywood gets so much hate for using white leads and not say Germany for using white lead in their movie or Japanese for Japanese leads for their movies, China Chinese leads, Bollywood Indian leads and so on.

Probably because the representation of other ethnicities in media in this country vs. others is not reflective of the general population.

That would be my guess, anyway, without doing any research at all on the topic.
 

manakel

Member
I have a question just for the sake of playing devil's advocate and hearing opinions on the matter. If I, as a biracial individual, dressed as a cowboy on Halloween - would I be accused of being culturally insensitive? One could argue that cowboys are a "western" culture, of which I technically am not a part of. Would that still be considered cultural appropriation, even though whites are the majority?
 

Sai-kun

Banned
I have a question just for the sake of playing devil's advocate and hearing opinions on the matter. If I, as a biracial individual, dressed as a cowboy on Halloween - would I be accused of being culturally insensitive? One could argue that cowboys are a "western" culture, of which I technically am not a part of. Would that still be considered cultural appropriation, even though whites are the majority?

Cowboys were not exclusively white dudes, and it was an occupation, so I don't think so.
 

Henkka

Banned
I have a question just for the sake of playing devil's advocate and hearing opinions on the matter. If I, as a biracial individual, dressed as a cowboy on Halloween - would I be accused of being culturally insensitive? One could argue that cowboys are a "western" culture, of which I technically am not a part of. Would that still be considered cultural appropriation, even though whites are the majority?

Maybe something like a viking would be more appropriate for your question, since I'm pretty sure there were black cowboys
 

Zaru

Member
Maybe something like a viking would be more appropriate for your question, since I'm pretty sure there were black cowboys

There are nutters on the internet saying the original vikings were black so you'll still offend SOMEone
 

Plum

Member
I have a question just for the sake of playing devil's advocate and hearing opinions on the matter. If I, as a biracial individual, dressed as a cowboy on Halloween - would I be accused of being culturally insensitive? One could argue that cowboys are a "western" culture, of which I technically am not a part of. Would that still be considered cultural appropriation, even though whites are the majority?

I wouldn't say so because as Sai-kun said it was an occupation instead of a cultural thing. Maybe other people see it differently but I personally wouldn't see a white person dressing up as, for example, a Samurai, to be culturally insensitive; that same guy dressing up as a stereotypical "Japanese person" would be however.
 
Cowboys were not exclusively white dudes, and it was an occupation, so I don't think so.

There were a LOT of black cowboys. It was a tough, dirty, low-wage and low-prestige job.

It was whitewashed because of the romanticism what was later attached to the job. Cowboys became a symbol of American independence, which wouldn't work (in a 20th century mindset) if that symbol was a black man.
 
There were a LOT of black cowboys. It was a tough, dirty, low-wage and low-prestige job.

It was whitewashed because of the romanticism what was later attached to the job. Cowboys became a symbol of American independence, which wouldn't work (in a 20th century mindset) if that symbol was a black man.

There were/are also a number of Native American cowboys, which made the whole 'cowboy vs Indian' thing kinda stupid.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I have a question just for the sake of playing devil's advocate and hearing opinions on the matter. If I, as a biracial individual, dressed as a cowboy on Halloween - would I be accused of being culturally insensitive? One could argue that cowboys are a "western" culture, of which I technically am not a part of. Would that still be considered cultural appropriation, even though whites are the majority?

I don't think you'd get many white people in the U.S. arguing against cultural appropriation in the first place.

And yea, there were black cowboys. If you really wanted to be different and go with the biracial angle you could be a llanero, who were basically all some mixture of black and other races. Plus they were instrumental in winning the wars for Spanish American independence; probably more important than the American cowboys were in their respective histories.
 

Henkka

Banned
There are nutters on the internet saying the original vikings were black so you'll still offend SOMEone

Hmm, well that's weird.

Brings to mind the historical accuracy argument, though. Like, should there be black or asian vikings in that Vikings TV show? I think that would be going a bit far.
 

Sunster

Member
This is how I see myself. The really fun thing is that being a white dude I have zero frame of reference, by which I mean that I have no idea where I am on that path or how close I am. It's all relative. I can say with certainty that I am closer today than I was a few years ago, but I don't feel close enough to apply the term "woke" to myself. I can almost guarantee the second I do, some backward-ass thing will pop in my head (or worse, out of my mouth), and I'll realize I still have a long ways to go.

So, with regards to the OP: yeah, it is. Some of us are working on it, honest.

hahaha yea, we as white people probably shouldn't ever call ourselves "woke" . Just gotta stay on the path, recognize and make changes where they are needed. Stay open to criticism and being called out too.
 
Hmm, well that's weird.

Brings to mind the historical accuracy argument, though. Like, should there be black or asian vikings in that Vikings TV show? I think that would be going a bit far.

I would say probably not. The show is reasonably historically accurate in that many of the characters existed, although the relationships between them may be invented (I'm pretty sure that Rollo and Ragnar were not brothers or even acquaintances) and the major events happened, although possibly not in that order. Having Vikings of different races would be jarring. You could possible argue for some black faces in England, although not amongst the aristocracy. They would most likely have still be very unusual at that time though.

On the other hand, there are a lot of Viking characters in the show who do not have blonde hair which is also likely to be somewhat inaccurate, so some liberties have already been taken.

Also, there is the case of Ahmad ibn Fadlān ibn al-Abbās ibn Rāšid ibn Hammād - The Arab ambassador to the Volga Vikings (and inspiration for The 13th Warrior) - this was sometime after the days of Ragnar and in the context of the Vikings who raided the east (Russia) - but given some of the poetic licence already used, a character based on this man could be used to provide some diversity without weakening the authenticity.
 

Lime

Member
Vikings travelled all across the European continent and also made it to North America at some point. They even got to Constantinople and traded with them there and/or worked as bodyguards. In today's Istanbul there are engraved Nordic runes (tag) in one of the mosques.

So contact with other cultures and ethnicities and different amount of melanin aren't out of the question and could not only be imagined otherwise in a tv show or a film, but even have historically recorded leverage for such an inclusion.
 
Vikings travelled all across the European continent and also made it to North America at some point. They even got to Constantinople and traded with them there and/or worked as bodyguards. In today's Istanbul there are engraved Nordic runes (tag) in one of the mosques.

So contact with other cultures and ethnicities and different amount of melanin aren't out of the question and could not only be imagined otherwise in a tv show or a film, but even have historically recorded leverage for such an inclusion.

Constantinople would have been a predominantly European/white city at that time and crew that got to Newfoundland were much later than the time period of the show but yeah the point is taken. I recall that one of Ragnar's sons sailed into the med so presumably met some north African's on the way.
 
This topic has some startling lack of self awareness.

It is an absurd false equivalency to argue that inclusion is no different than exclusion. White men are notoriously included while minorities and women are notoriously excluded.

People slot white guys in to roles as a result and continuation of a systemic process of presenting white people as the default version of humanity across all media.

People want women in battlefield because there is no reason they shouldn't be there.

There were certainly more women on the battlefields of the Great War than there were spawn points.
 
This topic has some startling lack of self awareness.

It is an absurd false equivalency to argue that inclusion is no different than exclusion. White men are notoriously included while minorities and women are notoriously excluded.

People slot white guys in to roles as a result and continuation of a systemic process of presenting white people as the default version of humanity across all media.

People want women in battlefield because there is no reason they shouldn't be there.

There were certainly more women on the battlefields of the Great War than there were spawn points.
I don't think it's a lack of awareness. More of the fuck y'all variety, look at any thread that deals with diversity and see the vile shit a lot of people say.
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
So where does this different ethnic race come from originally? This is a genuine question, I'm not disputing what you say.

It's a strange Amercanism. Portugese and Spanish speaking people are still considered white in Europe. There's no distinction at all here.

Just another way humans find to separate themselves out.
 
People want women in battlefield because there is no reason they shouldn't be there.

There were certainly more women on the battlefields of the Great War than there were spawn points.

Of course there is a reason. Which is that, excepting a few Russian units and a handful of isolated examples elsewhere, there were no women on the frontline. You could use the Russian units if you wanted to I guess, but having female US, French, German or British units would be bizarre, from a historical point of view. Spawn points are other game mechanics are not the same thing.

That being said, I wouldn't object to giving people the option of choosing a female character. But to say there is no reason not to do it is silly.
 
Where do folks stand on things like pirate costumes, where people are dressing up like criminals who went around robbing and killing others for a living?
 
Where do folks stand on things like pirate costumes, where people are dressing up like criminals who went around robbing and killing others for a living?

I'll admit I don't keep up on my pirate history, but I don't recall them being systematically oppressed for any length of time.
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
I'll admit I don't keep up on my pirate history, but I don't recall them being systematically oppressed for any length of time.

They certainly were systematically oppressed they criminals. The notable in the Caribbean the majority were pardoned in the end. There's nothing ethnically specific about being a pirate though, any ethnicity that was around at the were pirates and there's still pirates today.
 
It's a strange Amercanism. Portugese and Spanish speaking people are still considered white in Europe. There's no distinction at all here.

Just another way humans find to separate themselves out.

Spanish for a long time weren't because they are mixed with black.

Look up the Moors Spanish invasion.
 
Spanish for a long time weren't because they are mixed with black.

Look up the Moors Spanish invasion.

Whilst it is true that majority of the Spanish peninsula was rules by the moors at one point, I don't recall any evidence that the Spanish themselves were ever considered to be black by other europeans (although interbreeding no doubt occurred). That's not to say that you're wrong though, have you got a source?
 

Two Words

Member
TrhLaUa.png
 
I have a question just for the sake of playing devil's advocate and hearing opinions on the matter. If I, as a biracial individual, dressed as a cowboy on Halloween - would I be accused of being culturally insensitive? One could argue that cowboys are a "western" culture, of which I technically am not a part of. Would that still be considered cultural appropriation, even though whites are the majority?
They're were black and biracial cowboys. Look up Bass Reeves.
 
The OP is literally using the example of black samurai and medieval knights. I'm sure there were a few, but there's nothing wrong with claiming historical accuracy if your historically based movie, show, book, etc. doesn't have black knights or samurai. You seem to acknowledge that whites get shoehorned into areas that often don't make sense, so it should be easy to see that it possible to do that with minorities too. That is currently not a problem, but the OP seemed to be hinting that they wanted to make that a problem.
Moors dont exist?
 

hampig

Member
I'm curious, what do people think of Django Unchained and how it handled race? Especially considering the director is white?
 

Platy

Member
One of the worst is when someone says a PoC in any type of medium is "Pandering".

I never understood the problem with pandering .... like white characters ARE pandering. Straight characters ARE PANDERING. why it is only a problem when it is a minority pandering ?
 
It's a strange Amercanism. Portugese and Spanish speaking people are still considered white in Europe. There's no distinction at all here.

Just another way humans find to separate themselves out.

I think in South and Central America it's distinct because there was a lot more ethnic mixing between European settlers and indigenous ethnicities (compared to, say, in North America where this was relatively much less). That said, I saw someone mentioned how they were disappointed with the Harlem Hellfighters section due to the limited roll the protagonists actually had but said "at least one of the campaigns was Italian".
 

RJT

Member
Whilst it is true that majority of the Spanish peninsula was rules by the moors at one point, I don't recall any evidence that the Spanish themselves were ever considered to be black by other europeans (although interbreeding no doubt occurred). That's not to say that you're wrong though, have you got a source?

It's not the fucking Spanish peninsula. It's Iberian Peninsula.
 

RJT

Member
Of course it is. Sorry.

You're point is valid, I just got triggered...

Regarding the "Latin" definition in America, it's not about people from Portuguese and Spanish descent. It's about South and Central American people that are descendant from a mix of European (Portuguese and Spanish) settlers, African slaves and Indigenous tribes.
 

KonradLaw

Member
Women in the military has been quite a big diversity issue for women to try and overcome. Women played an important part in the Red Army as well, but people seem to ignore that fact and act as if women shouldn't be in the army.

Thats because to have women in army in combat roles the country needs to in really dire straits. USA has never been in a war that would put it in such position. Every war it fought was very easy on the country, so it could afford to have only the men being sent to the front, thus the concept of women in army is alien to most americans.

Meanwhile in Europe it's a lot more acceptable because of WWII is still part of every nation's collective memory.
 
Thats because to have women in army in combat roles the country needs to in really dire straits. USA has never been in a war that would put it in such position. Every war it fought was very easy on the country, so it could afford to have only the men being sent to the front, thus the concept of women in army is alien to most americans.

Meanwhile in Europe it's a lot more acceptable because of WWII is still part of every nation's collective memory.

I don't think any European army (apart from Russia) has ever used female soldiers in the modern period until very recently(?) (except in the case of handfuls of women who have pretended to be men). Russia is noted for having used female soldiers in battle, mainly in WW2 as snipers, but even then they were a very small part of a very big army.
 
Of course there is a reason. Which is that, excepting a few Russian units and a handful of isolated examples elsewhere, there were no women on the frontline. You could use the Russian units if you wanted to I guess, but having female US, French, German or British units would be bizarre, from a historical point of view. Spawn points are other game mechanics are not the same thing.

That being said, I wouldn't object to giving people the option of choosing a female character. But to say there is no reason not to do it is silly.

Battlefield 1 is a WW1 game where you spend 0 time in trenches and charge at people point blank, you respawn, there are "hero" characters.

I'm sorry fuck that historical accuracy bullshit excuse because it sure as shit doesn't apply to the actual game you play.
 
It's a game that tries to recreate WW1 within the confines of something that is also fun to play. So there are many, many obvious concessions to game mechanics that don't reflect the actual experience of warfare in the period, some of which you have mentioned. Dice tried to keep things as accurate as possible by, for instance, including guns that did at least exist in the period, even if they were not widely used. It's not a simulation clearly. Does that mean that they could have included female combatants? Sure. But I don't think it's fair to say that there was no reason not to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom