By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Runa216 said:
thegamerpad said:

Do you get upset when a Roman fighter is depicted with a laurel wreath around their head?  Is that offensive?

Nope, but I wasn't upset or offended over this Game and Watch thing either. I just think that the world really should be progressing  and leaving racist stereotypes in the past where they belong. I wouldn't have been upset if they left the feather in, either; after all, it would be accurate to Game and Watch's original portrayal. However, given the modern climate it just made more sense to not put something like that in the game and I see no benefit to maintaining the old imagery. 

Balancing things out, there's a lot more good to be had by changing and adapting than slavishly adhering to old, frankly offensive material. What good could possibly be had by maintaining the offensive material? This isn;t a game ABOUT native americans, nor is it meant to make any sort of point about representation of media, so what good could keeping it do aside from appeasing to a small group of vocal traditionalists? 

Tell me, what's more important: adherence to tradition while also showing racist caricatures or, you know, not perpetuating negative stereotypes in a game that's meant to be enjoyed by everyone. it is rated E, after all.

It's not a sterotype that Native Americans wore feathers, that's a fact.
People define different things as progression, erasing Native American culture is not progress.  Removing representation of them is not progress.   If this was removing a Roman figher with a laurel wreath, a british soldier's bearskin hat or a samurai's hat,  none of that would be considered offensive...and it shouldn't, just like the feather.

You yourself even say the feather isn't offensive, so what would be the reason to remove it?  You then go on to call it "offensive material"  so is it offensive or not?

I just would like for once, one of you people that cling to "progression" or "modern climate" buzzwords would actually take a step back and look that things are done like this for 2 reasons:  1) Control and 2) Attention

1) Control:  People like to show that they can have the power to get things removed and done their way, so they cause a mini-outrage and if you don't agree with them you are considered a racist devil.   Most companies will cave to an argument about something as minor as this because they don't want to argue or be perceived as racist.   The people who claim offensiveniess at almost everything are trying to prove their control and at the same time vilify those that disagree with them  (Also remember they made this argument about the Sombrero being racist in Mario Odyssey)

2) Attention:  People like to look at things and break down how they can lawyer the shit out of an argument, find the loop hole, find the defense!  You see it all the time with dumb shit, the arm-chair lawyers.   Now we have a group of people that likes to dissect things and find the thing that they believe could be possibly perceived as offensive (usually to a group of people they're not even apart of) then they round up the similar virtuous people to back them up and try to convince the group that should be offended.   So many people want to be virtuous and pat themselves on the back and wear it like a badge that they "fought for the cause" got an indian headdress removed a game that nobody really cared about.

I don't think people are arguing in favor of the headdress more that they're arguing to stop giving these little voices big control over things.