The Feather Controversy (Split from Game News and Releases thread)

sligeach

Nintendo to remove Native American references in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
"This does not represent our company values today."

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2018-11-07-nintendo-to-remove-native-american-reference-in-super-smash-bros-ultimate

What a load of b0110x!

fixXxer

sligeach wrote: »

Nintendo to remove Native American references in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
"This does not represent our company values today."

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2018-11-07-nintendo-to-remove-native-american-reference-in-super-smash-bros-ultimate

What a load of b0110x!

How is removing a racial stereotype from a game "b011ox" exactly?

sligeach

It's a feather, big whoop. How is it offensive? All this political correctness is out of control. I remember all the stink about Apu in The Simpsons being voiced by a white guy in Hank Azaria and the character being a stereotype. Does that mean now that Charles Martinet shouldn't be allowed voice Mario anymore? That Mario shouldn't be allowed wear the Sombrero in SMO? Where do you stop with this nonsense?

fixXxer

sligeach wrote: »

It's a feather, big whoop. All this political correctness is out of control. I remember all the stink about Apu being voiced by a white guy in Hank Azaria and the character being a stereotype. Does that mean now that Charles Martinet shouldn't be allowed voice Mario anymore? That Mario shouldn't be allowed wear the Sombrero in SMO? Where do you stop with this nonsense?

I asked the question but I think I knew deep down this was going to be the answer. Id the people it's referencing don't like it, you don't get to be the judge of if its offensive or not really.

earthwormjack

It's a minimal effort tweak to something that shouldn't be in the game. They removed it over 15 years ago already and are doing the same now. It's completely the right decision by Nintendo imo.

Rhyme

sligeach wrote: »

It's a feather, big whoop. How is it offensive? All this political correctness is out of control. I remember all the stink about Apu in The Simpsons being voiced by a white guy in Hank Azaria and the character being a stereotype. Does that mean now that Charles Martinet shouldn't be allowed voice Mario anymore? That Mario shouldn't be allowed wear the Sombrero in SMO? Where do you stop with this nonsense?

Someone on Reddit was saying the same. That, the poster, as a self-proclaimed fat Italian guy with a moustache, should be against Mario.

blockfighter

fixxxer wrote: »

I asked the question but I think I knew deep down this was going to be the answer. Id the people it's referencing don't like it, you don't get to be the judge of if its offensive or not really.

I wonder if the people it's referencing honestly give a crap about this to be honest. Seems it's more likely this that people are offended on their behalf and Nintendo caved.
SJW's with another win.

Banjo

Its offensive in so far as they're referencing a common ethnic stereotype and there is an argument that if you tolerate these two frames then your children will be next, will be next, will be next, will be neeeeeext. And it holds water over a wide enough context but tends to look petty when examined in the individual case, enough that it's not really important whether this specific instance of the image is causing anyone offense because allowing it to be used now that it's been seen makes it harder to make a case against a more in your face example, like the Cleveland Indians or Big Chief Crazy Cone - it suggests there's a tolerable level of casual racism.

But that's not important.

At the end of the day, the fact remains that they removed the feather in a previous release - the GBA one - so at some point internally Nintendo agreed that there was enough of an issue that it needed to be addressed. After that it no longer matters whether or not there's a legitimate case to be made that this is offensive. Now they need to justify reintroducing something that they previously deemed potentially offensive and I don't think they can - all the same arguments apply : It's 2 frames of animation, how important is that feather to you that you need to put it back in? What does it add?

sligeach

Banjo wrote: »

It's 2 frames of animation, how important is that feather to you that you need to put it back in? What does it add?

This says hello. It made a return after a very long absence.

I find it highly offensive, it should be removed.

keane2097

If Nintendo removed a drunk Paddy from a game you'd hope people would see it from our point of view. If there are Native Americans out there who this annoys - as there appear to be - I can live with it being removed for the sake of being nice to them.

manual_man

keane2097 wrote: »

If Nintendo removed a drunk Paddy from a game you'd hope people would see it from our point of view. If there are Native Americans out there who this annoys - as there appear to be - I can live with it being removed for the sake of being nice to them.

the truth is though that in most cases it's not the "minority" in question who is offended. Rather, it's some grandstanding SJW fool who is doing it "on their behalf", so they can feel smug and superior and get x amount of likes on whatever platform it is

keane2097

manual_man wrote: »

the truth is though that in most cases it's not the "minority" in question who is offended. Rather, it's some grandstanding SJW fool who is doing it "on their behalf", so they can feel smug and superior and get x amount of likes on whatever platform it is

Sure by the same token you don't hear too many minorities crying about PC gone mad do you?

manual_man

keane2097 wrote: »

Sure by the same token you don't hear too many minorities crying about PC gone mad do you?

probably because in most instances they'd be terrified of the consequences if they did. Anyway i'm gonna stop here. Getting off topic

keane2097

manual_man wrote: »

probably because in most instances they'd be terrified of the consequences if they did.

:pac:

Corholio

It's correct the feather was removed as it quite explicity showed an outdated stereotype, it's not 'just' a feather, it's a symbol of the 'savage' Native Americans that people blanket stereotyped them with. As was said, it was already removed years ago and it's inclusion just seems an oversight. The sad thing is that in the modern world some are so used to something, no matter however wrong, that they get more annoyed by something being corrected than any actual wrong that ocurred. Some things are PC these days, but this is something that isn't even approaching that. The excuse of 'PC' is right up there with 'snowflake' as lazy, effortless ways of targeting something someone mightn't agree with.

CiDeRmAn

Corholio wrote: »

It's correct the feather was removed as it quite explicity showed an outdated stereotype, it's not 'just' a feather, it's a symbol of the 'savage' Native Americans that people blanket stereotyped them with. As was said, it was already removed years ago and it's inclusion just seems an oversight. The sad thing is that in the modern world some are so used to something, no matter however wrong, that they get more annoyed by something being corrected than any actual wrong that ocurred. Some things are PC these days, but this is something that isn't even approaching that. The excuse of 'PC' is right up there with 'snowflake' as lazy, effortless ways of targeting something someone mightn't agree with.

I think this post certainly echoes my opinions on this matter, although I have little issue with the need for political correctness in this age where it seems insulting others is fine as long as you are not in turn insulted.
Pettiness would appear to be more those who would be making an issue out of the removal of an outdated stereotype.
The recreationally insulted I call them
No, you don't get to use language anymore that might contribute to derogatory and stereotypical views of minorities anymore.
The person's making SSBU have decided to make the changes, so they are expressing their right to have their product represent their views, this is free speech.

sligeach

Can we have this banned next please?

CiDeRmAn

If the group that makes them decided to abandon the tired stereotype then we'd be talking about the same thing.
But they're not, so it's different.
Plus, the Irish are not a vulnerable minority.

However, I bet people are happy that this kind of representation is no more, given it was once acceptable to describe an Irishman as such, at a time when we were a vulnerable minority.

CiDeRmAn

I wonder, in fact, why people buy into the idea that they have to react to such measures by Nintendo?
There is an extensive history of Japanese games being altered for Western audiences, such as the adjustment of a characters age in Xenoblade Chronicles X.
There is an extensive history of offensive titles rightly and wrongly being denied a release in Europe, such as Rule of Rose on the PS2.
And, vice versa, characters in EU/US games being altered to appeal to the Japanese/Asian audience, such as Crash Bandicoot.

CiDeRmAn

With my moderator hat on,

Certainly there has been some debates that have descended into some very unpleasant and toxic/negative posts in other forums where it has come up.
I hope that we can keep the discussion respectful, should it continue on this forum/thread.

Mr E

Let me borrow that hat for a second please....

I've split the feather posts from the Game News thread because it's not a suitable thread for a discussion.

super_furry

It's simple enough to my mind really. If the people who are the 'target' of the stereotype don't like it and think maybe you shouldn't use that image, then you probably shouldn't.

I don't think the Leprechaun comparison holds try today because as a nation and a people, it's a look that Irish people embrace. Anywhere in the world that there are more than 10 people gathered, you can be sure there'll be some lad waving an Irish flag and another dressed up like a Leprechaun.

CiDeRmAn

super_furry wrote: »

It's simple enough to my mind really. If the people who are the 'target' of the stereotype don't like it and think maybe you shouldn't use that image, then you probably shouldn't.

I don't think the Leprechaun comparison holds try today because as a nation and a people, it's a look that Irish people embrace. Anywhere in the world that there are more than 10 people gathered, you can be sure there'll be some lad waving an Irish flag and another dressed up like a Leprechaun.

It's an example of "whataboutism" where two different things are conflated to mean the same thing.
So, a stereotype that a culture has embraced as a bit of fun, a culture that has broadly consented and fueled it's adoption, is very different from a stereotype that has been imposed on a people and which has clearly fought against such stereotypes over the last century.

People will say "it's PC gone mad", but really it's just about being respectful, and what's wrong with that?

I would say this video clears it all up quite well, but it is NSFW so consider yourselves warned!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt8Dxpb3b6E

keane2097

super_furry wrote: »

It's simple enough to my mind really. If the people who are the 'target' of the stereotype don't like it and think maybe you shouldn't use that image, then you probably shouldn't.

I don't think the Leprechaun comparison holds try today because as a nation and a people, it's a look that Irish people embrace. Anywhere in the world that there are more than 10 people gathered, you can be sure there'll be some lad waving an Irish flag and another dressed up like a Leprechaun.

The fact that there's no such thing as a leprechaun is somewhat relevant also.

sligeach

I don't get how the feather is offensive. Native Americans wear/wore feathers. I can see how the term redskins could be offensive, I've been reading up on it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

But were people trying to be offensive by calling them that or just trying to distinguish a race of people? It's historical issues and facts, that people are trying to whitewash. I grew up hearing the name Washington Redskins and watching NFL. Never did I think it was a derogatory term. Actually, I was ignorant of its meaning.

Is it now offensive and stereotypical to depict a cowboy wearing a Stetson hat? I see that and immediately think cowboy. Wasn't there an Indian in the Village people dressed in garb and headdress? Does he have to be airbrushed out now? If you take your time and think about it you could probably come up with something to be "offended" by.

I think some people take offence where none was intended. And some actively look for issues to find offence in. A feather!? How is that demeaning and is that really the most serious issue in the world today for some?

Banjo

keane2097 wrote: »

The fact that there's no such thing as a leprechaun is somewhat relevant also.

Not true at all.
Sure, the indian with the headband is about as realistic and grounded a depiction of the many, many cultures that fill the Native American bucket as the tiny oirish pixie that grants wishes and picks fights of our not-quite-as-diverse selves. I think I remember reading that the headband as a standard uniform was brought in to keep those long wigs in place for horseback chases and fight scenes. It's a hollywood thing.

Look, we all remember how we felt when Tommy Lee Jones started speaking in Blown Away.
Try to imagine if he spoke like that in every movie he was in - EVERY movie. And not just him, they were all at it. Tom Cruise. Julia Roberts. Cameron Diaz. Brad Pitt. And hipsters were dying their hair bright orange out of solidarity with Brian Ború when he died fighting that giant in the GPO, Rachel Ray putting oregano into home made spice burgers, people going to music festivals wearing flat caps and carrying shilleleighs, and every time you met someone and they found out you were irish you could see inside their head they were screaming "Oive cam ta creeete a nuu cuntree fer ya called Kaaaase!" but outside they just said "Oh, like Tommy Lee Jones!" and they'd try to get you to do some diddly-aye bow-legged jig because they respected your culture so much, and you couldn't get a job 'cause sure yiz are all in the 'RA and when you walked into a bar you got turned away because, like, you're already drunk surely, and you try to go look at an open house but it's mysteriously already sold and then something hits you on the head - you didn't see what it was but it clanged and you heard someone say 'gimme me wishes, Gaerity!' before you blacked out and when you came to you were naked, painted green and in a bin full of yellow m&ms? You'd blow all those feckers up - and then you'd become Tommy Lee Jones in Blown Away. You *would* have created a new country called chaos, you would have instigated a new government called anarchy. And no one should have to be Tommy Lee Jones, except for Tommy Lee Jones - karma has it's reasons, don't ask questions. And that is why we cannot stand in judgement over this feather.

Banjo

sligeach wrote: »

I don't get how the feather is offensive. Native Americans wear/wore feathers. I can see how the term redskins could be offensive, I've been reading up on it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

But were people trying to be offensive by calling them that or just trying to distinguish a race of people? It's historical issues and facts, that people are trying to whitewash. I grew up hearing the name Washington Redskins and watching NFL. Never did I think it was a derogatory term. Actually, I was ignorant of its meaning.

Is it now offensive and stereotypical to depict a cowboy wearing a Stetson hat? I see that and immediately think cowboy. Wasn't there an Indian in the Village people dressed in garb and headdress? Does he have to be airbrushed out now? If you take your time and think about it you could probably come up with something to be "offended" by.

I think some people take offence where none was intended. And some actively look for issues to find offence in. A feather!? How is that demeaning and is that really the most serious issue in the world today for some?

It doesn't matter where the term indian or redskin came from, and your personal ignorance of it's offensiveness is irrelevant (and also, the Cleveland Indians might be more appropriate for this discussion but who the **** watches baseball?), it's how it went on to be used and the connotations it katamaried up in the process. In the same way that calling the irish "Tadghs" fell out of use because it was racist, and also - probably more importantly - as literacy became more prevalent the english realised they couldn't spell it. But Paddy is nice and easy.

Cowboys were never oppressed, and are over-represented in the government of one of the most powerful nations on earth. So in that respect they don't get to play the minority card.

The headdress guy in the village people is an interesting case to look at. Far as I remember he has dakota or lakota blood, so that gives him something of a pass for cultural appropriation, but a lot rides on the symbolism wrapped up in the head-dress. If it's a symbol of strong leadership, and he's wearing it while fronting an ultra-macho dance troop, I don't think there's an intent to drag it into disrepute. If it has religious, spiritual or ritualistic significance and it's being used outside of the correct context, there's grounds for offence. And if it's just that you're popularising an association between a tribe with a really gay band, well that's "cripple fight!" territory for minorities!

CiDeRmAn

sligeach wrote: »

I don't get how the feather is offensive. Native Americans wear/wore feathers. I can see how the term redskins could be offensive, I've been reading up on it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

But were people trying to be offensive by calling them that or just trying to distinguish a race of people? It's historical issues and facts, that people are trying to whitewash. I grew up hearing the name Washington Redskins and watching NFL. Never did I think it was a derogatory term. Actually, I was ignorant of its meaning.

Is it now offensive and stereotypical to depict a cowboy wearing a Stetson hat? I see that and immediately think cowboy. Wasn't there an Indian in the Village people dressed in garb and headdress? Does he have to be airbrushed out now? If you take your time and think about it you could probably come up with something to be "offended" by.

I think some people take offence where none was intended. And some actively look for issues to find offence in. A feather!? How is that demeaning and is that really the most serious issue in the world today for some?

You don't have to have intended to be offensive.
You can be completely innocent and be unaware that a statement or an image is offensive.
People in this country for years had their Lyons tea brand characterised by this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgoNSCgP6TA

And that branding persisted into the 80's.

I doubt anyone involved were racist or considered the branding racist.
But it was without doubt, offensive and was removed from the Lyons brand as a result.
I imagine there were people saying, at the time, "This is crazy, the familiar icon I find is integral to my favourite brand of tea is being removed. Who are these offended people and why can't they just stop?".

So, the feather isn't offensive in any way to you.
Doesn't make you racist at all.
No need for anyone to feel they are being dismissed for not being "woke" enough.
But, once the offensive nature of something is revealed, it really is beholden on people to roll in and make the change, especially when it's something as ultimately irrelevant to the gameplay as a representation of a feather.

Doctor DooM

Ah, this reminds me over the changes to Mika's super in Street Fighter V (obviously, one of the closest correlations to Smash).

Loads of people who weren't, as far as I know, SF players ranting about it.

One of the last comments in that thread read something like "Jesus, would you ever give it over moaning over not seeing a pair of tits". Now, pretty much no one even remembers it.

Enjoy your outrage over something so utterly unimportant but might make some people feel better.

Mr E

Yeah, I had to look that up. I don't even remember the Mika controversy.

Doctor DooM

Mr E wrote: »

Yeah, I had to look that up. I don't even remember the Mika controversy.

I would happily bet you a thousand euro in 2 years time I will be streaming a Smultimate tournament and this won't be remembered either!

Corholio

Whenever these stories come up the rejection of it is always 'does this mean we can't wear/have this random object so' etc, completely missing the purpose and intended oppression that the 'object' was used for in the first place. Not all of these things are 'equal'.

CiDeRmAn

Corholio wrote: »

Whenever these stories come up the rejection of it is always 'does this mean we can't wear/have this random object so' etc, completely missing the purpose and intended oppression that the 'object' was used for in the first place. Not all of these things are 'equal'.

"So, does this mean because vegans I can't wear a leather thong anymore???, It's political correctness gone mad!"

Banjo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

"So, does this mean because vegans I can't wear a leather thong anymore???, It's political correctness gone mad!"

Ah now you've put a weird question into my head about vegans that I'm eventually going to ask a vegan in an inappropriate setting.

CiDeRmAn

Banjo wrote: »

Ah now you've put a weird question into my head about vegans that I'm eventually going to ask a vegan in an inappropriate setting.

My work here.... is done...

Hey, maybe they can help you with Dark Souls as well!

Banjo

Dark Souls helps those who help themselves. So I did. I helped myself to a copy of Diablo III and haven't looked back.

sligeach

I'm not getting this. How is the feather a stereotype? It's a fact, they wore them? What does them being a minority group have to do with anything or that they were oppressed?

Game and Watch is a silhouette, I didn't even know this was an animation in SSBU. My point is this is people stirring the pot. Look at another fighter, Street Fighter to be exact and look at Thunder Hawk, did anyone create a stink about him? He wears a feather, 2 in fact. And he wears war paint, how very stereotypical of Capcom. Get the pitchforks and torches.

Is this not worse, if people are being all politically correct?

Corholio

It's not just the feather. He's an indian wearing a loincloth, feather and carrying a torch to burn down the fort. This is the 'savage' stereotype for Indians. There's lots of different types of Native Americans, this was the one stereotypical image they used to portray a bad guy in the game.

It doesn't mean it's the only thing in the world that's important, it's just a small thing in a game that has an outdated reference that was changed. T. Hawk has been mentioned loads of times before as being pretty stereotypical, even more so than this case. He always makes those 'Most Stereotypical Characters in Gaming' lists.

CiDeRmAn

sligeach wrote: »

I'm not getting this. How is the feather a stereotype? It's a fact, they wore them? What does them being a minority group have to do with anything or that they were oppressed?

Game and Watch is a silhouette, I didn't even know this was an animation in SSBU. My point is this is people stirring the pot. Look at another fighter, Street Fighter to be exact and look at Thunder Hawk, did anyone create a stink about him? He wears a feather, 2 in fact. And he wears war paint, how very stereotypical of Capcom. Get the pitchforks and torches.

Is this not worse, if people are being all politically correct?

Well, seeing as you brought it up.
Googling "ThunderStreet fighter, stereotype" brings plenty of articles on the matter

https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/05/the-15-most-stereotypical-characters-in-video-games/dalsim-street-fighter

Which would suggest that, just because a person isn't aware a thing is questionable, doesn't make it not questionable. A point which I pretty much made some posts ago.