Video games and the usual amount of racism

by guest contributor Andrea Rubenstein, originally published on OfficialShrub.com

For day three of International Blog Against Racism Week, I want to look specifically why games, such as many of the prior Resident Evil ones, haven’t received as much criticism as, say, Resident Evil 5 has.

So, why aren’t critiques of the prior Resident Evil games easy to find? Well, there are a few reasons. As discussed in my previous post, gaming as a field of study is still in its infancy. Gaming blogs discussing issues like race are still few and far between. Despite the re-release for Gamecube, the previous games are (in internet terms) rather old.

And, finally, the last reason I can easily think of, which is what I will be discussing here: The previous games didn’t gather much discussion because they had only the usual amount of racism in them. What do I mean by that? Well, keep reading to find out.

I. The “usual amount of racism”? WTF?

When someone first mentioned this, i was disgusted that humankind could possibly feel there were racist overtones to the game.
[From Resident Evil 5 is a tool for racism!! by Big Stu]

Given the general state of the gaming blogsphere — which can be rightly called, if I’m being charitable, ignorant on matters of race — most people stumbling onto this blog will probably have a defensive reaction. “Games aren’t racist!”, “How dare she attack my beloved Resident Evil with her bleeding heart liberal lies!”… and probably worse, if I go on some of the actual responses to the issue (the one quoted above is one of the nicer ones, really).

The trailer of Resident Evil 5 (which can be seen here) is what sparked calls of racism. The main reason for the strong reaction is that the game is set in Africa but the protagonist is a white American. The trailer shows him killing hordes of black zombies. Further discussion on race in Resident Evil 5, which includes links to relevant posts, can be found here.

So, if Resident Evil 5 gathered controversy because it exceeds “the usual amount of racism”, then what defines “the usual amount”?

It starts with a primarily white universe*. If you really look at the worlds that the majority of games, even today, are set in, you’ll most likely notice a pattern: protagonists, antagonists, and random NPCs will tend to be white more often than not. You can read more about this trend, which is not confined to video games, in the post Why is the Universe full of White people? over at Angry Black Woman Blog.

The usual amount of racism doesn’t stop with the relative invisiblity of non-white characters, though. It extends to the concept that every non-white character that exists does so in a marked (versus the unmarked white) state. The marking of a character can be through comments drawing attention to the character’s race and/or through the use of clear racial stereotypes. See On Indigo Prophecy, Part 2: So Bad, It’s Racist for an example of this.

Ultimately, the “usual amount of racism” is things that, when viewed as separate entities, don’t seem that bad. Because of this criticism can be easily countered, and typical arguments include “there’s a good reason that the protagonist is white”, or “but the use of [racial stereotype] is done in a way that makes the character look cool, so it’s actually a good thing!“, or even, “why can’t you just be happy that the character was included at all?”

II. So why isn’t there any discussion?

With all the recent FPS’s set in the middle east, no one is saying anything about islam haters in games.
[From Resident Evil 5 Trailer, comment by Kuaz Omega]

This question comes in many forms, the most typical of which are “why aren’t you discussing white-on-white violence?” or “why aren’t you discussing [x minority] on white violence”.

The answer to the assertion of “white-on-white violence” not being discussed is that, of course it is. What do you think all the media attention gamers hate is all about? White-on-white violence in video games is talked about all the time. Sensationalist media, studies (good and bad), bloggers talking about the issue… it’s right in the faces of people who use the arguments, but they don’t see it as “white-on-white violence” because white is an unmarked state. The media only mentions the race of the characters in question when it’s a non-white person involved — such as with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas — and therefore people only see “violence” when really it’s a discussion of “white-on-white violence.”

As for “[x minority] on white violence”, who can name a recent game that was widely distributed and played in the West which featured a non-white character killing primarily white people? Even counting the aforementioned GTA game, in which there were plenty of non-white people to kill in addition to the white ones, the number likely does not come close to reaching double digits. Beyond just recently distributed, how many games like that that have been made for a Western audience in total can you think of? Now compare that to the number of games featuring other kinds of violence and you have your answer as to why the “[x minority] on white violence” hasn’t received much attention.

III. So… usual racism, no discussion, what’s up with that?

Off the top of your head, name 5 black video game characters. Now, exclude any characters that were not main characters. Now exclude any that appear in a sports game or hip-hop based game. Finally, exclude any characters that embody stereotypical representations of African Americans. (Yes, that means excluding CJ from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.) How many are left in your list?
[From Denial and Delusion - Why Public Conversations About Race Fail Before They Begin by Latoya Peterson]

As for the answer on why games that display the usual amount of racism don’t get much attention, the simple answer is that even the people who are actively anti-racist are resigned to accepting that level of racism in games. Games that go above and beyond the call of duty tend to get praised — just as games that exceed the “tolerable racism quotient” tend to get slammed — but those that are bad, but not as bad as they could be, get a sigh, a head shake, and everyone but the most dedicated anti-racist game blogger move on to other subjects.

Indeed, when these subjects are taken on it tends to be not from a game-specific angle, which (especially considering the rabid fans that come out of the woodworks, as we’ve witnessed with Resident Evil 5) is generally considered to be fighting a losing battle, but rather from a general one that talks about trends and their effects. While there’s nothing wrong with the white American Jill Valentine being the protagonist (along with her white male partner, Chris Redfield) of Resident Evil 1, it becomes a bit more suspect when all of the protagonists in the series are white. Then take that in the context of not just the Resident Evil series, but Silent Hill, Max Payne… the default avatars in FPS games being white, protagonist races in strategy games tending towards the light end of the skintone spectrum, RPG protagonists having white markers and/or the absence of non-white markers (primarily in skintone and hair choices). What all that begins to add up to is a trend.

One game does not make a trend. One game that displays the usual amount of racism can be easily dismissed — even more easily than a game with blatant race issues, such as Resident Evil 5. Because of this, unless one is citing it in reference to a trend, or building evidence to support a known trend, most bloggers are not going to go into the minutia only to deal with cries of “you’re making a mountain out of a molehill!”

IV. Conclusion

So, in conclusion, one of the reasons that the other Resident Evil games haven’t yet gathered any criticism from bloggers is that they contain only the usual amount of racism. The lack of criticism doesn’t indicate a lack of a problem, nor is it in any way a valid way of deflecting criticism off of the problems in Resident Evil 5.

For a more in-depth look at racial inclusiveness in games, please see Latoya Peterson’s Racial Inclusiveness in Gaming article in Cerise. I also highly recommend reading through the links provided at the end of that article in order to get an idea of the current state of anti-racist theory in video game critical theory.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Late breaking news on 11 Aug 2007 at 11:20 pm

    [...] Video <b>games</b> and the usual amount of racism [...]

  2. Of Race and Resident Evil 5 at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 08 Feb 2009 at 12:15 pm

    [...] Reading: Blackface Goes HD? The Case of Resident Evil 5 Video Games and the Usual Amount of Racism Denial and Delusion – Why Public Conversations about Race Fail Before they [...]

Comments

  1. David Wynn wrote:

    The “usual” amount of racism is an interesting concept. I wonder though, if it was still set in Africa, would RE 5 be considered to be more racist if the protagonist was white as he is or if instead he was black?

  2. Wendi Muse wrote:

    on a similar note, i have always wonder if there are video games out there where black characters are killing white ones, en masse? I don’t play video games and don’t pretend to know anything about them, hence my asking this…

    does anyone know? and if so, was there a reaction to its content?

  3. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Thanks for writing this Andrea!

    On the boards/blogs, I have not yet made a decision about RE5 – just discussed a few of the issues raised.

    It wasn’t until I read your piece when I realized that was EXACTLY how I was rationalizing RE5 – it was consistent with the other games, so I am not seeing a need to protest. Good points.

    I’m still undecided about RE5 (and probably will stay that way until I play it) but I am putting together a post on what the white gamers I know thought about the contraversy, and how to further conversation as opposed to getting caught in flame wars.

    Oh, and David, you raise a good point. I wonder that myself. (And I am also wondering about the supporting characters in the game…I wonder if there will be a playable black side character used in the game…)

  4. hoo_boy wrote:

    Too many issues!

    Game segment of the entermainment and media industries is *insular*, plain and simple. Just like advertising and PR, it only hires from within, looks from within, informs from within.

    It’s not enough that skilled talented minds around the globe work on the technical and sales side, you won’t find much diversity sitting around the table where the ideas get formed and marketed, and where the problems get solved.

    The smartest guys in the room are still “male”, “white”, and “young”– sometimes allowing their Asian counterparts into the room and around that table.

    This has to inform their view(s) of the world, and perspectives and attitudes on class, women, violence, culture, etc. Just take a look at the titles that float around for PCs and online that could never make it for mass market.

    The best firms doesn’t know and doesn’t care– as does their core audience and their flaks– about the impact of their games on society or what’s reflected.in their product. They don’t bother to learn from other industries, capture other expertise, listen or factor other perspectives. They cravenly market to expectations rather than research, and alienate a larger potential audience in the process. Too much focus on product as end-all be-all, no notion of who consumers are except online.

  5. nadia wrote:

    i’m confused by what you mean in point II…because you quoted someone asking about gamers and anti-islamic sentiment, but then spoke about the discussion of white-on-white violence, or [x minority] on white violence. i don’t understand how this fits into your theory about ‘the usual amount of racism,’ especially given how prevelent first person shooter games that take place in the middle east have become in the past several years. maybe in this case it is not about ‘the usual amount of racism’ but about an amount of racism usually excused for patriotic/nationalistic purposes? i’m also confused about why it’s reduced to [x minority] on white violence, when actually in those games it’s typically white soldiers shooting at middle eastern people. and i’ve seen the handle ‘muslimhater’ or some variation of it on plenty of gaming forums and on x-box live as well, so i think there’s something there too, and it might be a really interesting comparison to make (between those games and the new resident evil).

  6. Sewere wrote:

    Great post Tekanji. I should warn you and Carmen to brace yourselves for the certain racist onslaught that Kym and Sokari faced on their respective blogs.

  7. km.t wrote:

    I don’t see how black-on-black violence in a fictitious environment would constitute as racism…

    The thing with Chris Redfield being the main protagonist of RE 5 is that he’s a white guy killing hordes of black people. The white – vs – black dynamic has a lot of painful history behind it. I think that’s why some people are raising concern with the trailer, because the game it’s garnering hype can be said to mirror real-world events at this time.

    But I digress…

    A black guy or girl killing black people would not be racist, because there’s no significant amount (if any at all) of history behind that.

  8. tekanji wrote:

    Nadia: I probably should have changed the quote before posting. I had meant to address the point it brought up which is “white on [other minority] violence” but ran out of time.

    The “white-on-white violence” is part of the usual amount of racism because it exists in the unmarked state. We talk about it all the time, but the moment someone brings up “[x minority] on white violence” people are up in arms about how no one ever talks about white-on-white violence.

    As for “[x minority] on white violence”, it relates to the usual amount of racism insofar as it’s something that we don’t generally see because of the whitewashing of most video game worlds.

    I hope I’ve cleared up the problems you had. I wrote the post mainly in the morning before school, which is not exactly my most clearheaded time of day. ^^;;

    Sewere: I’m pretty used to it. My blog’s been on moderation ever since I caught shit over saying that Burger King’s “I am Man” commercial was insulting to men. It’s amazing how fast trolling cuts down once the trolls don’t have any previous flames to egg them on.

  9. Karen wrote:

    @ km.t

    I think the racism comes in because they are only making a Black protagonist so that they don’t offend and not because that’s initially what the character in mind was.

    I think.

  10. friedfishribs wrote:

    Resident Evil 5 also plays on historical tropes denigrating Africans and African Americans – that they’re savage, mindless, and violent. It’s interesting, however, that RE5 has hit the blogs, but RE4, with a similar theme of white imperialist vs. ethnic savages, failed to make waves. RE4, skirted a fine line – all the enemies in the game are Spaniards, clearly white, but also very clearly ethnic (speaking only Spanish). The producers, when questioned about the setting, vaguely responded that the events of the game took place “somewhere in Europe.”

    What’s very clear about RE4, however, (for anyone who has played the game and happens to be socially conscious), is how the developers themselves are very conscious of colonialism. Characters in the game make direct references to America’s compulsion to police the world, and the protagonist’s shoot first, never asks questions policy is called into question on multiple occasions. In game notes and dialogue cryptically reveal that the enemies are still human, even while you, the player, are blowing them to little bits with an arsenal of shotguns, rocket launchers, and the peace of mind of white man’s burden. It’s an interesting use of game compulsion (the gamer’s desire to always progress, to always play to the fullest so to speak) to get players to unconsciously do something very evil, and the developers are definitely aware of the irony.

    That being said, the game is still based on shoot up the ethnic savages, and the sequel looks to be up the same alley.

  11. km.t wrote:

    Karen, I disagree. I don’t think using a black protagonist in place of Redfield (or as an alternative option to Redfield) would be a racist move, unless it was a caricature. . .

  12. Jay wrote:

    Hi Andrea, I’m quite happy to see more posts on racism in the gaming subculture.

    So I have a few comments/questions about it:
    1) The issue is complicated by the fact that Resident Evil is a Japanese game (versus say the Grand Theft Auto series), and the Japanese don’t have the same perspective on race as North Americans/Europeans/Australians do; while there’s a certain amount of demand from these countries that influence what sells, and thus what gets made, how much responsibility do you believe the Japanese have in perpetuating the racial norms in these games, and what, if anything, can be done to get them to recognize this?
    2) Moreover, games and movies tend to sidestep the problem of minority-on-white violence in the first place by not creating such dilemmas in the first place. Hell, I can’t even remember a movie or game that pitted a minority protagonist against a majority white gang/group/etc.
    3) Frankly, I find the reaction even more disturbing than the portrayal, even if I’m not very surprised at it anymore. The problem is the implied threats in attempts to silence the blogger, even as they scream censorship and political correctness. The irony is choking.
    4) hoo_boy brought up a good point – it starts at the creative level. I disagree with the “token Asian” at the table making creative decisions though – I don’t think there are that many Asian Americans in North American gaming companies making key decisions in the first place, I’d say the number of Asian Americans in key decision making roles is around the same as the US norm in business or possibly a bit less. And even if they did, the creative atmosphere might only include the “normative” ideas getting in.

  13. hoo_boy wrote:

    Great points Jay,

    And no “token flames” intended– I was basing my comments assuming Asians to include Indian staff as much as Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.

    There’s a weird ageist vibe combining ageism, sexism, and cultural racism built into the tensions among engineers, creatives, project managers, executives, sales, PR hype mongers– and that’s just the overseas folks. Try the domestic teams. Then the hardware vs. games culture. Mess all round.

    And what’s crazy? The worst weirdest stuff from which some of the creative teams draw their ideas may come from what they pick up around their colleagues, other gamers recruited onto staff, etc. precisely because that world is so insular……

  14. tekanji wrote:

    Jay said:

    how much responsibility do you believe the Japanese have in perpetuating the racial norms in these games, and what, if anything, can be done to get them to recognize this?

    I believe they bear full responsibility, especially since they know the game will be marketed to Western audiences.

    I’ve been living in Japan for over a year now studying Japanese, and the racism here is terrible. North Americans will make a show of not being racist, make a show of not stereotyping, and (though this part is steadily reversing) try to avoid blatantly racist material in the games.

    Japanese culture, in general, doesn’t seem to have that “racism is bad! stereotyping is racism!” Black people are constantly depicted as racist caricatures (both physically and by what they are shown doing, which often has something to do with hip hop) because that’s the stereotype black people in Japan. There are black ghettos here and all of my black friends have been on the receiving end of racism in one way or another.

    As for what can be done about it? Well, just in terms of video games (since I am so not qualified to make an informed statement about raising racial awareness here), I would say that it’s the responsibility of the North American branches to remind the Japanese ones that games that are marketed worldwide need to be marketed with a worldwide audience in mind, and therefore issues — such as race — need to be handled with more than the usual care. While the excuse can be made (albeit weakly) that the Japanese don’t understand the history of race relations between black and white people, there is no excuse for the North American branch of Capcom not having spoken up and said something about the issue.

    Moreover, games and movies tend to sidestep the problem of minority-on-white violence in the first place by not creating such dilemmas in the first place.

    Yup, that’s exactly the point I was trying to make :) It seems ridiculous for people (ie. the racist apologists) to bring up that argument so frequently when there aren’t many games of note that deal with the issue.

    The problem is the implied threats in attempts to silence the blogger, even as they scream censorship and political correctness. The irony is choking.

    Welcome to the world of anti-oppression blogging. I’ve been compared to 1984 because I have moderation on my blog. The place that was comparing me to it? Was having even less of a discussion on the issue than I was, since every comment was calling me some variation of an uptight, PC-loving bitch.

    hoo_boy brought up a good point – it starts at the creative level.

    I completely agree, which is one of the reasons that I’m going to be studying video game design here in Japan starting next spring.

  15. Flo wrote:

    not exactly a direct response, however this post inspired me to a post I put in my livejournal, figured I’d post it here aswell as it might interest other folks:

    epiphany in explaining white privelege;
    So recently I’ve been reading this awsome anti-racism blog and I was reading this peice about the protaganists of video games generally being white and how that is perpetuating the common subtle racism that white is the norm, when I had this awsome idea of how to explain white privelege, so here goes the metaphore:
    It’s like accents, you know when you talk to someone who talks the same way you do, you don’t think of them having the same accent as you, they just don’t have an accent at all, right? you only notice someone having an accent if it’s different than your own.
    the author of the blog writes,
    “The answer to the assertion of “white-on-white violence” not being discussed is that, of course it is. What do you think all the media attention gamers hate is all about? White-on-white violence in video games is talked about all the time. Sensationalist media, studies (good and bad), bloggers talking about the issue… it’s right in the faces of people who use the arguments, but they don’t see it as “white-on-white violence” because white is an unmarked state. The media only mentions the race of the characters in question when it’s a non-white person involved — such as with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas — and therefore people only see “violence” when really it’s a discussion of “white-on-white violence.””
    the same way we think of people who talk like us as just talking, while folks who talk differently are “talking with an accent” for those of us white folks who’ve been brought up to think of white as the default, we may see other white folks as just “people” discribing them by charactaristics like hight, build, hair colour etc. not generally using race as a marker for discription unless we are talking about a person of colour. (in much the same way as I would never discribe my friends by their accent unless it was different from mine, “you know so-and-so, the one with the British accent” doesn’t seem like an odd way to discribe someone, however “you know so-and-so, the one with the average american accent” seems extreamly strange)
    it’s the same challage to get white folks who live in a white-centered society to realize they have a race as to get anyone to realize they have an accent when surrounded by people with the same accent.
    it’s not fully worked out in my head yet, but I wanted to put it out there.

  16. tekanji wrote:

    friedfishribs: Yeah, I meant to do a write up on racism in RE4 but I’ve spent the entire weekend catching up on some much needed R&R. If you’re interested, though, there’s a discussion about race in RE4 going on at Iris’ forums. I hope you don’t mind, but I added your comment to the thread ^^;

  17. phooey wrote:

    if the game is set in africa then the only way to “fix” it seems to be to change the protagonist, is that what people are thinking? because obviously whoever you are, if you are dropping into africa, you will be killing mostly poor black people.

    yet if the protagonist is black, then the interpretation becomes more insidious. it suggests an *internalised* sense of cultural superiority aimed at eradicating primitive peoples all over again. the colonialist overtones, civilising and hygiene associations remain whether the protagonist is black, white, yellow etc. the premise of black american on black african violence is far from an easy fix.

  18. Eugene wrote:

    So, let me get this right… for ten years, this game franchise has featured white people blowing away the re-animated dead bodies of white people and the occassional doberman pincher and no one says anything. But the moment those re-animated corpses are african, THEN it’s racism?

    This is what I find disturbing about the modern debate over racism. It’s not longer about the specific act or situation, it’s about this nebulous idea of “dominant cultures” and sub groups.

    Nevermind the actual story behind the game. Nevermind that the zombie plague released was done by “white” people. Let’s all focus on 3 mins of footage and jump on the bandwagon.

    Because, you know, Japanese game developers have a vested interested in propogating the white western hegemony over africans.

  19. km.t wrote:

    “But the moment those re-animated corpses are african, THEN it’s racism?”

    Well see, the thing with that is, they’re *not* re-animated corpses. They’re living human beings — just like the villains in RE 4 — who may or may not be ‘infected’ with some sort of parasite.

    So in essence, you’re not ‘killing’ zombies; you’re killing living human beings.

  20. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    Here’s an interesting thought: Were the protagonist of African origin, would that still really relieve the game of racial issues? Consider that the developers are all still (I assume) not black. Also, does it relieve the projected imagery of the “savage black” when you have a single counterpoint of a black protagonist?

    Or perhaps, we can expand this to all mediums. The question I’m asking is: can a person who is not of a specific background tell the story of peoples who are of that background? Can I, an Asian American, tell a story about black Africans without projecting some biased racial lens, even if I were as sensitive as I could be?

    I guess this post is trying to consider three perceived problems:

    1) Whether any person can speak for/of a different group of people without a problematic racial lens. (In RE5 and previous RE games–it’s the Japanese speaking for white Americans, white Europeans and now black Africans.)
    2) If the issue is rather more about the imagery present, including the “good white” vs. “bad black” than who is doing the telling of the story.
    3) Does a single protagonist counterpoint alleviate the potential for the propegation of racial stereotypes in a media work where the “many” still serve the stereotype?

    Just some thoughts/questions that popped in my head.

  21. GoodbyeSoberDay wrote:

    “They’re living human beings — just like the villains in RE 4 — who may or may not be ‘infected’ with some sort of parasite.

    So in essence, you’re not ‘killing’ zombies; you’re killing living human beings.”

    Please dont mistake me for another ignorant troll looking to dismiss what RE5 has created, but I definitely think your overestimating the “humanity” in the enemies of the more recent Resident Evil games. There is no question as to whether these enemies “may or may not” be infected when their heads explode, revealing a lashing parasitic tentacle flailing about trying to slash the player character. Likewise, their status as “living human being” is no longer in question when this happens, because it displays clearly the parasite has taken over.

    However, I am sympathetic to those unfamiliar with the game, because the only way players familiar with the game can tell the difference between those infected with “las plagas” (Im assuming its returning with this game) and those not, is through behaviour. Of course, until as above, they clearly mutate into something obviously non-human. So whereas the older games displayed the “infected” through blood soaked “people”, shuffling along moaning and of course, eating corpses, this game takes a slightly different approach. The infected clearly display hostility and the intent to harm the “non-infected” without any provocation. Playing the game it is increasingly obvious to tell the difference between infected and non-infected, not always by appearance, but by obvious and unprovoked hostility.

    As for the problem in question, I agree with anyone who believes this would have been significantly easier to handle if the protagonist were black, and a native to the region. At least in that representation it gives black people native to that region an equal portrayal as regards to infected and un-infected. Not just some white + foreign hero coming to stop the black infected, as it currently is, which I agree is an offensive representation to keep in the game.

    I apologise if Im talking to someone already aware of this km.t, because I was unsure if you already knew this or not. Sorry again if you did.

  22. Mike wrote:

    I don’t know that the intent by the creators was to offend but at the same time after it was done somebody should of stepped back and said “does this look funny to you?” if the creative staff was all Japanese than you can make an excuse of ignorance, but to get the game over here a white person some where had to green light it, and after watching the trailer there is no excuse for that.

  23. hoo_boy wrote:

    After thinking about the earlier points above for a second, I actually had a three new quandries:

    (1) especially in the older shoot ‘em ups and arcade games, you’d only know it was a certain racial protagonist by skin color. So it could be excused somehow just by description that you’re supposed to identify with death by a white hand.

    (2) When picking locations, it wasn’t “Asia” it was “Africa”. It wasn’t even “Australia” (which is at least a country-continent), it was “Africa” with “dark-skinned natives”.

    (3) Could I really feel any more comfortable playing a came where I’m asked to play an “Asian” killer of “Asian” people in graphic fashion, no matter who designed it. Is it the subject matter, the imagery, the context, the exploitation, the cultural cluelessness, marketing, or broader industry HR gaps that’s straining me here?

    The same thing bugged me with “GTA”-alike games. If I knew a game designed by blacks targeting mayhem specifically towards whites, or men towards women (or the reverse)– without satire or irony– were hitting mass market shelves, my personal ethics would be frayed, and I couldn’t play it on principle.

  24. km.t wrote:

    “Please dont mistake me for another ignorant troll looking to dismiss what RE5 has created, but I definitely think your overestimating the “humanity” in the enemies of the more recent Resident Evil games. There is no question as to whether these enemies “may or may not” be infected when their heads explode, revealing a lashing parasitic tentacle flailing about trying to slash the player character. Likewise, their status as “living human being” is no longer in question when this happens, because it displays clearly the parasite has taken over.”

    I disagree with several of your points, GoodbyeSoberDay. For starters, I don’t think I’m overestimating the humanity of this newbreed. They’re certainly not renditions of the classical Resident Evil enemy. Infact, they’re so far from the zombies of old school RE that if you did not know anything about RE 4 and were handed a controller, it’s safe to say ‘zombie’ wouldn’t be the first name for them that popped into your head. These things could very easily be considered disgruntled villagers (can we say hostile locals?), and if you knew nothing about RE 4 and were handed a controller, that’s probably what you would think they were.

    However, I am sympathetic to those unfamiliar with the game, because the only way players familiar with the game can tell the difference between those infected with “las plagas” (Im assuming its returning with this game) and those not, is through behaviour. Of course, until as above, they clearly mutate into something obviously non-human. So whereas the older games displayed the “infected” through blood soaked “people”, shuffling along moaning and of course, eating corpses, this game takes a slightly different approach. The infected clearly display hostility and the intent to harm the “non-infected” without any provocation. Playing the game it is increasingly obvious to tell the difference between infected and non-infected, not always by appearance, but by obvious and unprovoked hostility.

    I’m not unfamiliar with the Resident Evil games, and as for the behavior of the Ganados… I think behavior can be a bit misleading. To support this claim, I use the examples of Saddler, Salazar, and Bitores Mendez. Did they act like the other infected villagers? I don’t think so. And again, if you had no idea they were the heads of the whole operation, you wouldn’t think they were infected, because they didn’t act like they were infected. (Seemed like they were control the Plagas rather than the Plagas controlling them, as a matter of fact.)

  25. friedfishribs wrote:

    tenkaji: No problem. Your post where you discuss racism in Japan, specifically how racism is frowned upon in American society, but not necessarily in Japanese society, got me wondering how similar stereotypes are between Japan and America. Would it be accurate to imply that the Japanese learned much of their current racist attitudes from American culture? Or did it exist historically before colonialism?

    “So, let me get this right… for ten years, this game franchise has featured white people blowing away the re-animated dead bodies of white people and the occassional doberman pincher and no one says anything. But the moment those re-animated corpses are african, THEN it’s racism?”

    I think the racism is found in the stereotypical presentation of savage black hordes. The presence of the white imperialist conqueror/savior just excaberates the problem. I’m willing to give RE5 the benefit of the doubt, I think metatext goes a long way in depictions of race and cultural clashes, but nothing about the overall story or plot will change the offensive and stereotypical representations of Africans. This has nothing to do with how white people are portrayed in the media and everything to do with how white people choose to portray black people in the media.

    “This is what I find disturbing about the modern debate over racism. It’s not longer about the specific act or situation, it’s about this nebulous idea of “dominant cultures” and sub groups.”

    How much more specific do you need to get than a white guy butchering his way through hordes of angry mindless black guys? I don’t see why the modern debate about racism should choose to willfully ignore media that depicts racial interaction, especially when it obviously does so according to offensive stereotypes and colonialist notions of good and evil, human and alien.

  26. Andrew wrote:

    You’re blowing this out of proportion. The first 3 Resident Evil games took place in “White America”, in an isolated town in the Midwest. Nobody cried racism there because the zombies were all white. Now the action moves to Spain, where all the Zombies speak Spanish, and now that’s racist? Then the series moves to Africa and the Zombies are Black and that’s racist?

    First off, explain to me why Zombies in Spain, should speak anything but Spanish? Presuming Zombies would have any language skills, one would assume that they would be speaking their normal one. Have we taken into account the character of Carlos, who was a quite an interesting, non-savage character, who helps the protagonist? Carlos was a skilled bio-researcher from Barcelona, a far cry from some backwards savage. Has anyone even thought that these games have to be set in remote settings? Why, you ask? Because in real life, if this sort of situation COULD occur, the Spanish government would be doing something to control it. There would be a quarantine set up and nobody would be allowed in. But when you move the setting to a more mysterious, out of the way locale, not only does it give the game an added feeling of being cut off from help, it also makes the story more plausible.

    As for RE5, Africa, as we know, is a pretty bad place to live. Imperialism has had, and is still having, a devastating effect there. One poster above alluded to the painful history of White on Black violence while at the same time saying there is no historical basis for Black on Black violence. I don’t know if this person was being sardonic or what, I certainly hope they were because disease, civil wars, and genocide have been decimating Africa, and not many people seem to be interested in trying to find a way to help Africans. Have you ever considered that this game might actually have a legitimate moral message i.e. “Let’s help Africa, because the World’s been taking advantage of the place for a long time, and it’s time to stop”? No all you saw was trailer, that showcased the action and horror aspects of the game. Reserve judgement for when the game comes out.

    Video games are striving to be seen as a more legitimate entertainment medium. Storytelling in games has improved drastically, and like a good book, a story needs a good message. I don’t know if Capcom is going to try and do that with this game, but I’ll be pissed if they don’t.

    Africa is in serious need of help, and I for one feel bad that instead of discussing the situation in Darfur and trying to do something about it, we (myself included), are bitching about a video game, whose message isn’t even clear yet.

  27. tekanji wrote:

    First off, explain to me why Zombies in Spain, should speak anything but Spanish?

    No, you explain to me why I should waste more than two seconds explaining anything to someone who demands an explanation about an argument I never made.

    You want to debate the issues? Do your own homework on what has been said, actually read my argument, and then come back and present your points politely. That’s how grown ups are supposed to deal with ideological differences, after all.

  28. Pheno09 wrote:

    I actually watched the trailer, to be honest from what I say, it made me feel very uncomfortable…even a little sick. I kept nodding as it ticked every box ‘Yep! beautiful white people, saving Africans missionary style, ugly dark skinned blacks, blacks rioting, blacks looking scary, blacks being killed/beaten sill’. So in that sense, I don’t see how it goes against the grain, when have we not seen these type of images before. Does anyone really think the Gaming industry will actively listen or actually investigate racism any closer.

    I’d also like to know who’d play this game, who’d actually feel comfortable killing Africans?