Is it time for LEGO to stop being colorblind?

[Vindicare]

3 hours ago, Karalora said:

That said, sentiments like--

--are neither helpful nor compassionate. Everyone has the right to interrogate things they encounter in the world, including toys, from any standpoint that they find relevant. The fact that licensed minifigs use naturalistic skin tones proves that TLG is aware of race, and if that causes someone to wonder if that awareness affects how they manufacture yellow minifigs, I don't think it's a pointless question. 

The People Pack figures highlighted by @TeriXeri are obviously intended to represent a black family--why else give all three of them that highly textured black hair? Some people might question whether specific representation like that undermines the notion that any minifig can be anyone, and that's probably a conversation worth having...but I think the potential problem is mitigated by the fact that parts can be freely swapped between minifigs.

Actually, that emboldens the race neutrality of yellow minifigs. A highlight of the People Packs is their “mix & match” feature(although, oddly enough that highlight is omitted on the Fun Fair, where it’s not on Fun in the Park & Outdoor Adventures). While the box says that the ring toss people are black, because of the hair, it could just as easily be anyone else in that set. Also, who’s to say the mom didn’t straighten her hair? So it’s not even about the hair, it’s about the user. 

[MAB]

8 hours ago, Karalora said:

The People Pack figures highlighted by @TeriXeri are obviously intended to represent a black family--why else give all three of them that highly textured black hair? 

Maybe to you. But to others it is a family where both parents have black curly hair, and those genes have been passed on to the daughter.

[Kaero]

LEGO creates yellow minifigs to prevent race questions. You say LEGO should change it.

From my point of view, your thinking is racist. You want to bring race issues into the world without any race.

Please, do not stop here. You can ask why girl stuff is more pink than boys. You could ask LEGO to create pink firefighters and black flowers in elven gardens. Oh, really?

Yet you cannot even answer a simple problem you have presented: which races would you put into a set with one cop and one robber? You should answer this question and only then you should ask LEGO to acquire more races in non-licensed sets.

(Yeah, maybe I am stupid, I just do not get negative nor positive discrimination of black people or Inidians or asiats or others. It seems to me that your questions and ideas are part of the problem. From my point of view, you should feel ashamed.)

8 hours ago, Karalora said:

The People Pack figures highlighted by @TeriXeri are obviously intended to represent a black family...

You are just being racist. Where you see black family, I see some family. People in the world are changing their hairstyle as they like, wear wigs, changes even their body as they like. And, only based on hairstyle, you consider some minifigs as black family? Really? This is problem in your worldview, not mine.

[Robert8]

Jesus this thread is also going to be locked at any moment now

 

In regard to licensed sets, I do think that TLG needs more skin colors. Something like this 

shouldnt happen. (IMO)

Edited June 8, 2020 by Robert8

[The Brick Boss]

4 hours ago, Robert8 said:

Jesus this thread is also going to be locked at any moment now

 

In regard to licensed sets, I do think that TLG needs more skin colors. Something like this 

 

shouldnt happen. (IMO)

I wonder why Cho Chang's Lego figure was so dark. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Darkdragon
Please don't quote images

[Pdaitabird]

58 minutes ago, Kaero said:

From my point of view, you should feel ashamed.

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil! (Sorry, couldn't resist!) 

I think yellow minifigures are a great part of Lego's charm and a good way to emphasize our common humanity. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, we are all "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve," after all.

[The Brick Boss]

1 hour ago, Kaero said:

From my point of view, you should feel ashamed.

From my point of view, the HEY generation was the golden age of City. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Brandon Pea

[Karalora]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

Maybe to you. But to others it is a family where both parents have black curly hair, and those genes have been passed on to the daughter.

And that's fine; I take no issue with anyone who does that (unless they have some kind of knee-jerk aversion to the notion of black people having fun, in which case I advise therapy). I'm just fairly confident that TLG is intentionally representing hair that black people can easily recognize as belonging to themselves, and I think it's a good idea. Representation matters.

1 hour ago, Kaero said:

You are just being racist.

Nice try, kid. Perceiving race where it is being telegraphed, is not in itself racist. We potentially have a "best of both worlds" situation going on, where the faces are race-neutral and can represent anyone, but the hair can get much more specific, which lets people determine for themselves how deep they want to drill on this particular issue.

As for the Cho Chang minifig, in comparison with the actress, the light nougat should have worked just fine. Did they confuse her for the Patil twins?

[Kaero]

29 minutes ago, Karalora said:

...TLG is intentionally representing hair that black people can easily recognize as belonging to themselves...

It seems to me that you wrote that some hair style belongs to some race. Do you mean this woman with typical "afro" style?:

Or maybe this typical representative of blonde hair?:

[Karalora]

5 minutes ago, Kaero said:

It seems to me that you wrote that some hair style belongs to some race.

It seems to me that you're trying to pick a fight with me, and I'm not going to take the bait.

[Tusserte]

I agree with @Karalora, I don't think the minifigure color is the only indicator of race.

@Kaero do you really believe that these two City minifigs are equally likely to represent white vs non-white people?  Yellow minifig color does allow for ambiguity but I still don't think that these hair styles can equally represent any race.  I also believe that Lego produces disproportionately more of these blond/nougat specialty hair pieces than more generic black hair pieces.

[The Brick Boss]

@Tusserte I do believe in cultural stereotypes for yellow people though. For example, the guy at the top seems to resemble a redneck due to his shirt and hairstyle. I would've said goth, but his hair color and beard are pretty natural. 

The young woman at the bottom seems to resemble a working class caucasian with normal clothing and blond hair. I'm assuming she's middle aged due to her facial structure. 

I've also noticed that Lego has done Asian stereotypes with this hair piece. 

But there are no races for these minifigs though. Just ethnicities. 

[Tusserte]

15 minutes ago, Brandon Pea said:

@Tusserte I do believe in cultural stereotypes for yellow people though. For example, the guy at the top seems to resemble a redneck due to his shirt and hairstyle. I would've said goth, but his hair color and beard are pretty natural. 

The young woman at the bottom seems to resemble a working class caucasian with normal clothing and blond hair. I'm assuming she's middle aged due to her facial structure. 

I've also noticed that Lego has done Asian stereotypes with this hair piece. 

But there are no races for these minifigs though. Just ethnicities. 

I can see the point you're trying to make about race vs ethnicity and I agree they're different things, but I don't think I agree it's possible to represent ethnicity without race.  Also you said my example is a "Caucasian" person but I am pretty sure "Caucasian" is usually used a race, not an ethnicity.  I don't want to go on a side discussion about this, just pointing out that I don't think it's clear-cut.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Tusserte said:

 

 do you really believe that these two City minifigs are equally likely to represent white vs non-white people?  Yellow minifig color does allow for ambiguity but I still don't think that these hair styles can equally represent any race. 

 

It depends on whether people dye their hair. I know of black women with (fake) blond hair, so the female one could be used on a reddish brown head if such a person wanted to represent their own characteristics in LEGO form accurately. 

But the point is in City and in-house themes, there are no racial differences. A yellow skin minifigure can have a hair style like any race in the real world. Just because a figure wears hair of one particular style does not define their LEGO City race, as there is no (or just one = yellow) race.

[Karalora]

3 minutes ago, MAB said:

It depends on whether people dye their hair. I know of black women with (fake) blond hair, so the female one could be used on a reddish brown head if such a person wanted to represent their own characteristics in LEGO form accurately. 

But the point is in City and in-house themes, there are no racial differences. A yellow skin minifigure can have a hair style like any race in the real world. Just because a figure wears hair of one particular style does not define their LEGO City race, as there is no (or just one = yellow) race.

I don't think we actually disagree. Any minifig could represent a person of any race, as the heads are race-neutral and people dye and style their hair all sorts of ways regardless of what nature gives them, yes? The important thing is to have enough variety in the hair that people can recreate a specific appearance (including their own/their family's) without having to settle for something they don't relate to.

[Tusserte]

9 minutes ago, MAB said:

It depends on whether people dye their hair. I know of black women with (fake) blond hair, so the female one could be used on a reddish brown head if such a person wanted to represent their own characteristics in LEGO form accurately. 

 But the point is in City and in-house themes, there are no racial differences. A yellow skin minifigure can have a hair style like any race in the real world. Just because a figure wears hair of one particular style does not define their LEGO City race, as there is no (or just one = yellow) race.

I can agree that a yellow minifig could be used to represent any race. I'm not against that idea.  I also agree any hair piece in any color could represent a person of any race.  But statistically speaking, a blonde or nougat hair piece is more likely to represent a white person.  And historically, LEGO produces more blonde/nougat hair colors than black ones.  So that is where I think there could be an argument that they do not produce equal representation even in their current yellow minifig lineup.  It's changing though, their new Chinese sets have recolored black or gray hair pieces for almost every minifig so we will have a different balance going forward.

[Peppermint_M]

Please keep in mind that we want discussion to be civil and mature. Most of you are doing very well on having an adult conversation, so big thanks for that.

 

Though staff are obviously watching this thread just in case and remember there is a report button if you feel someone is overstepping the mark. 

[Lyichir]

I think people should be cognizant that people of color don't often get the privilege of "not seeing things in terms of race". Whites, especially in America, get treated like the "default", while people of color are treated as "other" in almost every aspect of life, despite making up a huge portion of the population. They don't get the privilege of "not seeing color" because the color of their skin affects how they get treated by both individuals and institutions on a daily basis.

And saying that Black Lego fans should shut up and accept a decades-old standard that is purportedly "racially neutral" if they themselves aren't satisfied with that is extremely dismissive of the black experience. Let's not forget that the the yellow minifigure was introduced decades ago by white, European toymakers for a largely white, European audience. Just because they now deem it "neutral" (and there are early counterexamples like the "Red Indians" buildable figures that used a red-skinned proto-fig as a baby where they clearly didn't) does not make that judgment immune to critique.

Personally, I have been impressed by strides made by Lego in terms of figs like the aforementioned family from the people pack for including more multicultural hairstyles even in a set that isn't specific to a certain culture or representing a particular real person, as with historic themes or licensed sets. But that's my perspective as a white fan, and I am still cognizant of how Black fans can feel left out or underrepresented in Lego sets, and how that ultimately results in them being underrepresented in the AFOL community as well.

[Karalora]

48 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

And saying that Black Lego fans should shut up and accept a decades-old standard that is purportedly "racially neutral" if they themselves aren't satisfied with that is extremely dismissive of the black experience. Let's not forget that the the yellow minifigure was introduced decades ago by white, European toymakers for a largely white, European audience. Just because they now deem it "neutral" (and there are early counterexamples like the "Red Indians" buildable figures that used a red-skinned proto-fig as a baby where they clearly didn't) does not make that judgment immune to critique.

This is a really good point, and the fact that they invented fleshies in order to portray Lando Calrissian kind of goes to show that the yellow wasn't originally race-neutral--otherwise, the question "Can yellow minifigs be black people?" would have been asked and answered before then.

[MAB]

2 minutes ago, Karalora said:

This is a really good point, and the fact that they invented fleshies in order to portray Lando Calrissian kind of goes to show that the yellow wasn't originally race-neutral--otherwise, the question "Can yellow minifigs be black people?" would have been asked and answered before then.

Why not?

Consider this. Yellow equals race neutral originally. Then licensed sets come along and they start making all (human) characters yellow. But LucasFilm or LEGO object to Lando being the same colour as the other minifigures, especially as they have already used a non-yellow head for Vader, so LEGO have to act quickly to change him. Within a year they introduce the fleshie colours to represent licensed white people. If they had allowed yellow and brown characters to co-exist side-by-side for years, then yellow=white would be more apparent. But they didn't. They quickly got rid of yellow skin when there were sets with reddish brown skinned characters.

[Darkdragon]

On 6/8/2020 at 7:31 AM, Robert8 said:

In regard to licensed sets, I do think that TLG needs more skin colors. Something like this 

Robert8, can you edit that photo to make it smaller or just make it a link? It's above the size allowed here via ToS (1024 max).

update: thank you

[Karalora]

3 minutes ago, MAB said:

Why not?

Consider this. Yellow equals race neutral originally. Then licensed sets come along and they start making all (human) characters yellow. But LucasFilm or LEGO object to Lando being the same colour as the other minifigures, especially as they have already used a non-yellow head for Vader, so LEGO have to act quickly to change him. Within a year they introduce the fleshie colours to represent licensed white people. If they had allowed yellow and brown characters to co-exist side-by-side for years, then yellow=white would be more apparent. But they didn't. They quickly got rid of yellow skin when there were sets with reddish brown skinned characters.

The fact that they started producing brown heads specifically to represent a known black character (or actor, I suppose) suggests that no one had ever thought, in the ~20 years of minifig history leading up to that point, that minifigs might be standing in for black people. Otherwise, either flesh-toned minifig parts would predate the Lando figure, or Lando himself would have been left yellow because the question would have already been settled.

This doesn't mean that yellow can't be neutral--I would argue that it is, given the variety of characters from different nations and cultures all represented in yellow in, for example, the CMF line--but maybe it has to earn that status and isn't quite there yet. I think it is, or should be, but...well, I'm white and I'm not going to tell POC that they have to take what they get if they don't see themselves in yellow.

Coming at the question from a completely different angle, I do like having an instant visual distinction between licensed and in-house themes. There's a difference between "This face could be anyone" and "This face could be anyone, if you really want it to...but it's supposed to be someone specific" and I like being able to tell that difference at a glance.

[koalayummies]

3 hours ago, Brandon Pea said:

For example, the guy at the top seems to resemble a redneck due to his shirt and hairstyle.

I actually laughed out loud. Please don't cancel me internet.

3 hours ago, Brandon Pea said:

The young woman at the bottom seems to resemble a working class caucasian with normal clothing and blond hair. I'm assuming she's middle aged due to her facial structure.

She would like to speak to your manager.

[The Brick Boss]

21 hours ago, koalayummies said:

I actually laughed out loud. Please don't cancel me internet.

She would like to speak to your manager.

Oh crap! The bus company is about to fire me, y'all. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Brandon Pea

[Kaero]

I just do not believe my eyes - some people here are purposefully introducing race into the world where race is not existing, based only on hair or clothing style. That is wrong on so many levels...

Back to the facts - the example of black girl with white hair and white girl with afro hair is the only fact that was placed here. All other was only about some feeling. Some objective facts please.