Is it time for LEGO to stop being colorblind?

[TeriXeri]

14 hours ago, Karalora said:

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.

In-House themes like Western , Adventurers, Islanders were pretty multicultural , yet weren't based on real-people/actors, and LEGO could fully decide their own designs, and those themes had yellow figures.

Since then, many years later, there were licensed counterparts like Lone Ranger, Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Carribean, Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, which were sort of Western/Adventurers/Pirates/Castle but based on external material.

 

With the introduction of Darth Vader / Darth Maul / Lando  LEGO was likely being required to follow source material when introducing said character into LEGO minifig form, I'm sure some external factor was in play.

Star Wars also was a theme that introduced special moulded heads for it's Aliens or Yoda.

It's interesting how it didn't all happen in 1 year, beside Lando , 2003 NBA were the first light skin toned minifigs, 2004 harry potter followed, and Star Wars fully switched since 2005.

 

Duplo, Bellville and Scala had no yellow figures to begin with , even while they pre-date 2003.

Primo theme was an exception and did use yellow figures from 1995-1999, even while Duplo had switched to skin tones.

Duplo figures have seen style changes over time as well, 1977-1990 used the actual color white for it's figures, then flesh tones were introduced, and now since 2017 looks to be the latest variation based on eye print style/hairstyles/skin tones.

 

Friends was the first LEGO theme that used multiple skin colors at it's launch in 2012, and since 2018, the main characters got some changes , mostly eye colors and subtle skin color changes.

https://www.brothers-brick.com/2017/12/08/lego-addresses-2018-friends-character-redesigns-bricking-around-guest-post/

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by TeriXeri

[The Brick Boss]

@Kaero Did we offend you? Didn't mean to. Sorry!

[MAB]

26 minutes ago, Karalora said:

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.

And in most of that 20 years, they also didn't think that the minifigures would be standing in for white people either, as they didn't represent particular people. Remember that there was a backlash against the introduction of fleshies, and to some extent there still are some people that would prefer licensed to be yellow. I imagine their product testing or development team in 98/99 indicated to them to continue with yellow skins and, yes, maybe they didn't think about representing brown skin in the first couple of years. Star Wars was new (for them) at the time and could have flopped before they got to doing more minor characters like Lando. Even The Emperor was yellow-skinned back then, despite them using grey for Vader's head. 

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, Kaero said:

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.

 

You are the one who seems to be willfully denying the fact that certain hairstyles are often indicative of certain ethnic groups. Yes, white people have appropriated black hairstyles by crimping straight hair and vice-versa for black people straightening their hair to simulate more typical white hairstyles. But "natural" black hairstyles with dense curls are a fairly new introduction for Lego minifigures and have helped in both licensed and unlicensed themes to diversify the types of hair available for builders. And like "fleshie" minifigures, they can make a huge difference in allowing people of color to better represent themselves in Lego than was possible when yellow figs and typical European hairstyles were all that were available.

[Kaero]

5 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

You are the one who seems to be willfully denying the fact that certain hairstyles are often indicative of certain ethnic groups. Yes, white people have appropriated black hairstyles by crimping straight hair and vice-versa for black people straightening their hair to simulate more typical white hairstyles. But "natural" black hairstyles with dense curls are a fairly new introduction for Lego minifigures and have helped in both licensed and unlicensed themes to diversify the types of hair available for builders. And like "fleshie" minifigures, they can make a huge difference in allowing people of color to better represent themselves in Lego than was possible when yellow figs and typical European hairstyles were all that were available.

So, in the end, you say that the range of hairstyles is insufficient and you want more of them. That is definitely understandable. But in such case the discussion should remain on this level: TLG, please, make more hairstyles. It does not implicate a race in actual minifigure. "Often" is not "always". Often is relative. The connection you are trying to make is very weak.

Is hairstyle indicative of certain ethnic group? I do not think so. My feeling is that every woman changes her hairstyle once per year. More of the hairstyle indicate fashion - 80s were all curly. So, you presented the hypothesis, you should now show the facts to support your hypothesis. After this, you should show facts to support the next part of the connection - that insufficient hair styles on yellow minifigs is offending someone. After you show the evidence, than we will know. But now you talk only about your feelings and present only your subjectivity.

(Ad licence sets - this was already discussed on the beginning, why to bring it out again? License sets are not the question. If Londo/Harry is/not black, ask movie maker why.)

[Robert8]

I just going to say that as I kid I never thought about plastic minifigures having a race. For me they were just...  yellow

 

Maybe The Simpsons are partially to blame for this? They use yellow for white people and brown for black individuals. So, people in the USA understand yellow skin as white?

 

I wonder if this is perceived in the same way out of the USA?

[Karalora]

3 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

In-House themes like Western , Adventurers, Islanders were pretty multicultural , yet weren't based on real-people/actors, and LEGO could fully decide their own designs, and those themes had yellow figures.

Yes, I've been assuming that the fact that the Lando minifig was meant to evoke a specific real person (Billy Dee Williams) was the impetus behind the change. Because there was a specific (black) image that they realized didn't seem to fit the design principles they had been using.

3 hours ago, MAB said:

And in most of that 20 years, they also didn't think that the minifigures would be standing in for white people either, as they didn't represent particular people.

You are correct that they didn't represent particular people. They represented generic people, and since the designers were white Europeans, "generic" to them would mean white. They likely wouldn't even be consciously aware of it, it's just how the default principle works. If you look at some of the older themes, like Western and Adventurers, minifigs that definitely represent people of color are given specific features that make them stand out from the "normal" minifigs, who therefore presumably do not represent people of color. A traditional minifig has dot eyes, maybe with a little highlight. The natives in Western have fully drawn eyes with outlines and pupils. Jing Lee in Orient Expedition has almond-shaped eyes. They are marked to show that they are not the norm. But then what is the norm? Well, who are usually the heroes of Westerns and pulp adventure novels? I hope you see my point.

In any case, it is an unalloyed good that TLG doesn't do that anymore. My go-to examples are from the CMF line--the Sumo Wrestler, Kimono Girl, Tribal Chief, Island Warrior, etc. are probably not white people in tasteless Halloween costumes. I think we're meant to assume they are bona-fide representatives of their apparent cultures. But they have the same style of features--the dot eyes, noseless faces, etc.--as other CMFs that are almost certainly Caucasian, like the Hollywood Starlet and Judge.

[toastergrl]

1 hour ago, Robert8 said:

Maybe The Simpsons are partially to blame for this? They use yellow for white people and brown for black individuals. So, people in the USA understand yellow skin as white?

Yeah, I was going to say - the Simpsons being on air for decades and being shown in so many different countries has almost certainly done incalcuable harm to the PR image of LEGO's "yellow is race-neutral" stance. No matter how consistent and well-intentioned LEGO have been with their intent, intent isn't a watertight defense against some major outside context like that.

In my eyes, if LEGO were to consider fighting this outside brand deterioration a lost cause, leaning into that approach would be the least disruptive thing they could do. It'd prevent another overwhelmingly base-breaking moment like the introduction of the standard fleshies or bley in that it'd maintain a large deal of compatibility with pre-existing collections, and not have a major increase in development/storage costs. Having the several-step spectrum go from tradtional yellow to the existing fleshie reddish-brown, so those faces can be used across both licensed and unlicensed themes, would be the smart thing to do. As an experimental extra potentially incorporate some sort of skintone randomisation in sets (or at least Build A Minifig stations), where the shade of bonce differs between multiple uses of the same faceprint.

That of course comes with a whole heaping of caveats, including the fact that it would cast serious shade (pun not intended) on previous lines. The current situation of incorporating multiple cultures' features, outfits and other details into yellow figures with a focus on not being an unrepresentative caricature has a lot going for it, and I think it's an admirable approach, but the damage is done and I think there's a real chance they might finally decide to rip the band-aid off and take a move towards something like the second paragraph... maybe not this decade, but the one after? You never know.

Edited June 8, 2020 by toastergrl

[MAB]

10 hours ago, Karalora said:

You are correct that they didn't represent particular people. They represented generic people, and since the designers were white Europeans, "generic" to them would mean white. 

 

I think you are making an assumption that white people only think about white people. I could equally well say that they represented generic people, and since they decide to use only one colour to represent all races, they went for a colour that was not white but one that looks like no particular race. After all, white was a common LEGO colour back in the 1970s, they could have used that like they did for early duplo figures.

But the fact remains that there is only one colour of skin in City, yellow. Hence there is only one race in City. Yellow is not black or white or any shades in between, it is yellow. The problem only comes when people try to project a world of multiple races into a toy system where there is only one colour of skin.

Personally, I prefer fleshies and would love it if they ditched the yellow. But I think it would be a huge mistake for the company to do that. It would limit the subjects they can do without being called out for being racist if they make a set that some people disagree with.

[Karalora]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

But the fact remains that there is only one colour of skin in City, yellow. Hence there is only one race in City. Yellow is not black or white or any shades in between, it is yellow. The problem only comes when people try to project a world of multiple races into a toy system where there is only one colour of skin.

You can't reasonably expect people not to project the world around them onto an imaginary world that replicates it in a simplified fashion. In the real world, people have different skin colors, which often accompany different hair colors and textures, and if minifigs lack the former but display the latter, people are going to make the association anyway. Is that really a problem?

Again, I'm not sure we actually disagree regarding what TLG should do with their minifigs. We might have different reasoning, but we come to the same conclusion: Yellow is fine for non-licensed minifigs, and people can use hair to illustrate diversity.

[Lyichir]

17 hours ago, Kaero said:

So, in the end, you say that the range of hairstyles is insufficient and you want more of them. That is definitely understandable. But in such case the discussion should remain on this level: TLG, please, make more hairstyles. It does not implicate a race in actual minifigure. "Often" is not "always". Often is relative. The connection you are trying to make is very weak.

Is hairstyle indicative of certain ethnic group? I do not think so. My feeling is that every woman changes her hairstyle once per year. More of the hairstyle indicate fashion - 80s were all curly. So, you presented the hypothesis, you should now show the facts to support your hypothesis. After this, you should show facts to support the next part of the connection - that insufficient hair styles on yellow minifigs is offending someone. After you show the evidence, than we will know. But now you talk only about your feelings and present only your subjectivity.

(Ad licence sets - this was already discussed on the beginning, why to bring it out again? License sets are not the question. If Londo/Harry is/not black, ask movie maker why.)

It's not a "weak" connection. Afro-textured hair is a REALLY big deal for the African-American community. It has a history of having been discouraged or frowned upon in white American society and reclaiming that, and emphasizing that wearing their hair "natural" instead of straightening it to conform to European beauty standards is an equally valid way to wear their hair, is one of many issues revolving around racial equality and equality of opportunity in the African-American community.

And the fact that Lego has only recently made that type of hair available is not a racially neutral matter either. For years, Lego hairstyles tended to favor traditionally European cuts—slick business cuts for men and long, straight hair for women. The first "afro" hairstyle in a Lego theme was the thick version used as a clown wig in the collectible minifigures, and a less exaggerated version didn't show up until it was needed to properly represent John Boyega as Finn in the Star Wars sequels. The first afro-textured hair piece for women was not coincidentally introduced for Andrea from Lego Friends, a theme that from the start lacked the pretensions of being racially neutral that minifig-based themes still cling to. These developments are recent because, for decades, Lego simply didn't consider how the hairstyles that were available were drawn from a relatively narrow cultural context, and the Hollywood licenses that in many cases forced them to develop new hair molds rarely centered people of color.

[Aanchir]

On 6/8/2020 at 1:13 PM, Lyichir said:

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.

This sums up a lot of my thoughts pretty nicely as well. At fan conventions I've often heard black visitors asking why there aren't black people in more themes. So while it may be true that today's Bright Yellow minifigures are not INTENDED to represent any one demographic, a lot of buyers struggle to see it that way in practice.

We can't simply treat this as the buyer's fault for not being open-minded enough, either. Consider this: I'm white, but I used minifig parts with Bright Yellow skin on my sigfig, which I based on my real-life appearance. Nevertheless, I can easily look at my sigfig and see myself in it. By comparison, if I were black, I'd have a much harder time looking at a bright yellow sigfig and convincing myself that it looks like me. Whether or not it bothers you personally, that's a real disparity that LEGO buyers experience.

Moreover, why should we worry that adding varied skin colors to LEGO is somehow not worth the possibility of criticism? It's true that if LEGO represents human diversity badly, such as through harmful or outdated stereotypes, they'll likely be criticized for it, just as other brands have been for similar missteps. But it's not like criticisms like that ever tend to conclude with a plea for brands to avoid portraying real-world human diversity ENTIRELY.

And anyway, criticism isn't some kind of worst case scenario to be avoided at all costs, but rather as a necessary element of helping companies to ensure a high standard of quality. To give a non-diversity-related example — we all know that for a long time LEGO has had plenty of issues with dark red and reddish brown pieces cracking or having inconsistent coloration. But would we really be any better off if LEGO never even bothered TRYING to make dark red bricks?

All in all, I'm not tremendously bothered by LEGO using bright yellow for minifigures. I'm used to it, and I feel like they're steadily doing better at portraying diversity in other ways besides skin color. But I also recognize that if light-skinned people have an easier time seeing themselves in bright yellow minifigs than dark skinned people, then LEGO's use of that color for minifigures isn't actually achieving the "racially neutral" outcome that LEGO intends. I hope that if LEGO continues to listen to their customers, then they'll be arrive at a clearer idea of whether a shift in their approach to skin color is needed, and how best to carry out that shift. Personally, I suspect that even if a shift like that doesn't seem urgent, it could very easily be necessary in the long run.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Aanchir

[The Brick Boss]

@Aanchir I agree with you 100%.

You use yellow for sigfig. So do I. I'm brown skinned, but I don't think it's a big deal to use yellow as my sigfigs skin tone. I just know he represents me. That's all! I really can't stand people who play the race card and make everything about color. If anything, people who do that kind of stuff are the real racists. If you want minifigures who represent black people, then order some off of eBay. But I think Lego should keep doing yellow figs. 

Personally, I think there is a difference between race and ethnic stereotypes. Black and White are races. African American, Eastern European, British, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, etc are all either ethnicities or nationalities. Lego stereotypes nationalities all the time. Ninjago may use yellow people, but you can tell that they are Asian stereotypes. That's just to name an example there. 

I stereotype in my Lego fanfiction all the time.....and that's ok. But at the same time, I do try not to be offensive. Because I know that can make me look bad too. Overall, I don't think yellow minifigs are a big deal like people think. Yellow actually allows us to enjoy a hobby without worrying about races. I also am the one who has a say in what goes on in this world and I'm not bound to a particular story. Thus why of all the things I have outgrown, Lego is still in my life. 

[Tusserte]

3 hours ago, Brandon Pea said:

@Aanchir I agree with you 100%.

You use yellow for sigfig. So do I. I'm brown skinned, but I don't think it's a big deal to use yellow as my sigfigs skin tone. I just know he represents me. That's all! I really can't stand people who play the race card and make everything about color. If anything, people who do that kind of stuff are the real racists. If you want minifigures who represent black people, then order some off of eBay. But I think Lego should keep doing yellow figs. 

 Personally, I think there is a difference between race and ethnic stereotypes. Black and White are races. African American, Eastern European, British, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, etc are all either ethnicities or nationalities. Lego stereotypes nationalities all the time. Ninjago may use yellow people, but you can tell that they are Asian stereotypes. That's just to name an example there. 

 I stereotype in my Lego fanfiction all the time.....and that's ok. But at the same time, I do try not to be offensive. Because I know that can make me look bad too. Overall, I don't think yellow minifigs are a big deal like people think. Yellow actually allows us to enjoy a hobby without worrying about races. I also am the one who has a say in what goes on in this world and I'm not bound to a particular story. Thus why of all the things I have outgrown, Lego is still in my life. 

I can try to get behind the idea that yellow minifigs represent all people equally but I am open to the fair argument that they don't in the real world.  There are just so many counter examples even if you scope into the LEGO community.  We covered Lando being brown in 2003 and other licensed skin colors not changing until 2005, but another LEGO inconsistency is with the LEGO Movie.  They created a custom yellow representation of Abraham Lincoln and Vitruvius (voiced by Morgan Freeman) was medium nougat even though he is fictional and not built out of any previously-existing licensed parts.  The community has plenty of inconsistencies too.  For example, there are two people in this thread who have mixed brown minifigures in their MOCs that otherwise have only yellow minifigures.  You do not have to go deep into the Historic or Pirates sections of this forum to find more examples.  I admit I would not have thought anything of this until this thread made me question it.  I'm not trying to make any accusations about individuals who do this. I just think there's a valid question if yellow minifigs really represent all people equally in practice when real people ultimately use LEGO products.  I don't believe any individual in this thread is going to be able to make an argument either way. If LEGO cares about answering that question, they're going to need to survey a ton of people across cultures.  Even if this is a problem, I don't know how they would make it better.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Tusserte

[MAB]

13 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But I also recognize that if light-skinned people have an easier time seeing themselves in bright yellow minifigs than dark skinned people, then LEGO's use of that color for minifigures isn't actually achieving the "racially neutral" outcome that LEGO intends. I hope that if LEGO continues to listen to their customers, then they'll be arrive at a clearer idea of whether a shift in their approach to skin color is needed, and how best to carry out that shift. Personally, I suspect that even if a shift like that doesn't seem urgent, it could very easily be necessary in the long run.

A problem here is that not all light-skinned people think the same, the same with dark-skinned. Some white people don't think that yellow represents them, whereas some black will. Personally, I don't like think yellow skinned people represent me as I am not yellow, and whenever I do MOCs representing me or family, I try to use "light nougat" were possible. Of course, sticking to flesh colours means that parts, especially torsos and heads, are somewhat limited. It is even worse if you want to use reddish brown or a shade in-between these such as nougat. If LEGO introduced another colour closer to brown skin to appease people that want to create dark-skinned minifigures within City or other themes, then they should ditch yellow completely. For light skin, they should also use a more appropriate colour, much like they quickly did in licensed themes.

[The Brick Boss]

17 hours ago, Tusserte said:

I can try to get behind the idea that yellow minifigs represent all people equally but I am open to the fair argument that they don't in the real world.  There are just so many counter examples even if you scope into the LEGO community.  We covered Lando being brown in 2003 and other licensed skin colors not changing until 2005, but another LEGO inconsistency is with the LEGO Movie.  They created a custom yellow representation of Abraham Lincoln and Vitruvius (voiced by Morgan Freeman) was medium nougat even though he is fictional and not built out of any previously-existing licensed parts.  The community has plenty of inconsistencies too.  For example, there are two people in this thread who have mixed brown minifigures in their MOCs that otherwise have only yellow minifigures.  You do not have to go deep into the Historic or Pirates sections of this forum to find more examples.  I admit I would not have thought anything of this until this thread made me question it.  I'm not trying to make any accusations about individuals who do this. I just think there's a valid question if yellow minifigs really represent all people equally in practice when real people ultimately use LEGO products.  I don't believe any individual in this thread is going to be able to make an argument either way. If LEGO cares about answering that question, they're going to need to survey a ton of people across cultures.  Even if this is a problem, I don't know how they would make it better.

You bring very accurate points and I would encourage that you continue to bring up valid points during your time here. I say during your time here as I see that you are new here and tbh, you seem to know a lot. You're not a new member and a noob like I was when I first came here.  You came to this forum with brains. Take that as a compliment. However, you stated in your paragraph that it can't represent all races in the real world. Let's not beat around the bush here. It doesn't have to. That's the fun of it. You can do whatever you want in the Lego world. Whether you are a city planner (like I am), an action enthusiast, a roleplayer, or simply just want to have fun: Lego is that place for it. You can have as much fun as you want with yellow people. I have outgrown all my toys.....EXCEPT LEGO. Lego isn't even a toy anymore in my opinion. Lego is a lifestyle. Lego is not outgrowable. 

But back to the point of yellow people. It's nothing personal and there are no malicious intentions when I stereotype with my minifigs. It's really just something I do for fun. Such as the etheopian burger bar owner, the police chief in my town being jewish or the armored car driver being of Japanese descent (some of her relatives actually live in Nijago City). Just to name a few. 

[Vindicare]

On 6/8/2020 at 8:33 AM, 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.

Exactly. It’s very strange that people are arguing over minifig hair pieces “belonging” to one race. Especially when they’re literally called wigs by TLG themselves, right? 

On 6/8/2020 at 11:40 AM, Karalora said:

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.

On the other hand...I do agree with your earlier notion about the ring toss family in the Fun Fair set. Looking at the Leslie Jones Ghostbuster, she has the same hair. On the other other hand(just pretend I’m General Grievous), a big feature of those People Packs are mix & match. So, as much as LEGO shows that family with that hair, it could just as easily be any other person in that set. 

As to the quoted comment, that’s an awful lot of mind reading on TLG’s past decisions. Unless you know the decision making at LEGO, I don’t think stating things regarding how they saw black people in the past is warranted. Yellow IS race neutral in in-house themes. There’s no arguing that point. Otherwise, they would’ve switched over. Licensed was tricky. Star Wars(even HP) started out as yellow. Why? I certainly don’t know...because Lando was & is a beloved character. They had to have had the foresight to think they’d be making him at some point in the near future. And look at the 90’s with Western & Indians or all the CMF series’s. 

On 6/8/2020 at 11:59 AM, Kaero said:

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.

 

It is awfully strange. A sign of current situation, I’m afraid. 

[TeriXeri]

Here's an example from a 2020 Friends set like Emma's Fashion Shop.

The 2 dolls included have a different skin tone (Light Nougat / Medium Nougat) and the shirts in the shop are different as well, so could Andrea (the left minidoll) use the white shirt torso? of course, but it could look a bit odd.

And then there are other minidolls using an in-between color with Nougat, for example from the main 5 friends, there's Olivia.

Yellow Minifigs don't have that limitation amongst themselves, but of course can run into incompatible parts using licensed minifig parts, and the other way around.

I'm just speaking of regular parts swapping, no hands/arms swapping.

 

I'm not saying Friends or Licensed themes are doing it wrong, this was just an example when it comes to mix&match parts.

 

Swapping hair pieces/hats is much simpler in comparison, and LEGO even uses extra hairpieces in some barber shop sets, and they also sometimes add hairpieces to characters that would otherwise wear helmets.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by TeriXeri

[Karalora]

2 hours ago, Vindicare said:

As to the quoted comment, that’s an awful lot of mind reading on TLG’s past decisions. Unless you know the decision making at LEGO, I don’t think stating things regarding how they saw black people in the past is warranted.

I can neither read minds nor travel back in time, but I can make an educated guess. The default principle is real. I'm not accusing the designers of any malice.

Yellow IS race neutral in in-house themes. There’s no arguing that point.

I would say it is intended to be neutral, but whether or not it succeeds depends on the individual user. Intent isn't magic, Death of the Author, and so on and so forth.

[AmperZand]

8 hours ago, Brandon Pea said:

But back to the point of yellow people. It's nothing personal and there are no malicious intentions when I stereotype with my minifigs. It's really just something I do for fun. Such as the etheopian burger bar owner, the police chief in my town being jewish or the armored car driver being of Japanese descent (some of her relatives actually live in Nijago City). Just to name a few. 

Maybe I am missing something, but aren't Ethiopian burger bar owners, Jewish police chiefs and armoured car drivers of Japanese descent counter-stereotypical in all but Ethiopia, Israel and Japan respectively? I have been to two of those countries, and even there, those occupations were not especially defining or common.

On 6/9/2020 at 11:29 PM, Tusserte said:

I can try to get behind the idea that yellow minifigs represent all people equally but I am open to the fair argument that they don't in the real world.  

 

2 hours ago, Karalora said:

I would say [yellow] is intended to be neutral, but whether or not it succeeds depends on the individual user. 

The vast majority of minifigures are bought by or for kids. Unsurprisingly, I do not have empirical data on how kids think of yellow minifigures. I could hazard a guess - and yes, it is just conjecture - that most either do not think of minifigures in racial terms or project their own racial identifiers on their yellow minifigures. I am further going to speculate that given LEGO's largest territories are probably the US, UK, Germany and elsewhere in Europe and most people in each of those countries/region are Caucasian, if kids are projecting themselves on yellow minifigures, that most yellow minifigures are thought of as Caucasian. It seems likely that LEGO's fastest growing market is China and therefore East Asian is the fastest growing projected race. Whether or not LEGO itself has undertaken research on how kids think of yellow minifigures, I have no idea. But even if it has not, I would be very surprised if its designers do not think of yellow minifigures as mostly Caucasian with some East Asian, not because the designers themselves are Caucasian or East Asian, but because those are the profiles of the main target demographics. LEGO is first and foremost a business and as such needs to meet consumer demand if it is to prosper.  

Edited June 11, 2020 by AmperZand

[Karalora]

1 hour ago, AmperZand said:

The vast majority of minifigures are bought by or for kids. Unsurprisingly, I do not have empirical data on how kids think of yellow minifigures. I could hazard a guess - and yes, it is just conjecture - that most either do not think of minifigures in racial terms or project their own racial identifiers on their yellow minifigures. I am further going to speculate that given LEGO's largest territories are probably the US, UK, Germany and elsewhere in Europe and most people in each of those countries/region are Caucasian, if kids are projecting themselves on yellow minifigures, that most yellow minifigures are thought of as Caucasian. It seems likely that LEGO's fastest growing market is China and therefore East Asian is the fastest growing projected race. Whether or not LEGO itself has undertaken research on how kids think of yellow minifigures, I have no idea. But even if it has not, I would be very surprised if its designers do not think of yellow minifigures as mostly Caucasian with some East Asian, not because the designers themselves are Caucasian or East Asian, but because those are the profiles of the main target demographics. LEGO is first and foremost a business and as such needs to meet consumer demand if it is to prosper.  

I'm not sure what your point is. Population statistics don't play with LEGO...individuals and families do. Are you saying it doesn't matter if black kids can't identify with yellow minifigures because they are the minority? That's...I'll be nice and say harsh. That's harsh.

[Robert8]

I still have no clue how come some of you look at a minifigure like this...

 

...and the first thing that comes to your mind is: what race is this guy supposed to be?

 

I cant wrap my mind around it. Honestly...

[Tusserte]

11 hours ago, Brandon Pea said:

you stated in your paragraph that it can't represent all races in the real world. Let's not beat around the bush here. It doesn't have to. 

I have no doubt individuals can get see things differently and I am glad we have been able to discuss our differences rationally.  I only ask the question on a bigger scale like population statistics.  If it turns out there is a problem for some demographics to enjoy LEGO as much as others and LEGO can find a way to solve it without making it less enjoyable for others, wouldn't that be a win?  I think LEGO would want to find ways to increase attractiveness to new customers while retaining old ones.  I'm still not saying I think there's even a problem yet, this thread is just interesting discussion.

6 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

Yellow Minifigs don't have that limitation amongst themselves, but of course can run into incompatible parts using licensed minifig parts, and the other way around.

 I'm just speaking of regular parts swapping, no hands/arms swapping.

  I'm not saying Friends or Licensed themes are doing it wrong, this was just an example when it comes to mix&match parts.

You do raise an interesting point.  I haven't focused on it because we can't know the answer without reading the minds of the designers/researchers at LEGO.  Friends debuted in 2012, well after LEGO's public statement about yellow minifigures representing anyone. Friends figures are obviously a complete overhaul of character design so they had no precedent they necessarily had to follow.  So why would they introduce realistic skin color now?  There's a downside that figure parts are less interchangeable when they don't have uniform skin color, so what is the positive to making this decision?  They must have plenty of data that pointed them to believe this is the best character design for some metric.  I'm curious what their metric was and why unlicensed yellow minifigs wouldn't be improved with the same justification.  

2 hours ago, AmperZand said:

I would be very surprised if its designers do not think of yellow minifigures as mostly Caucasian with some East Asian, not because the designers themselves are Caucasian or East Asian, but because those are the profiles of the main target demographics. LEGO is first and foremost a business and as such needs to meet consumer demand if it is to prosper.  

So you do think it's likely that LEGO designers associate yellow minifigures = light skin?  I don't think anyone else has tried to make that claim so I want to make sure I understand.  I'm also not seeing your connection of consumer demand to minifigure color which has been the recent point of discussion.

 

17 minutes ago, Robert8 said:

I still have no clue how come some of you look at a minifigure like this...

[picture removed]

 

...and the first thing that comes to your mind is: what race is this guy supposed to be?

*Is* it a guy?  I think you just put a gender on this minifig when I don't see a strong suggestion it's not a girl.  By extension, is it hard to believe some people don't naturally see or default a race in caricatures of people?

Edited June 11, 2020 by Tusserte

[Robert8]

Well, his name is Dragon Suit Guy? ? ? ? ? 

[Tusserte]

That is fair, I did forget the official name has “guy” in it. But I hope my point of people projecting into ambiguity holds. Not that everyone does it always, but if enough people do it and come to the same projection then maybe it is worth questioning if the subject matter is neutral. It seems reasonable to be open to that possibility to me.