Is it time for LEGO to stop being colorblind?

[Karalora]

1 hour ago, Robert8 said:

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...

Did anyone say it was the first thing to come to mind? (Besides you just now, I mean?) Is the first thing that comes to mind the only thing worth thinking about, ever?

[Robert8]

Regardless if it is the first thing or the second or the 10th that comes to one mind.... the point still stands I think

 

Why would one bother to think on the race of a minifigure like Dragon Suit Guy? He is yellow... and it seems that is "problematic" now

 

[Vindicare]

On 6/8/2020 at 2:55 PM, Robert8 said:

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

DItto. I just saw a _______ whatever set I was building/playing with. Policeman, spaceman, cowboy, Indian, mechanic...

1 hour ago, Robert8 said:

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...

Exactly. While I find this thread enjoyable & a fun discussion, it’s baffling that people see a particular race in a bright yellow skin tone. Certainly one could argue the hairstyle or type of dress could determine race, but that would mean putting people in a box...which is weird to me. By & large, anyone can do what they want with their hair & buy whatever clothes they like. 

6 hours ago, Karalora said:

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.

While arguing the intent of an individual will just lead us to running around in circles, intent from LEGO is crystal clear. Yellow is the race of LEGO in-house characters. I don’t know about other white people, but my skin tone is nothing near that color. If someone looks at a minfigure & perceives them as one race over another, that’s on them. Not the minfigure, not TLG. The CMF is a perfect example of that. Is the baseball player white? Black? What about the Sumo? He could be Japanese. Or he could Pacific Islander. Or he could be white. Or he could just be a sumo wrestler with no defined race. He’s neither. He’s just yellow. Or, if that’s your thing, he can be whatever race you want him to be. 

[BrickG]

I didn't come back to this thread until now and see that it has exploded a bit. Most of the discussion seems very civil and thanks for that (minus very few like the person who said I was racist for even bringing this up ).

And for the people whose mind is blown that race has been brought up in a "raceless" world. I would just say relax. It's not the first thing or 1000th thing on people's minds probably. But I'll be honest and I never saw LEGO as raceless or otherwise. I didn't really think about it until a random thought while seeing what's happening in the US and thinking about LEGO at the same time :P.

But when I was a kid I was pretty visually detailed oriented. When I was about 6 I wanted to dress up as one of my favorite characters for Halloween, Geordi LaForge (still the BEST Star Trek Character). I had a uniform, a crappy visor which even while 6 I was a bit upset that it didn't look more like the real thing, and being 6 I was a moron and also wanted to paint my skin darker. I was a 95% white kid, so pretty white lol. I just wanted to look a bit more like someone who I looked up to. My parents of course shut it down and told me why and gave me a bit of education about the history about blackface. Well, at least as much as a 5 year old can handle. I roughly understood why I couldn't look more like Geordi LaForge and went to school without accidentally appearing racist. 

The only reason I'm saying this is because, while I'm only a sample size of 1, I was at least aware of the colour differences when very young. Which would lead me to possibly think it's possible a few other kids think of it too. And if I didn't feel like I could look enough like Geordi LaForge at the age of 6, would that translate for some kids into representation of yellow figures?

And I will emphasize that this is meant to just be a THOUGHT EXERCISE from me. I do not think yellow figures are racist. I don't think LEGO is racist. I don't think this is that important of an issue, if it's important at all. It might be a non-issue entirely. I'm simply putting forth something to think about and discuss.

I don't have demands. I don't have a recommended course of action for LEGO. I'm just curious about the thoughts of others, and if yellow=everyone, for everyone. And if there will ever be a paradigm shift in some cultures that would make LEGO change their mind and act differently if every necessary. And I certainly didn't come in here to change minds or push an agenda but to just spark a conversation and think.

 

 

[MAB]

4 hours ago, Tusserte said:

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.

Even without the word guy in the name, we know it is male because the head does not have lipstick or curly eyelashes. Which is another problem with LEGO figures - nearly every adult female minifigure has lipstick and lashes, and normally curves on the torso too. Which means that if LEGO do not print these features, then it is assumed the figure is male. Compare this one to the dragon, and we can see why the dragon is male by default. Personally, I'd like to see more torsos like this (in that they are gender neutral and could be male or female) where possible and even better still would be a head with a male side and a female side. Of course some torsos can only be male or only be female and that is fine. Similarly, removal of the tiny bits of yellow (or flesh colours) skin on torsos would be great as it gives them much more versatility.

 

[Trekkie99]

Yellow minifigs are supposed to be any, all, or no (the human race) race, so the questions is how can they do this better and/or better let everyone know this fact?

[AmperZand]

10 hours ago, Karalora said:

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.

In the absence of market research data on LEGO's consumers which I do not have, I used national splits by race as a proxy for LEGO's consumer base. We have a broad idea of which territories are LEGO's biggest and fastest growing.

To your second point, that would be a commercial decision based on sales, PR and target markets/segments. Unfortunately, business decisions are often harsh.

8 hours ago, Tusserte said:

 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.

To the extent that LEGO's designers either know through market research or suspect that kids project their race on ostensibly 'neutral' minifigures, I suspect that the designers do not think of those minifigures as race neutral. It is not a matter of yellow minifigures = light skin, rather it is an overall representation that encompasses skin colour, hair style/colour (which has been discussed in this thread) and subject.  

To your second point, throughout this thread, there has been insufficient consideration given to the fact that LEGO, as a commercial organisation, is constrained in what it can do. If LEGO stopped producing yellowies and went to natural skin tones for all minifigures, not just licensed ones, there would be challenges beyond those already discussed in this thread, e.g. the skin colour of cops and robbers. What if LEGO's market research found that kids in LEGO's key markets strongly preferred minifigures that looked Caucasian or East Asian? How would the company meet that demand while not appearing - or even being - racist? There may be business reasons for LEGO persisting with yellowies (beyond brand recognition that I brought up on page 1). LEGO might not have the luxury of being able to choose.        

[Karalora]

8 hours ago, Robert8 said:

Regardless if it is the first thing or the second or the 10th that comes to one mind.... the point still stands I think

Why would one bother to think on the race of a minifigure like Dragon Suit Guy? He is yellow... and it seems that is "problematic" now

First of all, I don't think anyone has specifically said that the yellow is problematic. At most, we are asking if it might be, and discussing possible solutions if it is.

Second of all, why are we doing this now? Because, not to put too fine a point on it, the world is extra-conscious of race these past few weeks. That's all. And you can't say it has nothing to do with LEGO when TLG has pulled advertising for many emergency-themed sets in response to current events.

4 hours ago, MAB said:

Even without the word guy in the name, we know it is male because the head does not have lipstick or curly eyelashes. Which is another problem with LEGO figures - nearly every adult female minifigure has lipstick and lashes, and normally curves on the torso too.

This too is the default principle in action. Male is seen as the default, so extra markers are required in order to make a face read as female. There are also extra markers that read as male (facial hair), but they aren't required to merely establish the face as male and can be used to add personality instead. This effectively robs the female face of an effective characterization tool--the style of a woman's makeup (or the absence of the same) can say a lot about her, but when lashes and lips have to be there just to label her as female, the options to sketch her personality on top of that are more limited.

Incidentally, when I apply this default principle to the race of children playing with LEGO minifigs, I don't mean that Caucasian children look at these yellow faces and say "Yep, this toy is Caucasian, like me!" It's more that the default principle runs throughout society to make white children less cognizant of race in the first place. It's not even that they think of the minifigs as neutral and themselves as also neutral--they don't think about it. They have that luxury. Black children, on the other hand (except the youngest), are painfully aware of their race as they grow up, and in particular how it is seen as an exception to a (white) norm, so you can see why they might see a yellow-skinned (i.e. comparatively light-colored) toy and automatically assume that it isn't supposed to represent them. If that doesn't happen, if they are able to project themselves and the people they know into the minfigures...awesome, well done, LEGO. I'm just saying I can see why it might be more of an issue for black children.

6 minutes ago, AmperZand said:

In the absence of market research data on LEGO's consumers which I do not have, I used national splits by race as a proxy for LEGO's consumer base. We have a broad idea of which territories are LEGO's biggest and fastest growing.

It's not as simple as U.S. = white, though. Sure, the U.S. is majority white, but it's not a huge majority--something on the order of 58%, last time I looked at the statistics. And even if LEGO is less popular with children of color than white children (perhaps because families of color tend to be poorer, an issue outside the scope of this thread), in a nation of 340 million people that still amounts to an awful lot of brown-skinned children playing with minifigures, or potentially doing so. Even the most mercenary of toy companies isn't going to brush them off as not worth addressing.

[Gorilla94]

Changing licences to flesh colours was the beginning of my dark ages, because the prisoner of Askaban flesh figures would have looked stupid next to my cartoonish yellow ones from book 1 and 2. If it wasn't changed i'd probably have bought Lego for a few years more... I doubt it would have a positive effect in the short term... at best it would be neutral in the long term sales.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Gorilla94

[MAB]

3 hours ago, Karalora said:

 

This too is the default principle in action. Male is seen as the default, so extra markers are required in order to make a face read as female. There are also extra markers that read as male (facial hair), but they aren't required to merely establish the face as male and can be used to add personality instead. This effectively robs the female face of an effective characterization tool--the style of a woman's makeup (or the absence of the same) can say a lot about her, but when lashes and lips have to be there just to label her as female, the options to sketch her personality on top of that are more limited.

This is exactly the problem though - that male is seen as the default and that LEGO continue to pump out female minifigures with printing that makes this evident. If LEGO started to produce more females that didn't wear lipstick and had curly eyelashes, then the slow process of getting rid of the default no lipstick equals male will start.

3 hours ago, AmperZand said:

To your second point, throughout this thread, there has been insufficient consideration given to the fact that LEGO, as a commercial organisation, is constrained in what it can do. If LEGO stopped producing yellowies and went to natural skin tones for all minifigures, not just licensed ones, there would be challenges beyond those already discussed in this thread, e.g. the skin colour of cops and robbers. What if LEGO's market research found that kids in LEGO's key markets strongly preferred minifigures that looked Caucasian or East Asian? How would the company meet that demand while not appearing - or even being - racist? There may be business reasons for LEGO persisting with yellowies (beyond brand recognition that I brought up on page 1). LEGO might not have the luxury of being able to choose.        

Even worse is that black kids will get little to no choice in the sets offered if they want black minifigures. For example, the black population of the UK is about 3%. US is about 15%. So first of all, they need different sets to cater for different populations. Even in the USA, that is 1 in every 7 that should be black. In the UK, only 1 in 33 should be black. Assuming roughly 3-4 minifigures in a set, the UK black child will see one black minifigure in roughly every 8-10 sets. If they want a specific gender, then that is one in every 16-20 sets. The US child fares better and gets one in every 2 sets (or 4 sets for specific gender). They could of course make a set containing only black minifigures, although they should expect sales of that to be 30x smaller in the UK than an equivalent white minifigure set. I can understand why they make yellow skins.

[Redroe]

Allow me to say what a pleasure it is to see people able to even discuss this topic without descent into angry rhetoric and name-calling. It is a credit to you all.

[AmperZand]

4 hours ago, Karalora said:

It's not as simple as U.S. = white, though.

Indeed which is why I did not say that.

1 hour ago, MAB said:

Even worse is that black kids will get little to no choice in the sets offered if they want black minifigures. For example, the black population of the UK is about 3%. US is about 15%. So first of all, they need different sets to cater for different populations. Even in the USA, that is 1 in every 7 that should be black. In the UK, only 1 in 33 should be black. Assuming roughly 3-4 minifigures in a set, the UK black child will see one black minifigure in roughly every 8-10 sets. If they want a specific gender, then that is one in every 16-20 sets. The US child fares better and gets one in every 2 sets (or 4 sets for specific gender). They could of course make a set containing only black minifigures, although they should expect sales of that to be 30x smaller in the UK than an equivalent white minifigure set. I can understand why they make yellow skins.

Totally agree. There is no scenario in which LEGO could switch all minifigures to natural skin tones and it not wind up being an ongoing PR nightmare for the company.

Logistics and marketing costs might also be higher if LEGO had different selections of minifigures in each territory. 

[Karalora]

10 hours ago, MAB said:

Even worse is that black kids will get little to no choice in the sets offered if they want black minifigures. For example, the black population of the UK is about 3%. US is about 15%. So first of all, they need different sets to cater for different populations. Even in the USA, that is 1 in every 7 that should be black. In the UK, only 1 in 33 should be black. Assuming roughly 3-4 minifigures in a set, the UK black child will see one black minifigure in roughly every 8-10 sets. If they want a specific gender, then that is one in every 16-20 sets. The US child fares better and gets one in every 2 sets (or 4 sets for specific gender). They could of course make a set containing only black minifigures, although they should expect sales of that to be 30x smaller in the UK than an equivalent white minifigure set. I can understand why they make yellow skins.

I don't think it should be a foregone conclusion that minifigure skin color should exactly mirror the demographic statistics of the market region. This is something that comes up a lot in discussions of representation, probably because it makes intuitive sense that such mirroring is "fair." But to go back to something I said earlier, population statistics don't play with toys, individuals and families do. No one individual or family is less deserving of having a full range of choice just because they belong to a minority demographic.

I remain of the opinion that the best thing LEGO can do with City and other non-licensed themes--at least for now--is keep the figures yellow but continue to expand hair options and the like. They should pay attention to fashions in hair (including facial hair) and clothing across multiple nations, cultures, subcultures, and, yes, races. The importance of hair representation for black folks has been mentioned upthread, and...well, in addition to being socially responsible, hair pieces like this one are just so dang CUTE. We all win when we have more possible parts to mix and match!

[MAB]

4 hours ago, Karalora said:

I don't think it should be a foregone conclusion that minifigure skin color should exactly mirror the demographic statistics of the market region. This is something that comes up a lot in discussions of representation, probably because it makes intuitive sense that such mirroring is "fair." But to go back to something I said earlier, population statistics don't play with toys, individuals and families do. No one individual or family is less deserving of having a full range of choice just because they belong to a minority demographic.

This already happens. Of course, on one level, they get the same range of choice as any race can buy a toy depicting any race. However, if the purchaser insists on the toy having the same colour skin as them, then it will be a narrower choice. Count the number of dolls on the shelves of a toy store and separate them into different demographics such as white, black, and a general shades in-between, or split further into Asian (or Indian/Pakistani and Chinese origin), Arabic, and for USA add Native American, Hispanic. Minorities do not get the same range as majorities. If they did, there would be many dolls or LEGO sets sitting unsold.

[anothergol]

"Tubbz" recently had to make a similar choice. I don't think that really works.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/ghostbusters/images/3/32/PromoImageOfTubbzGhostbustersTeamByRubberRoadLtdSc01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190816181403

 

I think that Lego could have kept yellow for white people, and go for all shades of yellow (=brown).
I mean come on, it worked for the Simpsons.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Darkdragon
Max size for image is 1024 in any direction. Displayed as a link but you can fix size if you'd like to display as an image again.

[Karalora]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

Minorities do not get the same range as majorities. If they did, there would be many dolls or LEGO sets sitting unsold.

Maybe, maybe not. The thing about LEGO sets and minifigures is that they're meant to be collected and all used together. A doll is more of a singular toy that a child chooses as an inanimate best friend. When I say children of color are no less deserving of choice than white children, I mean that they should have more to pick from than just the small family of minifigs at the fun fair.

If LEGO did go to all fleshies, with three or four different shades to indicate different skin tones, it would be pretty weird for them to stock each City set with just one color, or to have alternate versions of sets that were identical except for the "race" of the minifigures. Cities tend to be where you get diversity and I would expect to see mixes most of the time.

Though I'm actually less wary of children refusing sets with the wrong "color" of minifigures and more wary of racist parents refusing to buy them.

[TeriXeri]

3 hours ago, Karalora said:

If LEGO did go to all fleshies, with three or four different shades to indicate different skin tones, it would be pretty weird for them to stock each City set with just one color, or to have alternate versions of sets that were identical except for the "race" of the minifigures. Cities tend to be where you get diversity and I would expect to see mixes most of the time.

LEGO has 3 skin tones as far as I know with Friends dolls (Light Nougat / Nougat / Medium Nougat ), and licensed minifigs also have Reddish Brown.

I think it would only complicate things, rather then be a solution to do the same for Minifigures.

Minifigure heads and hair can be swapped easily, but then there are torso + hands, and some legs that can show skin color as well.

I'd think hair pieces are the safest way to diversify yellow minifigures.

Even while a named character like Duke Detain has a particular hair style and thick eyebrows, it doesn't automaticly make him a certain race, especially when using his sunglasses side of the head.

 

Also I do think LEGO has moved away from the more stereotypical head prints as well, compared to the early 2000s, and so far yellow figures potential race have been much less prominent

Both from 2003:

Orient Expedition subtheme of Adventurers had some asian faces with a bit of a "slanted eye" look:

 

Even LEGO's own yellow NBA players had some African/American look to some of them : 

In the current age , I don't expect LEGO doing face prints like that again, seeing how themes like Ninjago, Monkey Kid, Chinese New Years etc are moving toward more neutral faces.

Overall, proportions and styles of head prints seem to have become more standardized in recent years, as even early Harry Potter figures used a very different style of face prints compared to later ones.

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by TeriXeri

[Karalora]

7 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

I'd think hair pieces are the safest way to diversify yellow minifigures.

I agree, while also being sensitive to the statements by darker-skinned people who don't feel that yellow authentically represents them (due to the default principle and the historical lack of appropriate hair). I think LEGO can build up good faith in the user community by consistently using hair pieces in just that way and showing that yellow can be anybody.

[MAB]

3 hours ago, anothergol said:

"Tubbz" recently had to make a similar choice. I don't think that really works.

I think that Lego could have kept yellow for white people, and go for all shades of yellow (=brown).
I mean come on, it worked for the Simpsons.

I think they look great, and it is clear who all four are. It also makes sense since bath ducks are traditionally yellow.

If they were to do yellow = white people and then use other shades for different races, then they might as well just use light nougat for white people and get rid of yellow for (human) skin altogether.

36 minutes ago, Karalora said:

I agree, while also being sensitive to the statements by darker-skinned people who don't feel that yellow authentically represents them (due to the default principle and the historical lack of appropriate hair).

Lighter-skinned people can also feel the same (due to the wrong colour for human skin principle). You only need to look at how many MOCs use fleshies to tell that a number of adult builders prefer realistic tones instead of the unrealistic yellow skin.

[koalayummies]

On 6/11/2020 at 12:38 AM, BrickG said:

I didn't come back to this thread until now and see that it has exploded a bit.

The most perplexing thing about this whole discussion is this. So I guess we'll see you in another week.

5 hours ago, anothergol said:

"Tubbz" recently had to make a similar choice. I don't think that really works.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/ghostbusters/images/3/32/PromoImageOfTubbzGhostbustersTeamByRubberRoadLtdSc01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190816181403

I would like to know that this isn't a successful company. Can you give me some good news?

[Niku]

TLG doesnt need to "stop being colorblind": people need to stop looking at everything through the lens of race

I agree with this. :)
TLG is one of the most sensitive and coherent companies in the world, they should not get involved in any of the controversies.
If stereotypes would be given... then Yellow would be taken as for asian people? No, of course not, some asian persons are even whiter in color skin than the average white people. There is such a variety in skin colors in the world as hair types that is just not possible to have representation of all, is just the mind that sees it in some ways, it is a matter of perspective, education and tolerance. If someone looks at a minfigure & perceives them as one race over another, that’s on them. Not the minfigure, not TLG.
I am latino, I dont care if my skin color or hair does not matches in a toy.
We should just enjoy Lego, that is fantastic and joins people from every culture and language around the world. :)

[The Brick Boss]

2 hours ago, Niku said:

TLG doesnt need to "stop being colorblind": people need to stop looking at everything through the lens of race


Statement of the week!

[anothergol]

3 hours ago, koalayummies said:

I would like to know that this isn't a successful company. Can you give me some good news?

What do you mean?

[LEGO Historian]

On 6/6/2020 at 10:52 AM, Ron Dayes said:

Thats actually incorrect.
"TAN" number code 2 in the color palette was officially introduced in 1957 and the minifig came out 20 years later in 1978!
They could have made tan minifigs, in fact, there is tan based figurines for the old town layouts. But they chose not to, to avoid the skin color political aspects at the time.
It was stated in several interviews aswell. Yellow is a "happy" colour. As it was also used for the first castle instead of a militaristic grey...
But knowing the rather limited color palette used in sets at that time, it might seem that they didnt have those colors - but in fact, they did have a huge array, just never used them because it was quite pricey and not reall necessary back in a day.

But yeah, TLG doesnt need to change anything atm. agreed.

 

That is also actually incorrect... tan was first used in Modulex (not part of the LEGO System of Play) in 1963, and it first came out in 1968 in small plates in LEGOLAND Denmark... so the LEGO model shops were the first to have a supply of tan parts.  In 1985 I saw a huge model of the Brussels Hotel de Ville (City Hall) made of tan and dark gray bricks... but it was not available in any LEGO set until 1998.

When people say that tan or flesh tones came out in the 1950s, that was tan or flesh colored PAINT, not bricks.  Here are some of the LEGO cyclists that were sold in the 270/1270 parts pack of 1956-65....  (images from my Unofficial LEGO Sets/Parts Collectors Guide)...

Tan bricks/plates were never part of any LEGO set until the 1990s.  Sure TLG could have produced tan parts at any time they chose, and I am sure that some designers really wanted to use tan in their building models (just like they wanted to use gray, dark gray or green bricks)... but TLG was very stingy in their use of their color palette in those days.  With the exception of the gray (and first Maersk blue) bricks in the 1974 #1650 Maersk Container Ship, gray was only used for plates and the 10x20 baseplates until the 1980s, dark gray was not used at all until some castle/pirate sets had weapons and parts in that color, and green was not used for bricks for many decades after first being introduced in 10x20 baseplates and (1963-66 small Samsonite LEGO plates).

LEGO was very odd about the release of colors in their color palette until starting in the 1990s... and since 2000 the color palette has exploded into more colors than they really need.  Very strange.

As for the first minifigs being yellow...  TLG just followed their earlier tradition of using yellow in the maxifigs heads, and minifig stiff heads (with the single exception of both being the 215 Red Indians set).

All the odd things that TLG did in the early years I just call it "LEGO Mayhem"... and leave it at that... there was no rhyme or reason to a lot of what LEGO did back in the early days.... 

Edited June 15, 2020 by LEGO Historian

[The Brick Boss]

Lego isn't color blind. If that were so, we wouldn't have colorful sets!