The Problem with Ninjago

[shadow pridak money gang]

They're not taking a point in Japanese history and revising it.

 

They're taking a form of spy in feudal Japan and bringing them to the modern day or sometime in the future.

I don't see anything offensive in that.

 

The opinion of the many usually outweigh that of the few. Usually.

 

 

If I had a dollar for every time this was proven wrong over the course of history, the chances are we would be having this conversation over crackers and Brie on a terrace somewhere in the Hamptons.

 

ie: you're wrong (usually!)

 

-Tyler

Edited January 29, 2014 by Aegon Targaryen

[Hodor]

 

The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point.

I see no reason why any element of it at least used in Ninjago has to be inherent to a particular 'race'. Hypothetically, the idea could have, in some alternate reality, been inspired by things from just about any culture. A town in Wisconsin could have invented the aesthetic designs, a farmer in feudal Europe might have come up with the idea of 'sneaky assassins.' As it is, these things happened to be invented in eastern cultures instead. They are just as valid as part of fantasy variety.

 

This reasoning only seems to go so far, though. But I'm not sure I have a firm grasp on where the exceptions come up per se.

Late to this but...

 

Wow, are you seriously saying this?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that it's perfectly okay for a writer to be ignorant of the culture they're drawing influence from by virtue of writing fantasy? Ninja are inherently Japanese by their nature- the social dynamics that lead to use of assassins disguised as peasants to the shogun or samurai they were to kill were very different than the asssassinations in European/Western culture.

 

It doesn't matter if it has an in universe justification or not, it still reflects a real world culture and still deserves to be treated with enough respect for to at least know how the things you're taking from the culture works.

[Alex Humva]

 

 

They're taking a form of spy in feudal Japan and bringing them to the modern day or sometime in the future.

Sadly the spy bits were lost. Really, I'd of paid good money for bucket-wearing ninja sets.

[Snelly]

 

They're not taking a point in Japanese history and revising it.

They're taking a form of spy in feudal Japan and bringing them to the modern day or sometime in the future.

I don't see anything offensive in that.

 

I thought we already established that the ninja from Ninjago are ninja practically in name only, with a focus on fighting over stealth, rather than the other way around. They are warriors, not spies.

 

 

And this offends someone somewhere greatly. We should be ashamed.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Yoko Littner

[dotcom]

Okay, I don't really want to get involved in this, but the question of whether any actual Japanese people are offended at Ninjago is actually really very important. When you're not in the ethnic or cultural group in question, making calls about what is or is not offensive is treading on perilous grounds. Although I'm not Japanese, I am part of an ethnic minority, and I can tell you that having someone who is not even part of the group in question tell me what should or shouldn't be offensive can actually be very insulting. That is my perspective, and most of my friends (in minorities) with whom I've discussed things like this agree. The idea that something like a cartoon can be intrinsically offensive to the sanctity of my culture is ridiculous to me...but that's just my view, from my culture. Again, I'm not Japanese, but the point I'm trying to make is that this isn't really anybody's call to make than those that are actually in the culture that is supposedly being offended. I'm not trying to diminish or dismiss any of the point that were made before (or the ones in the what, ten posts that showed up while I was writing this) but this is a very relevant thing to take into account.

[bonesiii]

Are you seriously suggesting that it's perfectly okay for a writer to be ignorant of the culture they're drawing influence from by virtue of writing fantasy?

No -- that is part of the points raised in the original point that I meant when I said I agreed with much of it. I probably should have been more specific, though, my bad.

[Sumiki]

 

 

 

I don't want to get even close to the subject of religion (because we all know that this debate would really go downhill if it went there), but there are some cultures and societies where religious beliefs are intertwined to the point where you can't consider one without considering the other. This is the case with Japanese culture.

 

People of average intelligence can understand that Ninjago isn't meant to be an accurate or even partly accurate representation of Japanese culture.

Yet people nitpick at it just because they fell like being offended by something.

Congratulations, you just called half of the people in this thread dumb.

 

No one is nitpicking because of a desire to feel offended. I'm not personally offended, but I realize that Ninjago is problematic and I'm trying to communicate that point.

What is being offended ,but someone's own personal feeling? No one is telling them to be offended, yet they act as so anyway.

Yes, because offensive things always come with a sign that says "you should be offended!"

Yes, they do.

Racist slurs are almost always meant to insult or hurt others.

So what's your point?

So people can only be offended if it involves a racial slur? Bro, there are lots of ways to be offended outside of race and language. This entire topic is an example.

[You just lost the game]

2. I know little about Shintoism, but I will say that one of the subjects in question, the so-called "shrine", I believe was meant to be a dojo. I don't really see what you're being offended about in that set ,other than it just looks like a shrine.

 

It was CALLED a shrine, BASED ON a shrine, but given the features of a dojo. You've removed the actual cultural implications of an important cultural object for a quick buck.

 

This all brings me back to my point about Lego unintentionally being offensive by not knowing it's true meaning.

Saying that they did it intentionally with no real proof, usually leads to an arguement being ripped apart.

You're right in saying that Lego got a couple things wrong, but the main thing is that it wasn't intentional and shouldn't be treated as such.

[Meiko]

I'm coming into this entire thread late, and have no intention to read it all as I've already drawn my conclusion on the situation. As it appears, some people in this topic see the forum seem to have the personality as if they must always be right. The original post of this topic appears to be completely opinion-based, yet the individual who started the thread is asserting their opinion as if it is fact, regardless of what others believe.

 

Is it impossible for something to take inspiration from culture? I swear, I'm pretty sure that's how the world works-- culture inspires things based around that culture or mulitple cultures. Is it not acceptable for something to use an architectural style for something besides a temple or shrine? I'm pretty sure it is. Ninjago sells fine in Japan. I have several Japanese AFOL friends, and by no means do they, nor the people they know, see Ninjago as offensive.

 

I must say, I see no beneficial or civil discussion going on here. The entire argument spirals around the same facts without much of any citation. This is part of why I don't like to use BZPower anymore, since the majority of the discussions that get going at a good pace and are quite active end up going nowhere but downhill, and there are constantly the people who view life with the idea that they must always be right.

[Bambi]

I'm coming into this entire thread late, and have no intention to read it all as I've already drawn my conclusion on the situation. As it appears, some people in this topic see the forum seem to have the personality as if they must always be right. The original post of this topic appears to be completely opinion-based, yet the individual who started the thread is asserting their opinion as if it is fact, regardless of what others believe.

 

Is it impossible for something to take inspiration from culture? I swear, I'm pretty sure that's how the world works-- culture inspires things based around that culture or mulitple cultures. Is it not acceptable for something to use an architectural style for something besides a temple or shrine? I'm pretty sure it is. Ninjago sells fine in Japan. I have several Japanese AFOL friends, and by no means do they, nor the people they know, see Ninjago as offensive.

 

I must say, I see no beneficial or civil discussion going on here. The entire argument spirals around the same facts without much of any citation. This is part of why I don't like to use BZPower anymore, since the majority of the discussions that get going at a good pace and are quite active end up going nowhere but downhill, and there are constantly the people who view life with the idea that they must always be right.

Preeeeeetty much this. I don't think I'll ever understand how someone could possibly be offended by a Lego theme revolving around ninjas, but oh well.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Bambi

[bonesiii]

Can people please stop with the huge multi-nested quotes? We generally try to avoid that on BZP; just pull out the part you were replying to specifically. I may edit out some if it continues.

Edited January 29, 2014 by bonesiii

[believe victims]

The idea that something like a cartoon can be intrinsically offensive to the sanctity of my culture is ridiculous to me...but that's just my view, from my culture.

everything else you had to say I agree with, and I didn't mean to step on any toes, but this part right here doesn't sit right with me, and i think it's because of this

there are constantly the people who view life with the idea that they must always be right.

 

hm, would you insist you're right about this?

[NoReturnPoint]

Ms. SC, I believe my 2nd point still stands, although it should be rephrased. Should I take the Chinese ripoffs as an insult to Bionicle fans and the Bionicle culture? As to your second point, I don't see how it could be an insult, since the comparison is about "real-ness" versus "un-real-ness" As far as the Bionicle fan culture goes (just look at BZPower's bionicle discussion history ), Bionicle is "real," and the Chinese versions are "un-real," since they carry neither the storylines nor the powers of the original characters.

 

I might add, however, that some of the stuff being debated here is making people offended, and I think there's a point there to be made. I am choosing whether or not to be offended, the choice is not made for me. Whether someone is offended or not is a choice, not an absolute. There's a reason that we use the phrases "no offense meant" and "none taken."

 

-NRP

Edited January 29, 2014 by NoReturnPoint

[bonesiii]

Ms. SC, I believe my 2nd point still stands, although it should be rephrased. Should I take the Chinese ripoffs as an insult to Bionicle fans and the Bionicle culture?

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but every time I have seen ripoffs reported, I have seen Bionicle fans being very offended at it. It's theft.

 

And I think that is where sc is coming from; that what LEGO has done is similar in some important ways to "cultural theft." And it's true -- she's absolutely right about that. It may be for good intentions, but even so, the action may be unwise at best.

Edited January 29, 2014 by bonesiii
Edit: Darn it, I hate my bad memory lol. Fixed in light of next post. >_<

[believe victims]

Ms. SC, I believe my 2 point still stands, although it should be rephrased. Should I take the Chinese ripoffs as an insult to Bionicle fans and the Bionicle culture? As to your second point, I don't see how it could be an insult, since the comparison is about "real-ness" versus "un-real-ness" As far as the Bionicle fan culture goes (just look at BZPower's bionicle discussion history ), Bionicle is "real," and the Chinese versions are "un-real," since they carry neither the storylines nor the powers of the original characters.

 

First of all, yes, people regularly got ticked off about Chinese knockoffs. That, or mocked and derided them.

 

But regardless, Bionicle was a toyline that lasted 9 years. Japan is a country that has been around for millenia. I think it's pretty clear what the difference is.

 

@bonesiii i appreciate what you have to say but I'd appreciate if you acknowledged that I'm female.

Edited January 29, 2014 by some critics

[You just lost the game]

 

They're not taking a point in Japanese history and revising it.

They're taking a form of spy in feudal Japan and bringing them to the modern day or sometime in the future.

I don't see anything offensive in that.

 

I thought we already established that the ninja from Ninjago are ninja practically in name only, with a focus on fighting over stealth, rather than the other way around. They are warriors, not spies.

 

So what's the point of being offended if they're ninja in name only? If they were intentionally being offensive, then you have ground to stand on.

 

 

They're not taking a point in Japanese history and revising it.

 

They're taking a form of spy in feudal Japan and bringing them to the modern day or sometime in the future.

I don't see anything offensive in that.

 

The opinion of the many usually outweigh that of the few. Usually.

 

 

If I had a dollar for every time this was proven wrong over the course of history, the chances are we would be having this conversation over crackers and Brie on a terrace somewhere in the Hamptons.

 

ie: you're wrong (usually!)

 

-Tyler

 

Opinions or ideas?

I'm talking about opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want to get even close to the subject of religion (because we all know that this debate would really go downhill if it went there), but there are some cultures and societies where religious beliefs are intertwined to the point where you can't consider one without considering the other. This is the case with Japanese culture.

 

People of average intelligence can understand that Ninjago isn't meant to be an accurate or even partly accurate representation of Japanese culture.

Yet people nitpick at it just because they fell like being offended by something.

Congratulations, you just called half of the people in this thread dumb.

 

No one is nitpicking because of a desire to feel offended. I'm not personally offended, but I realize that Ninjago is problematic and I'm trying to communicate that point.

What is being offended ,but someone's own personal feeling? No one is telling them to be offended, yet they act as so anyway.

Yes, because offensive things always come with a sign that says "you should be offended!"

Yes, they do.

Racist slurs are almost always meant to insult or hurt others.

So what's your point?

So people can only be offended if it involves a racial slur? Bro, there are lots of ways to be offended outside of race and language. This entire topic is an example.

 

You can be offended by anything. Insinuating someone is doing it on purpose with no real backing to their claims, is wrong.

[25K Now!]

Can you really judge a culture by how long it has existed?

[Hodor]

Ms. SC, I believe my 2nd point still stands, although it should be rephrased. Should I take the Chinese ripoffs as an insult to Bionicle fans and the Bionicle culture? As to your second point, I don't see how it could be an insult, since the comparison is about "real-ness" versus "un-real-ness" As far as the Bionicle fan culture goes (just look at BZPower's bionicle discussion history ), Bionicle is "real," and the Chinese versions are "un-real," since they carry neither the storylines nor the powers of the original characters.

 

I might add, however, that some of the stuff being debated here is making people offended, and I think there's a point there to be made. I am choosing whether or not to be offended, the choice is not made for me. Whether someone is offended or not is a choice, not an absolute. There's a reason that we use the phrases "no offense meant" and "none taken."

 

-NRP

not who you're addressing, but w/e.

 

the difference is that bionicle was already a goofy fictional story that is made to shill toys to little boys and girls. The fact a fan culture sprouted up around that is completely coincidental- of course Chinese bootleggers are going to make fakes off of them.

 

Japan is a real place that has been around for thousands of years. The fandom is only, what, 13?

 

It's kind of silly to make that comparison, no offense.

[believe victims]

So what's the point of being offended if they're ninja in name only? If they were intentionally being offensive, then you have ground to stand on.

I don't know how to say this so you'll understand. I've tried time, and time, and time again to tell you. Whether or not they were intentionally offensive, if they did something wrong, it is not wrong to call them out on it. You said as much yourself (after you didnt say so yourself). The line, whether intentionally or not, mangles Japanese culture in numerous ways, and it is perfectly fine to call Lego out on it.

[You just lost the game]

 

So what's the point of being offended if they're ninja in name only? If they were intentionally being offensive, then you have ground to stand on.

I don't know how to say this so you'll understand. I've tried time, and time, and time again to tell you. Whether or not they were intentionally offensive, if they did something wrong, it is not wrong to call them out on it. You said as much yourself (after you didnt say so yourself). The line, whether intentionally or not, mangles Japanese culture in numerous ways, and it is perfectly fine to call Lego out on it.

 

It isn't wrong to call them out on it.

You're original post came off to me as you were trying to say Lego was intentionally degrading Japanese culture, in which I drew the perverbial line.

So here we are now, coming closer to an understanding of eachother's arguements.

I've got happy feels now! lol

Edited January 29, 2014 by You just lost the game

[believe victims]

I've understood your argument for a while now. Everything I've been saying has merely been calling Lego out on what they've done, whether accidentally or intentionally. What I am not moving on is that there are definite problematic aspects in Ninjago.

[NoReturnPoint]

So far as that goes, then, I defer to both of your judgment and memory about the ripoffs. In that case, then, Mr. Bonesii and Ms. SC I move back to my first question, and the point I made at the bottom of my last post.

 

Can you really judge a culture by how long it has existed?

 

That is my answer to you, Mr. IHodor. That, and the fact that the age of the culture is irrelevant to the argument. the realness versus un-realness is the point of the argument.

 

Edit: In my focus on your point, I didn't see what you did there till now. Nice, and none taken

 

*Sigh* only a few posts into a new forum, and I'm back in debate club.

 

 

So what's the point of being offended if they're ninja in name only? If they were intentionally being offensive, then you have ground to stand on.

I don't know how to say this so you'll understand. I've tried time, and time, and time again to tell you. Whether or not they were intentionally offensive, if they did something wrong, it is not wrong to call them out on it. You said as much yourself (after you didnt say so yourself). The line, whether intentionally or not, mangles Japanese culture in numerous ways, and it is perfectly fine to call Lego out on it.

 

 

And I do agree with that point, Ms. SC, but I add that this is your prerogative. You are offended, and chose to be so for the reasons you have given. I am not. So when it comes down to the bottom line, it's a personal decision by each and every person, and cannot be determined by someone else for you. I refer to sumiki's and bonesii's excellent arguments.

 

-NRP

Edited January 29, 2014 by NoReturnPoint

[You just lost the game]

I've understood your argument for a while now. Everything I've been saying has merely been calling Lego out on what they've done, whether accidentally or intentionally. What I am not moving on is that there are definite problematic aspects in Ninjago.

Indeed.

As I stated already, I was arguing over the fact on whether or not Lego was intentionally degrading cultures.

Whether or not someone believes that remains to be seen, and I'll happily debate points on how they aren't doing it intentionally, with anyone.

[dotcom]

 

The idea that something like a cartoon can be intrinsically offensive to the sanctity of my culture is ridiculous to me...but that's just my view, from my culture.

everything else you had to say I agree with, and I didn't mean to step on any toes, but this part right here doesn't sit right with me, and i think it's because of this

 

I don't know, trying to relate media from 70+ years ago to that of present day strikes me as an iffy comparison. Context is relevant. When, for instance, Dumbo was made, that sort of portrayal was, unfortunately, commonplace. It's certainly offensive and it's certainly not justified, but it's a product of its time, meaning it arose out of completely different attitudes and prejudices than something like Ninjago. Ninjago is a product of over 30 years of a distorted, Westernized view of Japanese culture and history--not racially-motivated hatred or anything of the sort. Whether this excuses it or not, I do not believe it's my place to say. Ninjago is certainly inaccurate in regards to several facets of Japanese history and culture, and I can certainly see how it might be seen as insensitive, but whether it's truly offensive or not is not something I'm in any position to judge. In a lot of cases, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Edited January 29, 2014 by dotcom

[Meiko]

there are constantly the people who view life with the idea that they must always be right.

 

hm, would you insist you're right about this?

 

No, but I would like to suggest you try improving the way you interact with others.

[bonesiii]

Can you really judge a culture by how long it has existed?

Something that always fascinates me is, whenever someone makes a positive or negative statement about culture, you can usually find a valid opinion that states the opposite, to some extent.

 

If someone answers, "yes", to this, then my gut reaction would to consider the alternative; all old cultures began young, and new culture-forming does not arbitrarily stop at any point.

 

On the other hand, if someone answers, "no", then I would object that the longer a culture is around, the deeper significance it may take to the lives of those in it. Now you're identifying with your very ancestors, and that is intensely meaningful.

 

So, I don't think it's a simple question. Maybe you didn't mean it to be, just giving my two cents.

[~kh]

Well, this is the most discussion I've been a part of in a while. It's been entertaining so far, but I want to stop and say some things for a second to clarify from my last post.

 

First off, I'm Asian. I'm not Japanese, I'm not right there with this Ninjago debate in that I'm being personally "insulted" or whatnot. But I am from East Asia and both my parents were all born and raised there and then brought me over to the west. This is a common trope I see in kind of all media here in the west about all kinds of Asian subcultures. So I don't personally represent the mindset of anyone, but I also have grown up with ABAs and immigrants and the like (which is, hey, another culture in and of itself) and this is generally the opinion of most of them.

 

Secondly, I would like to clear up something here. Most people, from my background, are not severely offended by this.

 

I'm not saying that absolutely no one is, but generally speaking, it's just not a really big deal for us to care enough about it. I know a bunch of you are saying that we do, but honestly, most of us just don't. Not to be racist (and you can tell that whatever I'm going to say after that is probably going to be racist anyways) but you white people seem to get really offended on behalf of us. Especially Americans. Not that we don't like appreciate the sentiment or anything, it's just...well, kind of weird that you're so offended when it doesn't really effect us so much. I'm just being honest here. It's a trend we notice.

 

So no, we're not really super offended that the ninjas are heroes and have names like Cole and Lloyd. We're not offended that you guys don't know that fortune cookies are kind of your kinda deal and not ours. Oh, it gets a little grating when people say that they were expecting chopsticks when they come over for dinner, or ask if we can read something that remotely looks like Chinese (but it's actually Korean/Japanese/I don't read Chinese because I was raised in America and I literally was in the same grade as you for your entire education), but we don't mind it. Yeah, once in a while we'll get around and complain about it, but that's just culture. Same experiences draw people together.

 

Now, would it be nice if the west paid more attention and more homage to the cultures they draw stuff from? Yeah. I mean, it would. Some of us care more about it than others, to be honest, but some attention wouldn't be too bad. Are we really up in arms about it? No. Will we riot if it doesn't change? Probably not. Oh, the more offensive stereotypes, maybe, but we're honestly not caring about it too much. At least, not as much as some of the people seem to care about here.

 

Look, I know I'm saying "we" like I collectively represent the opinion of every Asian that ever lived and that's totally not true. This isn't how everyone sees things, and I'm sure there's someone else from the same background that could give honest opinions as to why they think differently. I'm just saying what I've heard from all types of Asians growing up. It's just part of the deal. Exchange of cultures. Yeah, sometimes we wish that we weren't always hackers or kung-fu masters, and yeah, the West does have a tendency to flanderize other cultures a lot more than we seem to do them. But it's not that big of a deal. It's an irritation you learn to live with. Like mosquitoes.

 

I'm glad this discussion is happening because it does need to happen. I'm glad people are talking about this. I would honestly like to see more accurate representations of Eastern culture in Western media. And there is a lot of stuff that just adds to the stereotype of Easterners that kind of warps the view of white, middle-class American kids growing up. Trust me, I know.

 

To the people that might respond, "But I don't see how it can affect kids like that", I don't have a good answer for you. I just know it does, and my experience proves (to me) more than any rational would. But also, to you guys that will respond "See, I told you that this kind of thing leads to racism and bullying", it also doesn't. I was never bullied or called racist slurs or anything. It's just...living in a different culture. You learn to live with it.

 

We know they don't mean anything by it. So we don't get up in arms about it. If you're trying to claim that it doesn't have any effect on us at all, it actually does. But if you're trying to claim that this kind of thing really affects us and that it offends us, it also really doesn't. I'm sorry to disappoint both sides of this, but that's just how we feel. Your culture's opinion of us isn't that important.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Kahi

[Constructelf]

... Why are we even having this argument?

 

 

 

Before you guys beat me over the head with a stick, I don't mean that the topic itself isn't worthy off discussion, but that the level it has escalated to is... Silly, in my opinion. Forgive me if I'm being condescending, but is there really that much to talk about? It seems that you guys are getting riled up for little good reason, other than the fact that you guys are either failing to communicate properly or are having too much of a viewpoint clash to attempt to reconcile.

 

Regardless of my personal opinion on the subject, I'll try to address and summarize all of the points that have been given; this attempt will most likely not succeed 100%, so if I offended anyone, I humbly apologize in advance, and if you feel that I missed something, feel free to let me know.

 

I. LEGO, when creating the Ninjago theme, appropriated several elements of Japanese culture without regards to their original significance. This misrepresentation of Japanese culture can be seen as offensive.

A. LEGO did not intend to ize Japanese culture specifically, but simply to create a theme that would appeal to its target audience, in the same vein as the Castle, Pirates, Secret Agents, and Space themes. Rather than drawing inspiration from Japanese culture itself, it drew upon the Ninja craze of the 80's and worked from there. As well, it was not meant to be an accurate representation of Ninja to begin with, but simply a story that kids would find interesting.

1. Regardless, this still comes across as offensive to the original culture, regardless of LEGO's intentions. The Ninja craze itself could be argued as offensive to the original concept of Ninja. By extension, this is offensive to Japanese culture whether or not any offense was intended.

a. Do we know that any individuals of Japanese culture have been offended? If nobody's been offended, move along.

i. It is still offensive in concept, even if nobody (that would be significant) has visibly reacted to it, just as using symbology that is offensive to a certain cultural group would be offensive even if nobody cared abut it.

b. Offense is only taken if offense is chosen to be taken. If no offense is chosen to be taken, then the issue becomes a lot less sensitive.

i. That would imply that all concepts of offense reside solely in the human mind and if no human is offended, then it isn't offensive. This also implies that symbols (or the misinterpretations thereof) are not inherently offensive, and I'll stop before the mods can stop me.

c. Japan does this misrepresentation itself, both to its own culture (and other East Asian cultures) (ie Naruto, Dragon Ball, Ranma ½, Fist of the North Star, Dynasty Warriors, Sengoku Basara, etc.) and to Western cultures (ie Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, the Tales series, Disgaea, Hellsing, many Nasuverse works, etc.)

i. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the point is irrelevant.

d. Ninja are not part of modern day Japanese culture; therefore, anybody comparing this to Bionicle and the Maori is making a flawed comparison.

i. Comparison aside, it is still offensive in terms of cultural history, as a major part of a culture is being completely taken out of its original context and used for something completely different than what it was meant to be used for.

B. Ninjago can still be enjoyed without nitpicking the details; at face value, it is a good story, nothing more. Why make such a big deal out of it?

1. Choosing to simply ignore the issue will not resolve it; rather, it will only further exacerbate it, as it will further work towards ingraining misconceptions pertaining to Ninja. Due to this series being targeted towards grade school boys, it will further reinforce the already incredibly powerful ninja stereotype.

a. However, the series may cause said children to gain interest in actual Japanese culture, and learn the actual version of it, something that may not be possible without first presenting something that is fun and interesting as well as something that cannot be related to.

C. (This point may be a repeat) The series isn't about Japan to begin with. Why make such a big deal over whether or not it is accurate in its depiction of Japan?

1. Then why include the very concept of Ninja, Asian names, Shrines, Dragons, etc etc at all? It would have been better to use an original or a culture-neutral concept.

a. Because it is something that audiences will recognize off the bat. Using an original concept may cause confusion to the audience, especially children, which the series is directed towards.

2. Then why not make that clearer from the get-go to avoid confusion. Then again, if it really had nothing to do with Japan, why use Japanese concepts in the first place? (Tying back into Section C Point 1).

 

 

 

... Okay, I gave up. This is not a complete list, but it should summarize many of the arguments presented in the topic. Take a good look at it.

 

However, this brings me back to my original point: while the issue presented in the OP may or may not agree with your view, is it really worth making a 140-something post debate that leads into dangerous waters? To be generalize a lot, half of you are blowing the issue way out of proportion and the other half or you seem to either believe the issue holds no merit or refuse to recognize the issue at all. This discussion isn't going to go very far if you guys keep playing at this... Not that it was worth taking this far to begin with.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Man of Miracles

[Hodor]

So far as that goes, then, I defer to both of your judgment and memory about the ripoffs. In that case, then, Mr. Bonesii and Ms. SC I move back to my first question, and the point I made at the bottom of my last post.

 

Can you really judge a culture by how long it has existed?

 

That is my answer to you, Mr. IHodor. That, and the fact that the age of the culture is irrelevant to the argument. the realness versus un-realness is the point of the argument.

 

Edit: In my focus on your point, I didn't see what you did there till now. Nice, and none taken

 

*Sigh* only a few posts into a new forum, and I'm back in debate club.

 

except that it's completely and utterly ridiculous to compare a fandom of a product without any real impact on... anything really, to what's probably one of the most intriguing cultures on Earth.

 

This would be like comparing the culture around Tolkien fans to Rome. Sure, they share some common ground, but it's ultimately dragging down something to the level of a bunch of nerds who talk about elves and if the guy would've liked Peter Jackson's adaptations (the answer being 'no', most likely, Tolkien hated the BBC audio adaption of LotR for 'getting the voices wrong').

[NoReturnPoint]

 

Can you really judge a culture by how long it has existed?

Something that always fascinates me is, whenever someone makes a positive or negative statement about culture, you can usually find a valid opinion that states the opposite, to some extent.

 

If someone answers, "yes", to this, then my gut reaction would to consider the alternative; all old cultures began young, and new culture-forming does not arbitrarily stop at any point.

 

On the other hand, if someone answers, "no", then I would object that the longer a culture is around, the deeper significance it may take to the lives of those in it. Now you're identifying with your very ancestors, and that is intensely meaningful.

 

So, I don't think it's a simple question. Maybe you didn't mean it to be, just giving my two cents.

 

 

I don't know whom you are quoting, me or Mr. TPA, but since you quoted in my font color, I'll assume it's me. And I agree with you, although cultures can mean more or less to you depending upon how it affects your life. Bionicle means a lot to me, and so it's culture impacts me strongly. However, my hereditary culture is Scotch-Irish, yet it doesn't affect me since my interaction with it is limited (I live in America).

 

Like you said, you say one thing, I think the other automatically

 

This conversation is more about human nature than Ninjago

 

-NRP

[bonesiii]

If no offense is chosen to be taken, then the issue has lost all of its meaning.

Ehhhhh.... It's generally unwise to use absolute negatives. I would hope nobody here thinks that. Not sure how to explain why I say that though. I believe in choosing not to be offended about a LOT of things, but there is still meaning. Still room for constructive criticism, for example, withOUT being offended.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

I don't know whom you are quoting, me or Mr. TPA, but since you quoted in my font color, I'll assume it's me.

Both, I guess, or more that I had something to say to the idea in the question.

Edited January 29, 2014 by bonesiii

[Constructelf]

Oh, okay. That makes sense. I guess I should have been more specific in terms of "issue".

[NoReturnPoint]

 

So far as that goes, then, I defer to both of your judgment and memory about the ripoffs. In that case, then, Mr. Bonesii and Ms. SC I move back to my first question, and the point I made at the bottom of my last post.

 

Can you really judge a culture by how long it has existed?

 

That is my answer to you, Mr. IHodor. That, and the fact that the age of the culture is irrelevant to the argument. the realness versus un-realness is the point of the argument.

 

Edit: In my focus on your point, I didn't see what you did there till now. Nice, and none taken

 

*Sigh* only a few posts into a new forum, and I'm back in debate club.

 

except that it's completely and utterly ridiculous to compare a fandom of a product without any real impact on... anything really, to what's probably one of the most intriguing cultures on Earth.

 

This would be like comparing the culture around Tolkien fans to Rome. Sure, they share some common ground, but it's ultimately dragging down something to the level of a bunch of nerds who talk about elves and if the guy would've liked Peter Jackson's adaptations (the answer being 'no', most likely, Tolkien hated the BBC audio adaption of LotR for 'getting the voices wrong').

 

 

I don't believe so, sir. Both the Japanese system of life and the Bionicle fandom have traditions, beliefs, and unspoken rules; both have a dedicated following. My general rule is: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck; no matter how old or young the duck is, or what colors of feathers it has There may be different species, but they're still ducks.

 

-NRP

[25K Now!]

They're actually geese.

[Constructelf]

They're actually geese.

Last time I checked, geese don't look too much like ducks.

[Sumiki]

This debate has long since spun out of control in way too many different directions. There's obviously no communication going on in any direction, and in four pages of endless rebuttals, no one is going to change their minds.

That said, I would like to make the point that just because something isn't offensive to certain people of a certain culture doesn't mean that it's right, or that it's automatically not offensive to a culture or a race just because one person isn't offended. Likewise, it's impossible to say that, if one person is offended, that the material that they are offended at is automatically offensive - but in that case, there usually are some problematic aspects to the thing that they're offended at.

[Eyru]

Nobody can tell someone else whether or not they're allowed to be offended. That's a personal choice. This debate should have ended with that, because there's honestly no other way forward. If someone is offended that a toy company appropriated parts of their culture and Westernized them, then that's their decision, and it's nobody else's job to tell them that they're right or wrong.

 

So, could someone be offended over LEGO's appropriation of Japanese culture? Yes. Should they be? Eh... personally, I'd say there are more pressing issues in our world to get riled up over. But here's the kicker: my thoughts don't matter.

 

Let me say it again: my thoughts don't matter.

 

And your thoughts don't matter either, unless you're Japanese, and it's your culture that's being appropriated. It's nobody else's job or place to get offended for other people, or to tell them that they shouldn't be offended at something. It's beyond arrogant to assume that you know what is offensive and what isn't, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

 

[bonesiii]

Nobody can tell someone else whether or not they're allowed to be offended. That's a personal choice. [...]

 

Let me say it again: my thoughts don't matter.

 

And your thoughts don't matter either, unless you're Japanese, and it's your culture that's being appropriated. It's nobody else's job or place to get offended for other people

This is certainly a wise philosophy to adopt, but keep in mind, that if someone cannot be told whether or not they're allowed to be offended, then by the same token, someone cannot be told that it's not their place to get offended for other people. I'm not saying I think people should do that, but just pointing out that that's a flaw in the reasoning.

[Toatapio Nuva]

I agree with the fact that LEGO uses Japanese culture to make money. At the same time I can't really be bothered by it. In other words, not a big deal for me. I can imagine it being that to many Japanese, though.

 

Ninjago as a LEGO toyline is a different matter. I find it beyond disappointing and I have many unpopular opinions against it. But this is not the right place to voice those.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Toatapio Nuva

[fishers64]

Let me put it this way.

 

some critics is offended because of how Japanese culture is interpreted in Ninjago. Regardless of whether or not it is logical or rational, she is still offended, therefore it is still offensive, because she is offended. Regardless of intention of offense, the fact that offense occurs is still offensive to her, because it is.

 

Now all, the concern that she is raising may or may not be legitimate. I've heard good arguments both ways, and I think it's a valid topic for discussion. But I want to put this silly argument over offense to rest. One person in the universe is offended over the way Japan is represented in Ninjago. We do not have information on how the rest of the universe thinks. More or less people may be offended than we realize.

 

Also, once an offense has already occurred, it is very difficult to undo the offense in that person's mind. It is a very hard thing to do to become un-offended at something that has offended you in the past. At the same time, it is also very difficult to write a story with the fear of possibly offending everyone hanging over your head. A compromise must be reached between doing things that obviously offend people for no good reason, and being able to produce a creative work without being accused of micronic cultural violations.

 

Lastly, I would like to point out that, for many people, the choice to be offended or not be offended is a subconscious response beyond many people's control. While that response can be controlled and disregarded with proper mental discipline (and other such factors many eliminate that reaction altogether), people don't always have it. This is not to insult some critics in any way, whose rationale for offense may have logical basis. This is also not to insult those who have this mental discipline - to a degree, I possess it, but I know that I didn't always have it. It took me many trials and hardships to overcome my tendency to become offended at stuff (and by extension, to realize how effective and necessary logic was to weigh my own thoughts and communicate effectively).

 

If you doubt me, know that I am speaking as a fellow girl. This argument's beginning did not proceed from logic; it proceeded from offense, an emotional reaction. Any logic that proceeds from or tries to disprove this argument will invariably fall flat on its face, because it did not begin with logic.

 

Illogic + logic = more illogic.

 

In my experience, (correct me if I'm wrong on this, it may not be happening here, even though I think it is) this sort of pattern usually happens when someone is looking for validation for their emotionally based line of reasoning. Their emotion is real, therefore they are always right, because their emotion is real, and any attack on their position (logical or not) is misconstrued as denying their emotion's validity or existence. In this case, offense at Ninjago for their cultural appropriation is very real for some critics. In such cases, the response the person wants is sympathy, not logic. (This is how girls normally communicate, often. I happen to be an exception to this rule - or at least, I try to avoid it, as it doesn't make any sense at all!!! This is not limited to girls though - I've seen guys use it, it's just more common among girls IMO.) If I am wrong on this, I apologize profusely, some critics. But we are talking to a bunch of guys here. I think bones' gender confusion and repeated demands for logic kinda speak for themselves, yes?

 

Now, the above is ONLY referring to the offense debate. It is NOT referring to the logical debate that is occurring simultaneously in this same topic, and which the lines between the two are rapidly becoming blurred.

 

This debate is:

A) whether Lego actually (intentionally or not) misconstrued and disrespected Japanese culture

and

B) whether Lego should do more research into cultural material they adopt to avoid offending people of that culture

and

C) whether or not Japanese people are actually offended by Ninjago.

 

To the end of these logical points, I agree with bonesiii : we need the facts. We cannot accuse Lego of disrespecting something if we don't know the respect it deserves. Some being needs to do some research to show what items are being stripped of their cultural significance, and what significance these cultural icons have that's being mutilated by Ninjago, in order to make a case. Some beings have brought forth evidence around C; I find that valuable.

 

 

I'm not a moderator; this is just how I view this whole thing. It's my hope that my commentary will shed some light on this and I'm sorry if any of the above post offends anyone.