The Problem with Ninjago

[dviddy]

I am incredibly uncomfortable having a conversation on cultural appropriation vis-a-vis another culture and not doing so with a member of that culture present.

[bonesiii]

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.

Both those points really resonate with me. As a sort of amateur "mentalist" and physics geek, I always see these things in light of neurology, and the fact that when someone experiences an emotion, for whatever reason, just as when they experience a thought (whether logical or illogical, though that's neither here nor there), a new neural connection is created. The stronger the emotion, the stronger the connection. The experience literally re-wires the brain, and when someone is offended, that's a very strong emotion, solidifying the programming in that way very resiliently.

 

This means that even with a strong desire due to other parts of the brain to try not to feel offended, the best of us will have difficulty consciously "reprogramming" ourselves to get over the learned tendency to repeatedly experience offense related to that action. And this is why, as you said, responding to such things in a combative way just doesn't work (and like I said, I obviously initially misjudged the strength of that in sc's mind, for which I apologize -- though having not yet met anyone with such a strong reaction about Ninjago I guess it's to be expected that it would seem unlikely).

 

Going back to my theory that ultimately, even though I'm a logician, the meaning for everything is rooted in whether positive or negative emotions are experienced, then, responding insensitively to such things (even though they are legitimately creating unfair hyperbole, and may even be offensive to others!) is wrong. (Of course I have deeper reasons for this we can't discuss here, but just looking at what hopefully everybody can agree on.) And for the same reason, I think this is where the idea that something can be offensive, even if it's not intended to cause offense, comes in. This is why there's some subjectivity in this.

 

However, by the same token (and what I hope sc and others can come to realize), it's also thus true that it may be very difficult to predict what things will activate those painful neurological programs in others. Again, given that I have seen reactions to Ninjago posted across several incarnations of it, and I don't recall any that were actually offended (though I do recall one member who saw things like this as a problem), it seems that this particular reaction is not likely to have been foreseen by LEGO or anyone else.

 

Keep in mind too, folks, that LEGO heavily focus-group tests all its lines before going public with them. If there was significant sensitivity to the things they used, they almost certainly would never have used them.

 

 

But like you say, fishers, all of that is logic, and doesn't change the intensity of the emotion. Personally, though, I find that understanding how the mechanics of the neurology of the thing work, along with the fact that we CAN consciously reprogram ourselves to improve (though it will be harder for things that were more intense), can work wonders even there. The logic, it seems to me, very well can have a healing effect (the whole idea of Vulcans in Star Trek actually was inspired by this, of course -- but then that show also continually explored how those embracing logic can be off-putting to those who don't as much, and I would find as much fault if not more with how Spock would treat people, for example, something that by no means is necessary for a real logician).

 

More two cents. Anywho, I'm glad to see this topic does appear to have settled down a little, at least. I'll leave it open for tonight, and hope as always with complaint topics that it will remain open so further discussion can hopefully help us all learn from others' perspectives.

 

Behave, folks.

 

 

Edit:

 

Oh, and I forgot to even get to the second point in that quote lol. Tired. But yeah, as an aspiring writer, that matters to me a lot. A very strong case can be made that it is very insensitive to treat authors with such condescension, when they just wanted to make an enjoyable story -- often an enjoyable story that also teaches some beneficial moral lessons too. It just seems to miss the point. This is a big part of why I referred to that as apparently anti-imagination, though admittedly it's not that simple; quality also comes into play.

 

At the same time, I constantly try to think of ways what I'm writing might offend some people and try to think of other ways to handle and guesstimate if they will succeed at offending far less people if any, etc. Sometimes I end up thinking, "a few people MIGHT be offended at this, and I'm honestly not sure how I would react if they do, but I really hope they don't, because it seems very good from my perspective."

 

And on that note, another point someone brought up that I didn't have time to get to, is whether it matters that a higher or lower number of people get offended by something. To me it has to matter, for the simple reasons that there is the potential for at least one person to be offended at anything, and (probably more important), many times in life mutually exclusive alternatives will be offensive to someone, so that no matter what you do, you can't succeed at offending nobody. Since our goal should be to minimize suffering, our goal should be to find whichever alternative offends the least. But this, too, has obvious problems (I could write a book on why but probably everybody reading can think of a few ).

 

There's no easy answer to this, and that's why it still seems to me that the best starting point to finding an answer is for everybody to choose to appreciate all others who are different, and thus try hard to favor forgiveness over offense. (But going along with constructive criticism.)

Edited January 29, 2014 by bonesiii

[InnerRayg]

 

 

The thing is, Lego didn't do this intentionally, so why should it be taken in an offensive manner?

See the thing is when people unintentionally offend they still offend. The Washington Redskins aren't intentionally being offensive to the natives but it's still coming off that way.

 

Yet I hear very little of people complaining about it.

Maybe because it's not actually offending anyone?

 

This is going to seem a little off topic, but I feel like jumping in on this comment will illuminate the problem many of you are having with understanding what some critics is trying to say. The post above me illustrates ignorance of an issue due to lack of visibility - this person obviously does not live in an area where Native American people are prevalent. Not unsurprising, when the vast amount of them live in places like Oklahoma. This also happens to be my home, and thanks to that, I have a front row seat to the reaction to these sorts of things from the actual people they offend. I'm not native myself, so I can't speak for them, but I can echo what I've heard said, which is that VERY UNDERSTANDABLY sports team names like these are in VERY BAD TASTE. Not only do the mascots and logos tend to be racist caricatures that diminish what is a wide swath of cultures and peoples, but they literally dehumanize native people by making them equivalent to animals or sock colors or whatever given minor entity is usually chosen from a sports team's name. Frankly it's a disgrace these kinds of things are still around and not some silly sidenote in a history textbook - but they are, and all too often they're defended by people because it's "all in fun", a "tradition", or something that has become part of "american culture". All in good fun, but at the end of the day the microcosm of ideas these racist caricatures perpetuate in people's minds (right alongside many other forms of the same thing; Disney has some particularly funny ideas about what native peoples are like in Peter Pan for example) will begin to form a grander picture for them that damages their understanding of reality to such an extent that they think it must be truth.

 

The Ninjago argument isn't really about Ninjago. Ninjago is just a microcosm of grander forces at work - thousands of pieces of media each giving off their own misunderstandings and misappropriations of Japanese culture because "it's cool". And sure, taken one by one, none of them could be perceived as particularly harmful. The problem is the grander understanding created in people's minds by these memetic ideas, and I don't mean just "the dumb ones" when I say people's minds. I mean many of you arguing in this thread, I mean some of the most intelligent people I know. It happens, it's unavoidable, and the best thing you can do is try to correct the misunderstanding in whatever small way you can. That's all this is about, it's not a witch hunt for people who enjoy the toyline or call to riot. Let's try to keep it in perspective shall we?

[Sir Kohran]

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.

 

For some critics to be personally offended, wouldn't she have to be Japanese? If she isn't, is it not the case that she's claiming the line is offensive to people who are Japanese and disapproving of this?

 

I am not and cannot be offended by the movie 300 and its negative portrayal of the Persians, yet many Iranians were, arguably with some justification, because what was portrayed is a part of their history and heritage. Can the same be said of Ninjago and Japanese people?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sir Kohran

[Reznas]

I hate to say it this way, but does it really matter? Preserving the Japanese culture, or any culture for that matter, is important, but unless you are Japanese, what is it that offends you? From what I've seen, there haven't been any complaints thus far from the Japanese people. If they aren't worried about Ninjago, and the misrepresentations it yields, then what makes you worried about it? I'm just curious. Cultural appropriation is indeed a problem in our society, but why attack a child's toy line for presenting ninjas as warriors and heroes? I can understand the issue with the shrines and temples being misconstrued, but beyond that, every aspect that even slightly corresponds to an aspect of Japanese culture, whether in a misrepresented or accurate format, was not intentionally conjured to instill cultural prejudice and/or discrimination.

 

Just my two cents.

 

-Rez

[Constructelf]

 

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.

 

For some critics to be personally offended, wouldn't she have to be Japanese? If she isn't, is it not the case that she's claiming the line is offensive to people who are Japanese and disapproving of this?

 

I am not and cannot be offended by the movie 300 and its negative portrayal of the Persians, yet many Iranians were, arguably with some justification, because what was portrayed is a part of their history and heritage. Can the same be said of Ninjago and Japanese people?

No, she wouldn't have to be Japanese. She can get offended just the same due to perceived empathy for the other culture. For example, I'm Chinese, but I can still feel that many Western films from the John Wayne era were offensive towards First Nations people. One doesn't have to be personally offended simply because they're the target of the offense; they can be offended either through a logical deduction leading to the conclusion "X is wrong" or through empathy for the target group, regardless if said group is offended or not.

[You just lost the game]

 

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.

 

For some critics to be personally offended, wouldn't she have to be Japanese? If she isn't, is it not the case that she's claiming the line is offensive to people who are Japanese and disapproving of this?

 

I am not and cannot be offended by the movie 300 and its negative portrayal of the Persians, yet many Iranians were, arguably with some justification, because what was portrayed is a part of their history and heritage. Can the same be said of Ninjago and Japanese people?

 

She can be offended, but her claims hold less weight because she isn't Japanese.

 

I wouldn't quite think the same thing could be said about Ninjago.

300 took an actual point in history and revised it.

Ninjago has nothing to do with any point of history, and simply makes its own.

 

 

 

The thing is, Lego didn't do this intentionally, so why should it be taken in an offensive manner?

See the thing is when people unintentionally offend they still offend. The Washington Redskins aren't intentionally being offensive to the natives but it's still coming off that way.

 

Yet I hear very little of people complaining about it.

Maybe because it's not actually offending anyone?

 

This is going to seem a little off topic, but I feel like jumping in on this comment will illuminate the problem many of you are having with understanding what some critics is trying to say. The post above me illustrates ignorance of an issue due to lack of visibility - this person obviously does not live in an area where Native American people are prevalent. Not unsurprising, when the vast amount of them live in places like Oklahoma. This also happens to be my home, and thanks to that, I have a front row seat to the reaction to these sorts of things from the actual people they offend. I'm not native myself, so I can't speak for them, but I can echo what I've heard said, which is that VERY UNDERSTANDABLY sports team names like these are in VERY BAD TASTE. Not only do the mascots and logos tend to be racist caricatures that diminish what is a wide swath of cultures and peoples, but they literally dehumanize native people by making them equivalent to animals or sock colors or whatever given minor entity is usually chosen from a sports team's name. Frankly it's a disgrace these kinds of things are still around and not some silly sidenote in a history textbook - but they are, and all too often they're defended by people because it's "all in fun", a "tradition", or something that has become part of "american culture". All in good fun, but at the end of the day the microcosm of ideas these racist caricatures perpetuate in people's minds (right alongside many other forms of the same thing; Disney has some particularly funny ideas about what native peoples are like in Peter Pan for example) will begin to form a grander picture for them that damages their understanding of reality to such an extent that they think it must be truth.

 

Actually, I live in a very Native American prevalent area. There are about 5 reserves around where I live.

I'm even part Native myself.

Where I live, I hear less about racial stereotyping and more about infringement on Indian rights.

 

Also keep in mind, that many teams in baseball were made in a very different time period ,where thoughts were very different from what they are now.

What might not be acceptable today, was acceptable back then.

Edited January 29, 2014 by You just lost the game

[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.

 

For some critics to be personally offended, wouldn't she have to be Japanese? If she isn't, is it not the case that she's claiming the line is offensive to people who are Japanese and disapproving of this?

 

I am not and cannot be offended by the movie 300 and its negative portrayal of the Persians, yet many Iranians were, arguably with some justification, because what was portrayed is a part of their history and heritage. Can the same be said of Ninjago and Japanese people?

 

I don't think talking about people behind their backs is a good idea, and I started it. I'm sorry. (I was trying to bring some enlightenment to the debate, and I was tired too, so my presentation suffered.)

 

But we don't know the nationality of some critics. Further, I'm just observing sc's behavior in this topic, including her statements about offense that have been repeated several times. I noticed that these statements were incredibly consistent with someone who is offended (it's a pattern that I've observed in others and myself, TBH). In any case, sc seems to be familiar enough with Japanese culture to be offended about these elements' treatment in Ninjago.

 

Also, I could be misreading this situation entirely. But I noticed that the debate was spinning in circles, so I concluded that it was very likely, enough to post it.

 

No, she wouldn't have to be Japanese. She can get offended just the same due to perceived empathy for the other culture. For example, I'm Chinese, but I can still feel that many Western films from the John Wayne era were offensive towards First Nations people. One doesn't have to be personally offended simply because they're the target of the offense; they can be offended either through a logical deduction leading to the conclusion "X is wrong" or through empathy for the target group, regardless if said group is offended or not.

 

This guy took the words from my mouth.

 

EDIT: Also, guys, please see this blog entry.

Edited January 29, 2014 by fishers64

[Meiko]

Are Japanese people really going to be offended when their architectural style of temples is used to hold weapons and be the home of dragons? I don't think so. Are the French offended when the Eiffel Tower gets destroyed in a disaster film? No, I don't believe they do. Do the Americans get offended when the Statue of Liberty is made to be an extremely deadly alien in a Doctor Who episode? No, they don't. Do British people get offended when Parliament gets blown up as a sign of anarchy in graphic novels/movies like V For Vendetta? No, they don't. So please, do us all a favour and stop acting like the Japanese culture would be offended by Ninjago when you aren't a part of that culture and are in no place to speak for their opinions.

[Sumiki]

The Eiffel Tower holds a different place in society than sacred temples and shrines do. Western society knows a lot about what the Eiffel Tower is, but very little about the cultural significance of Japanese temples. We've come to view them for something that they aren't - because they aren't like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. They're just not equivalent.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sumiki

[Reznas]

Something I forgot to add: it's important to understand that the assumption that most in this discussion have already made is that the "temple(s)" in the Ninjago series are appropriations of the Japanese culture. But if the temple(s) look anything remotely close to this, do note that there have been hundreds of films that have used that same style of architecture, and while water-downing the significance of such temples is wrong, they have unfortunately become a Western icon for Japan. When I think of Japan, those exact temples come to mind. In fact, I never knew they were actually temples until recently. I would not be surprised if the majority of Western culture is pretty ignorant of that as well. And while this is unfortunate, blaming LEGO for cultural appropriation is not helping anything. Instead, why not argue against the heart of cultural appropriation, which is Western culture. LEGO is only going by what is the Western norm.

 

Believe me, I see the cultural ignorance so many people seem to hold. I live in a completely different culture, in Moscow, Russia. A majority of Americans don't even know that Russia is no longer part of the Soviet Union. You have no idea how many questions I get asked about communism and the mafia. It's sad. But there is a fair share of ignorance being passed around in the East as well (while Moscow is technically a part of Europe, its culture is more prevalently Eastern). Spending time with Russians has given me the impression that they, too, are ignorant of other cultures. Russians watch countless American films, and are quite presumptuous about Americans based on those films. On top of that, their government feeds them their own political propaganda: that America is not all it's cut out to be (which truthfully it isn't, but that's irrelevant), among other things.

 

Cultural appropriation is real, but LEGO is the not the culprit. It is simply a bystander, and despite its ignorance, its intentions are probably fairly innocent (excluding their desire for more cash…).

 

-Rez

[dviddy]

Seriously though, without a person from that culture to represent that culture's views on the subject, the debate here is, well, awkward at best, and emblematic of the huge "white saviour complex" embodied by a large swath of American media and culture. The situation is not akin to black face, or native american/first people mascots, as we know those are offensive because those people have said so.

There is a very, very, very large distinction between cultural appropriation and cultural synthesis. Japan and the United States (and the rest of the Western world) are engaged in very clear and obvious cultural synthesis. They have adopted many of "our" themes, tropes, symbols, and ideas, and merged them into their culture, and vice versa. This is not appropriation, it is assimilation and pollination. It is a cultural synthesis. Western icons such as "cowboys" or "knights" or "vikings" or "preachers" or what-have-you are commonly represented in Japanese media, and Japanese tropes like ninjas or samurais consistently work their way into our cultures.

This is not cultural appropriation.

The Japanese have been satirizing and making stories out of ninjas since the Edo period in the 1600s. The ninja has not been a serious Japanese icon to be revered and respected for hundreds of years. It is not a sacred place in their culture, it is not a religious icon, it is not a class or group Japanese all associate themselves with (and only a small handful of people in modern Japan actually profess to be ninjas). It is a remnant of a different time period, much as knights or the feudal system in Western Europe are now. The Japanese culture does not hold ninjas in this weirdly sacred belief system in their culture as implied in this topic- indeed, the Western view of ninjas was lifted nearly wholesale from Japanese ninja flicks produced in Japan by Japan for Japan in the 1960s.

The ninja is a cultural icon from a culture that has long since evolved and moved past a formal recognition of that icon. Much like the American Cowboy, the ninja is a trope and little more, regardless of the knickers-twisting in this topic. A cursory look at the ninja phenomenon immediately clears this misconception up. When the Western idea of a ninja is based on the exact same portrayal that the Japanese give their own icon- that is not cultural appropriation. It is cultural synthesis.

We can definitely talk about cultural appropriation, because that is crazy important. It's the reason the Brony community makes me uncomfortable- they have taken something designed for an under-represented group (young girls) and turned it into a phenomenon where the original, under-served group is now rendered entirely unimportant. They have, in effect, stolen it. This is not the case for the ninja trope (or vice versa, the Cowboy trope in Japan). Japanese media continues to use the ninja trope unfettered by Western usage (as evidenced in Japanese video games, anime, manga, and popular media).

Western culture has traded icons with Eastern (or at least, Japanese) culture. Anime came about as Japanese artists wanted to mimic Western cartoons (and animation has done a weird 1080 degree round and round since then, which is utterly fascinating). The rugged individualist, the religious preacher, the cowboy, the dedicated chivalrous knight, etc. All of these have found their way into Eastern media and culture as well, and have pervaded Eastern culture the same way ninjas and samurai have here. And both those transactions were based on the then-normal view these icons held in their originating cultures. One of the main arguments made here was that Japanese usage of Western icons were based on Western trope versions of these icons- but the same is absolutely true of the reverse.

We can absolutely talk about the appropriation of Japanese culture, the fetishizing of Eastern cultures and peoples. Things like Katy Perry's Geisha outfit, or Lady Gaga's "Kawaii" outfit are perfect examples of a cultural idea ripped from their history and used with no knowledge of what they are from. The idea that an entire group of men exist who seek out Asian women for stereotypical mannerisms or ideals is infuriating. I am curious how many of the people arguing here would consider themselves Japanophiles, and wonder if you would see the same sort of fetishization in your own interest in that culture? After all, one of the reasons we get so drawn to other cultures is precisely because they are so different. And the viewing of Japanese culture as "exotic" and "different" is part of the problem in Western media representation. It's a rabbit hole. It really is.

Whether we like it or not, some times icons become a part of global culture- again, I'll reference the Cowboy or Viking from Western culture, or the influence of American hip-hop on world musical trends. Ninjas have become part of that same global culture. Whether you like it or not matters little, to be frank. The Japanese created the ninja icon themselves, and we borrowed the trope, and in return, lent them several of ours. This is how cultural synthesis works.

I don't have a lot of other comments, though there are a few I'd like to address very briefly:

- The most important weapon in Japan's history is rumoured to be hidden in a shrine of extreme religious importance. The Japanese long hid weapons in shrines dedicated to war deities, especially as part of Shinto belief.
- The dragons in Ninjago are generally pretty obviously European dragons instead of traditional Eastern dragons. But as dragons are a shared cultural icon, I'm not sure whether or not that is good, bad, or indifferent, especially as Ninjago takes place in a fantasy land that does not exist.
- The architecture is no more sacred to the Japanese than the Cathedral is to Catholicism. Both are designed to be holy and sacred- both exist in cultural memory as shorthand for "this place is important". It is actually super common for European Cathedrals to hide weapons of great importance (and Japanese media often showcases important weapons being hidden in Japanese temples too, anime is rife with this trope).
- I do have more worry about appropriating sacred spaces than I do about old tropes. Borrowing a sacred element of a religious tradition can be problematic, and the usage of things like "Shrine" or "Temple", I agree, is awkward at best. Considering Shintoism is still a widespread system, and most assuredly not well understood, I would tend to agree that this usage, if these architectural standouts are evocative of just Shinto or other religious architecture and not a cursory glance at a simplified version of traditional Eastern architecture, is closer to appropriation than exchange, and would prefer a different terminology by TLG.

And to this:

[Regarding Japanese religious practice being prevalent] This is the case with Japanese culture.

It actually is not- anywhere from 2/3s to 4/5s of all Japanese persons identify as religion-less. Though the symbolism in modern Japan is often heavily borrowed from their religious past, Japan is a severely secular and areligious society. It contains one of the highest concentrations of self-professed atheists in the world.

This would be an entirely different conversation if the ninja was a serious and revered symbol in Japanese culture that Western culture and media was using without an understanding of the original culture's use. But it is not.

I want to emphasize that because that part is what actually matters. We borrowed the ninja trope from Japan in the manner they were already using it.

That is what makes this cultural synthesis or cultural assimilation or cultural exchange (god I hate theories that have several names for the same phenomena) vs cultural appropriation, which was nailed firmly in the comment earlier that specified Western icons were borrowed by the Japanese in the manner the tropes had already been established.

I want to make it absolutely 100 percent clear that cultural appropriation is a bad thing, and that the general use of Asian (not just Japanese) imagery in Western media is generally appropriation, and that this is bad. Were that the case in this instance, I would be 100 percent on board with this thread. Indeed, if we were simply talking about Geisha vs ninjas, this entire thread would be vindicated. But we're not.

(One of the neat things about both ninjas and knights both is that they both have a very obvious and well-known archetypical depiction in media and toys, and yet both systems of fighting, weapon creation, history, etc, are still available and practiced in the modern day by re-creationists dedicated to historical accuracy. A historically accurate joust is amazing to watch. The history of ninjas both in actual history and in Japanese pop-culture, and then global pop-culture is fascinating and books upon books have been written on them. Absolutely fascinating the way cultures share archetypes and iconography and symbols, and also appalling when cultural hallmarks are ripped from one culture and fetishized in another.)

 

There is a lot in the history of Western Imperialism (and a lot of history of Eastern Imperialism western history is remarkably ignorant of, but very obviously not to the same modern extent that Western Imperialism has shaped global culture in modern-day Earth, so don't worry, not downplaying the impact of Western Imperialism) that is bad, and cultural appropriation rates very, very high on that list. Indeed, much of modern and contemporary Japanese history has "Western intervention" written deep, deep into it, with the US and Matthew Perry having set the stage for the modernization of Japan, and it could be argued, the sentiments inside Japan that led to its involvement in WWII. Regardless of this, the ninja was exchanged to the west in the 1960s, really hitting public consciousness in the 1980s, and at this point, the usage of the ninja in the West was analogous to the usage of the ninja within Japan itself.

TL:DR: There is a lot about Japanese culture in the west that is absolutely cultural appropriation, but ninjas and shrines with sacred weapons are not one of them.

[Sumiki]

And to this:

[Regarding Japanese religious practice being prevalent] This is the case with Japanese culture.

It actually is not- anywhere from 2/3s to 4/5s of all Japanese persons identify as religion-less. Though the symbolism in modern Japan is often heavily borrowed from their religious past, Japan is a severely secular and areligious society. It contains one of the highest concentrations of self-professed atheists in the world.

 

This would be an entirely different conversation if the ninja was a serious and revered symbol in Japanese culture that Western culture and media was using without an understanding of the original culture's use. But it is not.

 

Perhaps the point I was trying to make was not very clear here, and for that I apologize. What I was trying to get across was that temples and shrines have their origins in religion, and Japanese culture during the "ninja heyday," if you will, was religious.

 

As you correctly stated, a plurality of Japanese people have no religion, but Ninjago is not really drawing from today's Japanese culture. The current religious makeup of Japan doesn't really have much to do with the debate.

[AuRon the champion]

Let me get this all straightened out.

 

sc thinks Ninjago, a child's toyline created to be fun and enjoyable for the children it represents, is actually insulting because it doesn't correctly portray Japanese culture?

 

In that case, I should be horrendously offended by every single anime/manga ever that doesn't correctly portray my culture and lifestyle correctly?

 

I'm a fan of Transformers. Most "transfans" have realized that Hasbro makes Transformers to sell toys, not to ram some political/social/economic agenda down our throats. I'm sure if Lego was some sort of ultra-racist (you know the ones, don't pretend you don't) organization, and this was part of an elaborate scheme to insult and make eastern people feel terrible about their lives, then yes, you'd have a valid reason to complain.

But since it's not, why are we having this discussion again?

Common sense people. If anyone on BZP (or elsewhere on the internet) is an actual person of eastern descent who practices Shintoism, and is offended by Ninjago, a child's toy, let them come forward and voice their complaints now.

Oh wait.

There isn't.

[dviddy]

 

And to this:

[Regarding Japanese religious practice being prevalent] This is the case with Japanese culture.

It actually is not- anywhere from 2/3s to 4/5s of all Japanese persons identify as religion-less. Though the symbolism in modern Japan is often heavily borrowed from their religious past, Japan is a severely secular and areligious society. It contains one of the highest concentrations of self-professed atheists in the world.

 

This would be an entirely different conversation if the ninja was a serious and revered symbol in Japanese culture that Western culture and media was using without an understanding of the original culture's use. But it is not.

 

Perhaps the point I was trying to make was not very clear here, and for that I apologize. What I was trying to get across was that temples and shrines have their origins in religion, and Japanese culture during the "ninja heyday," if you will, was religious.

 

As you correctly stated, a plurality of Japanese people have no religion, but Ninjago is not really drawing from today's Japanese culture. The current religious makeup of Japan doesn't really have much to do with the debate.

 

And Cathedrals and churches have their origins in religion, and Japanese culture using those as shorthand for "incredibly important building to hide sacred relics/weapons in" is further proof of the cultural exchange the two cultures have engaged in during the modern era. They do this in Final Fantasy, Zelda, etc. Clearly Christian churches used outside of Christian traditions to harbor powerful weapons or relics to other gods. I'm really failing to see how this is appropriation. (Hint: because it's not, it's cultural exchange, synthesis, and assimilation wherein both cultures retain their original usage of the other item and spread that same usage to the other culture.)

[Toa Zaz]

You're right that inspirations from Eastern culture are few and far between, really stereotypical and crude, and demonstrate an inaccurate and politically incorrect view of Eastern culture that at least borders on racism. I would also add that the characters/settings typically appear to be European, marginalizing people of color whom the ninja theme took inspiration from. This is just as deeply problematic in Lego's other themes and their use of a non-neutral yellow as skin color. Yellow is obviously a stand-in for white, as in the Simpsons; this is more evident in the detailed modern minifigures with clearly all European features, and also the fact that in The Lego Movie the non-licensed character that Morgan Freeman plays is black and not yellow, because yellow=white. But I digress.

I would also add that the marginalization of women in Ninjago is very problematic/offensive (Ninjago is better than other Lego themes, but not much).

However, I enjoy the anachronistic inclusion of Western elements such as robots, high-tech vehicles like airplanes, etc. It makes little sense, but neither does Ninjago really, and it fits the universe well. The anachronism is unique, creative, and fun, and makes Ninjago well-defined. I think all the violence and action in the line is detrimental, however, and I think it should stray away from the violent, warlike quality.

I would appreciate if it got back to the martial arts roots, though. Maybe the robots and stuff are a bit too much.

[Timelady Gallade]

Im just glad OP hasn't discovered Hetalia.

I'm British, I'm not offended by medieval lines with dragons and stuff. I'm sure the Japanese don't mind.

[Meiko]

I contacted a Japanese friend of mine over Facebook about their opinion of Ninjago. It's clear they don't associate Ninjago with their culture. Here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/3rW8m1D Earlier in the conversation, they clearly said they see Ninja as an old Japanese culture while they see Ninjago as a fictional story.

[Toa Zaz]

I contacted a Japanese friend of mine over Facebook about their opinion of Ninjago. It's clear they don't associate Ninjago with their culture. Here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/3rW8m1D Earlier in the conversation, they clearly said they see Ninja as an old Japanese culture while they see Ninjago as a fictional story.

One person's opinion doesn't constitute everybody's.

[Meiko]

 

I contacted a Japanese friend of mine over Facebook about their opinion of Ninjago. It's clear they don't associate Ninjago with their culture. Here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/3rW8m1D Earlier in the conversation, they clearly said they see Ninja as an old Japanese culture while they see Ninjago as a fictional story.

One person's opinion doesn't constitute everybody's.

 

But one person who is a member of that culture is more than every other person in this topic who seems to want to get offended for other people.

[bonesiii]

I contacted a Japanese friend of mine over Facebook about their opinion of Ninjago. It's clear they don't associate Ninjago with their culture. Here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/3rW8m1D Earlier in the conversation, they clearly said they see Ninja as an old Japanese culture while they see Ninjago as a fictional story.

One person's opinion doesn't constitute everybody's.

In this case, it is statistically relevant (to the question of how common it is), however. Since this person did not come on here to volunteer the information but was contacted due to a statistically normal friendship. If the contrary opinion were a majority, the chances of this person representing it would be strong.

 

But of course then we must keep in mind that even trying to offend nobody at all is important (it's just not always possible).

[Removed297]

Alright, this will probably sound idiotic by morning, since I've just spent the last hour reading through this thread, and staying up far too late, but I must jump into this.

 

On the side of the OP, it seems clear that she is quite willing to take insult at appropriation from Japanese history and culture, while ignoring similar appropriations by Japan often cited by those arguing against her.

 

And yet, to argue for OP, I must ask why mutual appropriation, not at least semi-respectful, somewhat researched cultural borrowing, is being argued for as alright because it is mutual. Does an eye for an eye make things just? Does an insult for an insult or an offense for an offense right the wrong? True, if Ninjago were even ~50% accurate to Japanese culture it wouldn't work at all, but at the very least LEGO could have done a cursory overview of Japanese history itself when creating their theme, instead of drawing influence from Japanese and vaguely oriental aesthetics, not actual culture. As I said, there are examples of Japanese companies and people doing the same thing to parts of western culture, but does that make it right?

 

But then, why is the appropriation bad? What separates it from cultural borrowing? What do I find wrong with it?

 

I am fine with magical ninjas fighting robots, anthropomorphic snakes, etc, but what ticks me off about pretty much any western depiction of historically inspired or foreign (or both, in this case) characters is that their characterization is so juvenile and untrue to their base material. Sure, I ought to expect that kind of characterization in western media, but it annoys me nonetheless. I'm not saying that the media associated with Ninjago would need to be hardcore-realistic to be fair to Japanese culture; I just wish that it would attempt to depict how somewhat realistically characterized Ninjas and Samurai would behave if granted or possessed of magical powers, and attacked by outlandish enemies. Instead, LEGO, like nearly every other western company, went with the normal route and dressed up a bunch of characters with predominantly modern western behavior in clothing from a vastly different, much older culture.

 

The above is what annoys me about any bad adaption of another culture's people, professions, or icons; not the situations they are put into, or the outlandish attributes given to them, but the modern western perspectives and behaviors given to them. I appreciate other cultures for different perspectives and ways of life, not (just) for different aesthetic approaches to clothing and arcitecture, and if LEGO could have taken as much of the former as they did of the latter, I would really be able to appreciate the Ninjago media more.

 

The sets, I'm fine with. My imagination can take the minifigs anywhere I want in terms of characterization.

 

 

Well, now I've spent an hour on something I'll likely regret.

Goodnight to you all, I hope this doesn't plague my sleep too much.

 

Edit: Bah, I have no skills at efficient review. I've probably edited this 10 times by now.

Edited January 31, 2014 by The Kumquat Alchemist

[SarracenianKaijin]

I am just srprised Ninjago got as far as it did.

 

It's a rather juvenile line anyway, isn't it? Make-pretend "ninjas" doing vaguely Asian things.

 

Exoticism, but now in plastic!

 

Atleast Oriental Express was meant to evoke imagery of pulp adventure serials. Ninjago is just, well, lame and insulting on more than few grounds.

[Sir Kohran]

 

I contacted a Japanese friend of mine over Facebook about their opinion of Ninjago. It's clear they don't associate Ninjago with their culture. Here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/3rW8m1D Earlier in the conversation, they clearly said they see Ninja as an old Japanese culture while they see Ninjago as a fictional story.

One person's opinion doesn't constitute everybody's.

 

 

No, but it's a small start towards understanding how the people around whom this topic has revolved themselves feel.

[Removed297]

I am just srprised Ninjago got as far as it did.

 

It's a rather juvenile line anyway, isn't it? Make-pretend "ninjas" doing vaguely Asian things.

 

Exoticism, but now in plastic!

 

Atleast Oriental Express was meant to evoke imagery of pulp adventure serials. Ninjago is just, well, lame and insulting on more than few grounds.

 

But what is your actual problem with it?

 

The outlandish scenarios, or the media depiction of the characters?

 

Sure, if LEGO had researched more, the Ninjas would probably be more along the lines of warriors, but other than some terminology problems, which really aren't very offensive unless nasty words like racial slurs are used, and they have not been, I fail to see what's so terribly offensive about the sets, when it is the media that depicts the characters as "make-pretend" and not more in-line with the behavior and mannerisms of what real ninjas were like.

 

But of course, if you only consider the sets, of course they're "make-pretend" just like any minifig, such as LEGO astronauts and cowboys and policemen, etc, etc. but in the case of sets only you can characterize them like "real" Ninjas and Samurai if you want to; it's the Media that I have issue with, and I'd like to hear what others have the biggest problem with also.

Edited January 31, 2014 by The Kumquat Alchemist

[Aanchir]

Alright, this will probably sound idiotic by morning, since I've just spent the last hour reading through this thread, and staying up far too late, but I must jump into this.

 

On the side of the OP, it seems clear that she is quite willing to take insult at appropriation from Japanese history and culture, while ignoring similar appropriations by Japan often cited by those arguing against her.

 

And yet, to argue for OP, I must ask why mutual appropriation, not at least semi-respectful, somewhat researched cultural borrowing, is being argued for as alright because it is mutual. Does an eye for an eye make things just? Does an insult for an insult or an offense for an offense right the wrong? True, if Ninjago were even ~50% accurate to Japanese culture it wouldn't work at all, but at the very least LEGO could have done a cursory overview of Japanese history itself when creating their theme, instead of drawing influence from Japanese and vaguely oriental aesthetics, not actual culture. As I said, there are examples of Japanese companies and people doing the same thing to parts of western culture, but does that make it right?

 

But then, why is the appropriation bad? What separates it from cultural borrowing? What do I find wrong with it?

 

I am fine with magical ninjas fighting robots, anthropomorphic snakes, etc, but what ticks me off about pretty much any western depiction of historically inspired or foreign (or both, in this case) characters is that their characterization is so juvenile and untrue to their base material. Sure, I ought to expect that kind of characterization in western media, but it annoys me nonetheless. I'm not saying that the media associated with Ninjago would need to be hardcore-realistic to be fair to Japanese culture; I just wish that it would attempt to depict how somewhat realistically characterized Ninjas and Samurai would behave if granted or possessed of magical powers, and attacked by outlandish enemies. Instead, LEGO, like nearly every other western company, went with the normal route and dressed up a bunch of characters with predominantly modern western behavior in clothing from a vastly different, much older culture.

 

The above is what annoys me about any bad adaption of another culture's people, professions, or icons; not the situations they are put into, or the outlandish attributes given to them, but the modern western perspectives and behaviors given to them. I appreciate other cultures for different perspectives and ways of life, not (just) for different aesthetic approaches to clothing and arcitecture, and if LEGO could have taken as much of the former as they did of the latter, I would really be able to appreciate the Ninjago media more.

 

The sets, I'm fine with. My imagination can take the minifigs anywhere I want in terms of characterization.

 

 

Well, now I've spent an hour on something I'll likely regret.

Goodnight to you all, I hope this doesn't plague my sleep too much.

 

Edit: Bah, I have no skills at efficient review. I've probably edited this 10 times by now.

I am not an expert on Eastern vs. Western culture, so I don't know exactly what parts of the Ninja's characterization you find to be especially Western. Certainly, it's not historically accurate, and that's because Ninjago is not supposed to be about historical ninja any more than Naruto or Super Sentai are. It takes place in an industrialized world where even digital technologies like video games are commonplace. This kind of anachronism really excites kids' imaginations, just as it did with 2001-2003, 2006, and 2009 BIONICLE (robotic-looking characters living in pre-industrialized tribal societies). And it makes the world and characters a bit more relatable to an audience of modern kids to draw the story's heroes from a similar background.

 

As for their characterization being "juvenile", there are two major reasons for that. One is to make them more relatable to the theme's primary audience of boys ages six to twelve. And another important factor is that it's a comedic cartoon. Exaggerated, silly, and sometimes childish characterization is fairly normal for cartoons, even those featuring adult characters or targeted at an all-ages audience. Just think about the "lovable oaf" characterization of characters like Barney Rubble, Homer Simpson, Spongebob Squarepants, and Peter Griffin. Is it always realistic? Of course not. But giving characters like this exaggerated or even childish personalities adds to the humor that made their respective shows so successful. Even if Ninjago were based on some European cultural tradition like medieval-inspired knights, it would probably give its characters the same level of silliness and childishness, because that's the type of story that the creators wanted to tell. Playful and absurd humor has been a pervasive part of LEGO branded media for about as long as there's been such a thing.

 

Not saying there aren't issues where the culture portrayed in Ninjago seems flagrantly Western to a viewer who's more familiar with Japanese society and culture. But a failure to seriously represent a certain historical period from any cultureshould not be an issue, because Ninjago was never imagined as a historical or even historical fantasy theme. A certain amount of playful anachronism was built into the theme even in some of the earliest concept drawings, no doubt inspired by a lot of modern American and Japanese cartoons.

[Toa Zaz]

Incidentally, the first wave of Ninjago almost had set up a dichotomy in which the protagonists are more traditional whereas the antagonists use modern technology such as big trucks, motorcycles, etc. I guess this could've been explored, but they quickly abandoned that in favor of giving everybody high-tech vehicles and such.

[dviddy]

And yet, to argue for OP, I must ask why mutual appropriation, not at least semi-respectful, somewhat researched cultural borrowing, is being argued for as alright because it is mutual. Does an eye for an eye make things just? Does an insult for an insult or an offense for an offense right the wrong? True, if Ninjago were even ~50% accurate to Japanese culture it wouldn't work at all, but at the very least LEGO could have done a cursory overview of Japanese history itself when creating their theme, instead of drawing influence from Japanese and vaguely oriental aesthetics, not actual culture. As I said, there are examples of Japanese companies and people doing the same thing to parts of western culture, but does that make it right?

Yes. Everyone seems stuck on this idea of TLG's (and Western media by association) being disrespectful to the "Japanese culture" and their view of the ninja archetype. I don't know why. Because the way TLG and Western media as well have used the ninja is the same way that Japanese culture uses it. There is nothing disrespectful of using a borrowed archetype/trope from another society and using it the same way they already do.

 

The depiction in Ninjago is the same depiction of ninjas commonly found in Japanese mass media. It is not a disrespectful, unedcuated look at western perceptions of historical ninjas, it is western media seeing a cool trope and then copying it exactly. When we point out that Japan has done it with Western archetypes (as I pointed out, the cowboy, the knight, etc), we are not saying Japan is involved in cultural appropriation either. They are also using our tropes in the exact same manner we already use them. That's not appropriation, and there's nothing wrong with it. That is cultural assimilation/synthesis/borrowing at its most egalitarian an equal.

 

Instead, LEGO, like nearly every other western company, went with the normal route and dressed up a bunch of characters with predominantly modern western behavior in clothing from a vastly different, much older culture.

The only thing I'm going to point out here is the weird idea that eastern culture is older than western culture- which is absurd. Modern eastern culture is a synthesis of traditional eastern cultural influences and modern western culture (yayyyy imperialism :( ). Indeed, one of the touchstone moments in modern Japanese culture was the rapid industrialization and westernization that they underwent in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Of course, "western culture" is also a weird mash of several different ideas and backgrounds (a synthesis of Greek and Roman thought, not to mention the Germanic tribes, or the Vikings, the Catholic Church, the Arabian Empires, etc.) The idea that either culture is monolithic is odd- the idea that either of them is older than the other even moreso.

 

Other than that, the idea that every culture doesn't dress their own characters up in borrowed archetypes is absurd. We borrow the archetype not because of the culture they are originally sourced in, but for what that archetype brings to our own characters and ideas. The ninja is seen (in Japanese culture) as a being of mystical powers, fiercely powerful fighting moves, cool costumes, weapons, often with extreme stealth (though this part is mostly unimportant to modern ninja archetypes in both cultures), and an emphasis on the extremely powerful. (Unless the ninja is part of an evil horde in which case they are boring foot soldiers [which is weirdly accurate to the roles of samurai in Japanese history, and most ninjas were just samurai making extra money, so...]). We borrow archetypes for what they can do for our characters and myths- the same thing that the Japanese do with our archetypes. The fiercely individual and rugged styles of the American Cowboy, for instance, when paired with the more group-first mentality found in Eastern culture creates an interesting story for Japanese media. It's why they use it.

 

This whole thread would be better if people actually took the time to educate themselves on cultural iconography, cultural synthesis, cultural interactions, etc. Few seem to have any grasp on how global culture influences individual cultures, or the give-and-take found in cultural borrowing. Yes, it is of vital importance that we be aware of cultural appropriation, but this is not that, an being aware of the distinction is also super important.

[NickonAquaMagna]

This thread came to mind when the Ninjas had to sneak into an enemy base rather than openly fighting the Nindroids, and Jay exclaimed, "You mean we get to be ACTUAL NINJAS for a change?!" or something along those lines. That bit made me chuckle.

 

Maybe it's because I saw G Gundam when I was a kid, which shamelessly sensationalized various cultures to eleventy, but I guess I'm kind of desensitized to this sort of thing.

 

Put simply, I get what you're saying, but... What I don't understand is how any of this is... well... BAD.

 

Like, if anyone here is really offended, fine, but.... does that matter? Should it matter? That's just a personal thing.

 

I mean, people in other countries seem to characterize Americans as gun toting cowboys who dress up like Elvis and swear in almost every sentence.

 

Maybe that SHOULD bother me, but it really doesn't. Know why? Cause if any such person who saw that were ever to MEET me, they'd see that such a characterization is inaccurate. Just like that, I know that G Gundam is grossly inaccurate about... well, pretty much everything. Does that mean it's not okay for me to enjoy G Gundam? I don't see how things like Ninjago are "destructive" or "degrading" or really doing anything to hurt Japanese culture and make the world a worse place.

 

I just enjoy it because the story and dialog are pretty good, and I think that's all that should really matter.

Edited February 3, 2014 by NickonAquaMagna

[MT Zehvor]

I completely agree. We should also decry Tenebrae Invictus, as he is a poor representation of Asian culture as well.

 

-MT

Edited February 3, 2014 by MT Zehvor

[PeabodySam]

I was just giving this topic a quick peruse. I don't intend to get too involved, since I acknowledge that my own understanding of Japanese culture is very limited and, as such, I am merely an outsider who cannot offer any valuable insight into this issue.

However, I noticed that one question was frequently asked in this topic: "We're westerners who are merely speculating whether or not Japanese people find this offensive, but how do Japanese people really feel about Ninjago?" And that question brought to my mind a phenomenon that TV Tropes calls "Mexicans Love Speedy Gonzales".

This trope is Germans Love David Hasselhoff crossed with Actually Pretty Funny (or with Misaimed Fandom, depending on your perspective): when people of a particular culture, nationality, or any other demographic embrace an unflattering caricature of them concocted by another (often, but not always, an Ethnic [unpopular character]). This is occasionally a case of Insult Backfire, though it happens most often when the caricature in question is clueless rather than intentionally offensive.

It is often a case of Refuge in Audacity. It may help if the allegedly offensive characters has strong sides (Speedy may be somewhat stereotypical, but note that he always wins), or at least if the other characters aren't better. Alternately, the joke may be that the stereotype is carried so far as to be clear parody even to a casual viewer (e.g., The Mikado below), or the stereotypical aspects are exceedingly Fair for Its Day (e.g., Charlie Chan, below). Or maybe the stereotype exists in the targeted culture itself.

One such example of this trope:

All the characters of Team Fortress 2 are ethnic stereotypes (except the Pyro) with bloodthirsty natures, unhinged mentalities, and unrealistic accents. They're also utterly hilarious, and meant as affectionate parodies. What Russian doesn't want to be a huge Mighty Glacier Heavy who wields a ginormous minigun? What American doesn't want to pull off Crazy Awesome stunts like the Eaglelander Soldier, or trash-talk like the big mouth Scout? Which Australian wouldn't want to live in a universe where their country is a World of Bad### where everybody gets futuristic technology and Bad### Mustaches? Nobody, that's who.

Simply put, this is when a culture or ethnicity is grossly misrepresented in media, but it's just so over-the-top that said ethnicity loves it.

 

Of course, "Mexicans Love Speedy Gonzales" is classified as an audience reaction, or "Your Mileage May Vary" trope. Simply put, it means that one Mexican might love Speedy Gonzales for being an over-the-top Mexican stereotype while another Mexican would hate Speedy for that very same reason. These vary from audience to audience and are not written in stone. It's entirely subjective.

 

For that matter, one Japanese person might find Ninjago utterly offensive due to its misrepresentation of Japanese culture, for perverting sacred imagery, and for presenting an unrealistic image of its subject matter. And yet, it's entirely within the realms of possibility that another Japanese person would love Ninjago because it's just so over-the-top, ridiculous, and audacious that they find some sort of enjoyment out of it.

 

And we can see that even here in this topic. There are some people who feel that this theme's misrepresentation of Japanese culture is downright offensive, while others (such as Meiko's friend) who say that they don't mind because it's just so overly misrepresented. So that's, what, the opinions of a few people? What about the majority of LEGO's audience in Japan? Do we still have a clear answer on that? So long as we don't and we're still speculating on the opinions of those who are allegedly affected by this, we shouldn't forget that "Your Mileage May Vary" and that what one person may find offensive wouldn't bother another person. Again, it's entirely subjective.

 

So does Meiko's friend's opinion constitute that of everybody? No. But that doesn't necessarily mean that nobody else shares their opinion, and that opinion being an example of "Mexicans Love Speedy Gonzales". You're not in the wrong if you feel insulted by Ninjago, but nor would you be in the wrong to, despite it all, love Ninjago regardless.

 

Okay, now that I've thrown that out there, let me quietly retreat and exit stage left... oh wait... darn, stage left is that way...

Edited February 3, 2014 by PeabodySam

[Sir Kohran]

However, I noticed that one question was frequently asked in this topic: "We're westerners who are merely speculating whether or not Japanese people find this offensive, but how do Japanese people really feel about Ninjago?" And that question brought to my mind a phenomenon that TV Tropes calls "Mexicans Love Speedy Gonzales".

 

This trope is Germans Love David Hasselhoff crossed with Actually Pretty Funny (or with Misaimed Fandom, depending on your perspective): when people of a particular culture, nationality, or any other demographic embrace an unflattering caricature of them concocted by another (often, but not always, an Ethnic [unpopular character]). This is occasionally a case of Insult Backfire, though it happens most often when the caricature in question is clueless rather than intentionally offensive.

 

It is often a case of Refuge in Audacity. It may help if the allegedly offensive characters has strong sides (Speedy may be somewhat stereotypical, but note that he always wins), or at least if the other characters aren't better. Alternately, the joke may be that the stereotype is carried so far as to be clear parody even to a casual viewer (e.g., The Mikado below), or the stereotypical aspects are exceedingly Fair for Its Day (e.g., Charlie Chan, below). Or maybe the stereotype exists in the targeted culture itself.

One such example of this trope:

 

All the characters of Team Fortress 2 are ethnic stereotypes (except the Pyro) with bloodthirsty natures, unhinged mentalities, and unrealistic accents. They're also utterly hilarious, and meant as affectionate parodies. What Russian doesn't want to be a huge Mighty Glacier Heavy who wields a ginormous minigun? What American doesn't want to pull off Crazy Awesome stunts like the Eaglelander Soldier, or trash-talk like the big mouth Scout? Which Australian wouldn't want to live in a universe where their country is a World of Bad### where everybody gets futuristic technology and Bad### Mustaches? Nobody, that's who.

Simply put, this is when a culture or ethnicity is grossly misrepresented in media, but it's just so over-the-top that said ethnicity loves it.

 

I'm sure the writer meant well with that second paragraph, but I think they're making some very broad and possibly risky generalisations there. What position are they in to say whether those nationalities like being represented in those ways?

[Dralcax]

Frankly, I think it's a parody of the "ninja" stereotypes rather than another example of cultures getting mangled in misunderstanding when reaching the west. They recognize how different western ninjas are from the real-life japanese ninjas and are harmlessly playing around with the idea rather than creating a culturally insensitive story. Besides, I've seen japanese media treating ninjas as "stealthy, agile superheroes" too, so it's probably not only a western misconception, it's a misconception of modern people, no matter their nationality. The idea of a ninja has globally strayed pretty far from its historical roots and now the modern "ninja" is a source of entertainment for both cultures. Ultimately, this boils down to "It's too ridiculous for anyone to take it too seriously". Because come on, when you have ninjas turning into tornadoes, it's like saying a potato is an inaccurate and offensive depiction of westerners.

[Wazdakka]

1. I agree with whoever said way above that this thread is kind of pointless unless we get actual Japanese people who can tell us whether they feel it's offensive or not.

 

2. That's pretty much it.

[Kopekemaster]

I'm pretty sure that I posted once, much, much, much (x5) earlier in the thread. But I honestly can't remember.

But now for a bit of talking on the subject:

 

I think it would really be good to, as others have said, find someone either here on BZP or somewhere else who is Japanese, and ask them what they think. (Actually, as I'm writing this, I realize that maybe I should email my Japanese friend...)

Now I'm emulating this sense on about three levels, but I do see how people arguing "for a culture/race/ethnicity" could, in fact, be somewhat insulting to the very culture/race/ethnicity that they're trying to support. We don't really need to think of Japanese culture as a "damsel in distress" that we "noble knights of the BZP table" need to protect. As we have already seen through the whole Maori/Bionicle fiasco, cultures/races/ethnicities can in fact stand up for themselves. That being said, I'm still going to continue writing this post.

 

Maybe, if I try hard enough, it can look like as much of a wall-of-text as some of the other posts here.

 

Nah, there isn't much chance of that. Guess I'll have to make it a wall-of-text in some other way. TO THE LOREM IPSUM GENERATOR!

 

 

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean fermentum magna a risus mollis mattis. Donec aliquet congue dolor non sollicitudin. Fusce velit nunc, molestie nec dictum vel, feugiat id purus. Sed tristique, mauris sed faucibus imperdiet, est sem accumsan nisl, vitae auctor orci purus nec libero. Sed eget tellus a libero rutrum placerat. Quisque vitae suscipit sapien. Nunc in purus mi.

Mauris imperdiet convallis facilisis. Integer ultrices est eros, nec vehicula lorem mattis vitae. Duis turpis quam, sagittis in molestie sit amet, placerat non turpis. Nam eu magna scelerisque, fermentum augue quis, fermentum lorem. Phasellus in erat nec mauris fringilla congue dapibus vestibulum velit. Quisque tellus erat, vulputate nec dapibus eu, vehicula luctus purus. Maecenas at tincidunt velit, eget fringilla erat. Integer sodales mauris eu imperdiet tristique. Donec nec mauris eu eros dapibus dapibus. Phasellus feugiat enim nec est congue pellentesque. Mauris nec eros nec urna porta consequat. Mauris porta, erat et aliquet rhoncus, odio nulla semper erat, sed eleifend nulla est quis leo. Vestibulum ut pellentesque magna, sit amet convallis turpis. Aliquam eu velit est. Nullam sapien massa, tristique ac pulvinar sed, venenatis at lectus.

Integer nec metus ut dolor eleifend porta vel sit amet dui. Pellentesque rutrum massa et justo eleifend, quis pellentesque neque cursus. Ut facilisis varius justo, non consectetur tellus blandit id. Nunc posuere nec ante nec vehicula. Vivamus eu erat a leo vehicula dignissim in eu dui. Nam mollis id diam sed accumsan. Fusce congue placerat commodo. Mauris quis magna malesuada, sagittis libero id, lobortis libero.

Vestibulum tincidunt diam ligula, ac dapibus ligula pulvinar vel. Nullam aliquam tempus sem quis blandit. Nunc sollicitudin vulputate magna a malesuada. Aenean id feugiat elit. Duis tellus ligula, lacinia at lorem in, aliquet dignissim est. Morbi molestie risus libero, nec interdum nibh aliquet vel. Phasellus nec est risus.

Integer dapibus malesuada nisi, vel molestie orci egestas et. Sed sodales erat non quam hendrerit aliquet. Mauris pretium cursus nunc. Quisque sagittis feugiat ante, non viverra metus laoreet ut. Mauris viverra sem quis enim dignissim euismod. Duis nec condimentum tortor. Mauris consequat placerat elit non tempor. Quisque blandit suscipit magna ac sodales. Vestibulum scelerisque eu massa iaculis eleifend. Mauris id ornare lacus, et cursus elit.

Sed consequat, massa pretium pretium pellentesque, nisi orci porttitor risus, in adipiscing lorem dui et augue. Curabitur elementum elit nulla, quis fermentum ante lacinia at. Fusce molestie justo ac malesuada eleifend. Phasellus ac ligula lacinia.

 

Okay, now my post looks big enough. Time for me to ACTUALLY write what I was coming here to write about. <-- That's my satire about lengthy posts.

I'm a vegetarian. I don't really think of it as a big deal, I just don't really like meat that much (plus I love animals because they're adorable :3), and I think vegetables taste good, plus they're very healthy.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way: A few years ago, my mom and I read an adventure novel about something or other. I really can't remember. But the main point is, the author (in a very offhanded manner) spoke somewhat negatively about vegetarians, and most of the points he brought up were, in fact, false. I was quite insulted by this, and actually, at a later date, pretty much refused to read another of his books.

If he had merely done more research, he would have seen that the things he were saying (which, by the way, were completely irrelevant to the plot, and utterly unnecessary) were incorrect, and he probably would have left them out, the result being that I wouldn't have been insulted, and may have read that other book of his.

Now I'm not saying that LEGO is "speaking negatively" about Japan and its culture. They're merely romanticising it. But, in doing so, they (whether they know it or not), incorrectly display a wonderful culture. LEGO may want to more thoroughly research a culture before they try to put a spin (PUN ENTIRELY INTENTIONAL) on it.

 

Dang.

 

I can't get over how awesome that pun was.

 

Moving on...

So yeah, that's about all I have to say on the subject. That is, until someone quotes my post and I get into a debate! <-- also a satirical sentence

[Aanchir]

I'm pretty sure that I posted once, much, much, much (x5) earlier in the thread. But I honestly can't remember.

But now for a bit of talking on the subject:

 

I think it would really be good to, as others have said, find someone either here on BZP or somewhere else who is Japanese, and ask them what they think. (Actually, as I'm writing this, I realize that maybe I should email my Japanese friend...)

Now I'm emulating this sense on about three levels, but I do see how people arguing "for a culture/race/ethnicity" could, in fact, be somewhat insulting to the very culture/race/ethnicity that they're trying to support. We don't really need to think of Japanese culture as a "damsel in distress" that we "noble knights of the BZP table" need to protect. As we have already seen through the whole Maori/Bionicle fiasco, cultures/races/ethnicities can in fact stand up for themselves. That being said, I'm still going to continue writing this post.

 

Maybe, if I try hard enough, it can look like as much of a wall-of-text as some of the other posts here.

 

Nah, there isn't much chance of that. Guess I'll have to make it a wall-of-text in some other way. TO THE LOREM IPSUM GENERATOR!

 

{snip}

 

Okay, now my post looks big enough. Time for me to ACTUALLY write what I was coming here to write about. <-- That's my satire about lengthy posts.

I'm a vegetarian. I don't really think of it as a big deal, I just don't really like meat that much (plus I love animals because they're adorable :3), and I think vegetables taste good, plus they're very healthy.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way: A few years ago, my mom and I read an adventure novel about something or other. I really can't remember. But the main point is, the author (in a very offhanded manner) spoke somewhat negatively about vegetarians, and most of the points he brought up were, in fact, false. I was quite insulted by this, and actually, at a later date, pretty much refused to read another of his books.

If he had merely done more research, he would have seen that the things he were saying (which, by the way, were completely irrelevant to the plot, and utterly unnecessary) were incorrect, and he probably would have left them out, the result being that I wouldn't have been insulted, and may have read that other book of his.

Now I'm not saying that LEGO is "speaking negatively" about Japan and its culture. They're merely romanticising it. But, in doing so, they (whether they know it or not), incorrectly display a wonderful culture. LEGO may want to more thoroughly research a culture before they try to put a spin (PUN ENTIRELY INTENTIONAL) on it.

 

Dang.

 

I can't get over how awesome that pun was.

 

Moving on...

So yeah, that's about all I have to say on the subject. That is, until someone quotes my post and I get into a debate! <-- also a satirical sentence

As I understand it, the LEGO Group did put a substantial amount of effort into understanding Japanese culture as they were developing Ninjago, including a paid visit to Japan by some of the designers. The development of Ninjago began in 2008 if I'm not mistaken But they were not obligated to keep things faithful to what they learned. After all, it was not intended to be a historically-accurate theme, but rather a science-fantasy theme with lots of anachronism inherently built in.

 

In some early concept videos, all four of the ninja were from very modern, urban locales, and their ninja costumes were even less traditional than the multicolored costumes that they eventually wore (think large black logos printed on the front of each one, like a graphic T-shirt or child's Halloween costume). The anachronism of the story was eventually a little bit downplayed in the first story arc, probably in part to create a consistent visual language within the sets and the two-hour TV special. Sort of the same way almost all of the LEGO Movie characters are minifigures — other kinds of characters are acknowledged to exist, but in a short running time you want to keep the things in the spotlight reasonably consistent so as not to confuse viewers.

 

In the final TV special, only Jay is explicitly shown to be recruited in a city (Kai and Zane are recruited from rustic villages, although Kai's village, at least, is wired for electricity and telephone), and only the Skulkins use explicitly post-industrial technology. The full TV series, which has more time to establish new settings and plot devices, featured this anachronism far more prominently. Some portion of the art direction in the more modern settings is inspired by modern Japan, though of course that includes some things that Japan has adapted from western culture over the years, such as theme parks.

 

I'm not trying to debate the rightness or wrongness of portrayals of Japanese culture here. I don't know enough about authentic Japanese culture to really make any qualified statements on what cultural snafus the creators of the sets and TV show might have made. I just figured I'd share what I know. Can't find the article where I learned about the designers visiting Japan as a part of their research process, and I wish I could — I am always fascinated to learn about how LEGO sets and stories are developed, and I can remember that article being quite informative. In any case, I'd love to hear what other people with more background knowledge (or even firsthand experience) of Japanese culture might have to share.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Aanchir: Rachira of Time