The Problem with Ninjago

[Sumiki]

@The Brothers -Chir: The argument I'm seeing from you can basically be boiled down to "Western people have been doing this to Japanese culture for a long time, therefore it's not cultural appropriation." This isn't true and it only serves to legitimize the appropriation as something that's okay. Just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't automatically make it respectful of other cultures.

 

For the record, Korea and Hong Kong have completely different cultures than Japan. They wouldn't realize it was appropriative any more than the average Ninjago fan in America would. Just because they're geographically close to Japan doesn't mean that their acceptance of it makes it right, either.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Sumiki

[Aanchir]

@The Brothers -Chir: The argument I'm seeing from you can basically be boiled down to "Western people have been doing this to Japanese culture for a long time, therefore it's not cultural appropriation." This isn't true and it only serves to legitimize the appropriation as something that's okay. Just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't automatically make it respectful of other cultures.

That's not my argument at all. My argument is that it's a part of a cultural exchange that works both ways, not just a part of some larger pattern of destructive and one-sided cultural appropriation. Japan, Europe, and the United States have been influencing each other's cultures and media for centuries, and I don't think the harm to either culture outweighs the benefit to the same culture or harm to the other. As I understand it, this is what happens when cultures share ideas — those ideas are then available to be used, repeated, or transformed by either culture. And I don't believe the Japanese perspective on cultural exchange is that different, given how I've seen Western culture similarly used as creative inspiration by Japanese media.

 

It's not that I think a tradition of harm legitimizes that harm. It's that I'm struggling to see how there is any serious harm being done by what is, from what I can see, a mutual exchange of ideas.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Aanchir: Rachira of Time

[believe victims]

saying a story is valueless just because it accidentally doesn't draw a thick enough line between "infanticide" and "pest control".

 

I'd say the line in morality is usually fairly solid when it comes to going into someone else's home and threatening to kill some babies just because a single member of the species is a criminal. That's a little like advocating for the death of every human baby because Hitler existed and was human.

 

Decrying a cartoon for using pre-established cultural tropes to tell a good, compelling, and non-offensive story

 

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where several aspects ARE offensive? Namely, the severe disrespect towards Japanese shrines?

 

I do know that the theme is hugely popular in Korea and Hong Kong, at least.

Ah yes, I forgot all Asian countries/cultures are interchangeable.

 

In my opinion, there is nothing invalid or unfair about borrowing ideas from other media, no matter what country it comes from.

 

BRB, asking a foreign company to make toys where cathedrals are used to store AK-47s and WWII US Army vets fight colorful Christian-based enemies by flailing around in circles.

 

shared cultural tradition

 

Find me one instance of legitimate ninja outside of Japan and you've got a case. Otherwise, the only reason ninja spread to the West is orientalism and appropriation.

[Aanchir]

Let me ask one more question: was any legitimate discussion supposed to come out of this topic, or is anyone who disagrees or feels differently going to just be told that they're wrong or in denial or that they have no authority to disagree? Right now it doesn't feel like any answer but "you're absolutely right and the LEGO Group and all Ninjago fans should be ashamed of what they've done" is going to be respected.

[believe victims]

Let me ask one more question: was any legitimate discussion supposed to come out of this topic, or is anyone who disagrees or feels differently going to just be told that they're wrong or in denial or that they have no authority to disagree? Right now it doesn't feel like any answer but "you're absolutely right and the LEGO Group and all Ninjago fans should be ashamed of what they've done" is going to be respected.

 

There has been a lot of discussion. at least 42 replies of it. I have evaluated many counterpoints to my argument and presented my opinions on them. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.

 

You're not a victim here, so I'd appreciate a little less victim complex. I'm calling out what is, to me, a pretty terrible thing Lego did to a culture, and seeing what people have to say about it, and responding as I see fit. I'm not silencing anyone, calling anyone names, telling anyone they CANNOT enjoy the line. I am simply making the argument that TLG has done something offensive to Japanese culture with this line, and that should not be ignored. Make of it what you will.

[Aanchir]

 

Let me ask one more question: was any legitimate discussion supposed to come out of this topic, or is anyone who disagrees or feels differently going to just be told that they're wrong or in denial or that they have no authority to disagree? Right now it doesn't feel like any answer but "you're absolutely right and the LEGO Group and all Ninjago fans should be ashamed of what they've done" is going to be respected.

There has been a lot of discussion. at least 42 replies of it. I have evaluated many counterpoints to my argument and presented my opinions on them. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.

 

You're not a victim here, so I'd appreciate a little less victim complex. I'm calling out what is, to me, a pretty terrible thing Lego did to a culture, and seeing what people have to say about it, and responding as I see fit. I'm not silencing anyone, calling anyone names, telling anyone they CANNOT enjoy the line. I am simply making the argument that TLG has done something offensive to Japanese culture with this line, and that should not be ignored. Make of it what you will.

 

Well, I'm sorry, but my brother is feeling awful depressed since this morning thanks to this conversation, and I'm feeling pretty cruddy myself since I joined it. I'm not trying to act like a victim here, but the one direct response I got to a post of mine managed to misrepresent what I was trying to say and I haven't yet gotten a single response to the claim I expressed twice that I was actually trying to make. It was an unpleasant conversation to read and now an unpleasant conversation to respond to, because it feels like you just keep telling anyone who feels differently that they are wrong without even acknowledging any disagreements that you can't sarcastically dismiss.

 

I'd appreciate if my original post could get a reply with at least some consideration for my position. The question I'm trying to raise is whether this kind of thing is really one-sided appropriation. Final Fantasy, for instance, HAS borrowed and in some cases misrepresented Western cultural elements. But I don't see this as some grossly offensive distortion. The main "shrines" in Ninjago mainly include weapons if those weapons are perceived as valuable cultural treasures, such as the Dragon Sword of Fire which was one of the four magical weapons used to create the land of Ninjago. Is this any worse than the church in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl which had an extremely western design and was used as a place to pay tribute to the legendary Pokémon and their involvement in Sinnoh's creation myth? Or worse than the temples in the Legend of Zelda which also contain treasure chests containing very utilitarian tools and weapons? Remember that the Legend of Zelda, despite having some obvious Japanese cultural influence, is mainly inspired by European medieval fantasy, and the original version of A Link to the Past even had Christian iconography like crosses and a Christian church as a key location (it was called a "sanctuary" and the priest was called a "loyal sage" in the American release, but the intent was still obvious).

 

See here for more information. "...It should also be noted that in Japan, Christian symbolism is often used in a nonreligious context for aesthetic purposes; Nintendo's own Fire Emblem series also uses strong examples of Christian imagery, despite having having its own religious backdrop separate from real religion." Is this also "cultural appropriation"?

Edited January 28, 2014 by Aanchir: Rachira of Time

[Laughing Man]

basic summary of the replies to this topic thus far: "I won't let a silly little thing like respect for other cultures get in the way of my entertainment!"

[believe victims]

Your disagreement is that Japanese and Western cultures have a fair and equal exchange. I cannot agree to that, as Japanese things based on European culture are usually based on Western tropes for them, not Japanese. Anything misaligned in Japanese adaptations of Western culture is something Western culture itself has misaligned. Meanwhile, the entirety of Ninjago is based on flawed Western ideas of Eastern culture, not flawed Eastern ideas. Plus, more than the ninja themselves were taken. The temples and shrines (which are important to Japanese culture) have had all their cultural worth stripped of them and have been turned into weapons caches, speaking of points conveniently ignored. This isn't a cultural exchange, this is a cultural stripping, tearing, realigning, and, in the case of a majority of characters, whitewashing.

[Sir Kohran]

I think you've made some valid points, some critics, but overall, aren't you making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill here?

 

Ninjago tells a completely original story with completely original characters, set in a fictional universe. It isn't meant to be a direct representation of Japan's mythology, culture or people, nor does it ever try to be. Yes, the line does borrow a great number of elements from them, and if someone was using Ninjago to learn about Japan, obviously they'd end up with a wildly inaccurate picture of it. But Ninjago isn't meant to inform about a real place or people, it's meant to entertain with fictional ones. And where exactly is the harm in that?

 

If this line was truly offensive and harmful to Japan, wouldn't some Japanese people have complained about it by now?

[believe victims]

It isn't meant to be a direct representation of Japan's mythology, culture or people, nor does it ever try to be

 

Why do people keep saying this like it's the end of the argument? Taking a Cool Foreign Culture and using it for the basis of your fictional world doesn't make it any more respectful to tear it to shreds and mash it back together than if they WERE saying it's supposed to be Japan.

 

I'd appreciate if my original post could get a reply with at least some consideration for my position. The question I'm trying to raise is whether this kind of thing is really one-sided appropriation. Final Fantasy, for instance, HAS borrowed and in some cases misrepresented Western cultural elements. But I don't see this as some grossly offensive distortion. The main "shrines" in Ninjago mainly include weapons if those weapons are perceived as valuable cultural treasures, such as the Dragon Sword of Fire which was one of the four magical weapons used to create the land of Ninjago. Is this any worse than the church in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl which had an extremely western design and was used as a place to pay tribute to the legendary Pokémon and their involvement in Sinnoh's creation myth? Or worse than the temples in the Legend of Zelda which also contain treasure chests containing very utilitarian tools and weapons? Remember that the Legend of Zelda, despite having some obvious Japanese cultural influence, is mainly inspired by European medieval fantasy, and the original version of A Link to the Past even had Christian iconography like crosses and a Christian church as a key location (it was called a "sanctuary" and the priest was called a "loyal sage" in the American release, but the intent was still obvious).

 

 

Don't put shrines in quotes, some of them are directly CALLED shrines or temples. They are ripped whole-cloth from Japanese culture, except for the part of the cloth that actually matters.

 

Showing religious imagery isn't the main source of disrespect here (though making Fun Cool Playsets of religious locations strikes me as rude). Putting a church in a video game and treating it like a church isn't the same as calling something temple, taking design cues from a temple, but stripping all Japanese cultural significance from it and claiming it as your own.

Edited January 28, 2014 by some critics

[Hodor]

Only Kai and his sister, Nya, have names that sound Japanese, though I cannot confirm that they are.

Kai is a name, yes, but Nya isn't. Nyaa, if I remember correctly, is the Japanese version of a cat's meow.

 

Not a name.

[Aanchir]

Your disagreement is that Japanese and Western cultures have a fair and equal exchange. I cannot agree to that, as Japanese things based on European culture are usually based on Western tropes for them, not Japanese. Anything misaligned in Japanese adaptations of Western culture is something Western culture itself has misaligned. Meanwhile, the entirety of Ninjago is based on flawed Western ideas of Eastern culture, not flawed Eastern ideas. Plus, more than the ninja themselves were taken. The temples and shrines (which are important to Japanese culture) have had all their cultural worth stripped of them and have been turned into weapons caches, speaking of points conveniently ignored. This isn't a cultural exchange, this is a cultural stripping, tearing, realigning, and, in the case of a majority of characters, whitewashing.

Whoops, I had been editing some more info into my post while you replied. I don't know how much was there while you replied but I'll repeat some of the most relevant parts here:

 

Final Fantasy, for instance, HAS borrowed and in some cases misrepresented Western cultural elements. But I don't see this as some grossly offensive distortion. The main "shrines" in Ninjago mainly include weapons if those weapons are perceived as valuable cultural treasures, such as the Dragon Sword of Fire which was one of the four magical weapons used to create the land of Ninjago. Is this any worse than the church in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl which had an extremely western design and was used as a place to pay tribute to the legendary Pokémon and their involvement in Sinnoh's creation myth? Or worse than the temples in the Legend of Zelda which also contain treasure chests containing very utilitarian tools and weapons? Remember that the Legend of Zelda, despite having some obvious Japanese cultural influence, is mainly inspired by European medieval fantasy, and the original version of A Link to the Past even had Christian iconography like crosses and a Christian church as a key location (it was called a "sanctuary" and the priest was called a "loyal sage" in the American release, but the intent was still obvious).

 

See here for more information. "...It should also be noted that in Japan, Christian symbolism is often used in a nonreligious context for aesthetic purposes; Nintendo's own Fire Emblem series also uses strong examples of Christian imagery, despite having having its own religious backdrop separate from real religion."

 

This is the sort of thing that makes me question whether the use of shrines and temples in Ninjago really genuinely devalues Japan's shinto religious tradition. I certainly don't think the use of Christian religious imagery in the Zelda games was insulting, though I appreciate the reduction of explicit Christian and Islamic religious symbols if only because it leaves more room for the series' inherent mythology and related symbols like the Triforce.

 

On a side note, some of the historical re-imagining of Ninja WAS Japanese. For instance, the black coverall "Ninja robes" that are the basis of most Western portrayals of Ninja are inspired by costumes used by Noh theater stagehands. The stagehands were supposed to be ignored by the audience — thus, dressing ninja as stagehands in these plays was visual shorthand for the ninja being "invisible". Westerners saw these plays and came to believe that Ninja actually dressed like this, whereas in reality Ninja were more likely to wear normal clothes so they could blend in as ordinary people rather than spies or assassins.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Aanchir: Rachira of Time

[believe victims]

This is the sort of thing that makes me question whether the use of shrines and temples in Ninjago really genuinely devalues Japan's shinto religious tradition. I certainly don't think the use of Christian religious imagery in the Zelda games was insulting, though I appreciate the reduction of explicit Christian religious symbols if only because it leaves more room for the series' inherent mythology and related symbols like the Triforce.

 

Your own point about cultures and their prevalence in regards to Bionicle comes to mind here. Shintoism is nowhere near as prevalent in the world as Christianity. Taking Christian symbols out of context doesn't threaten their cultural relevance, while taking Shinto shrines very well could.

[Aanchir]

 

This is the sort of thing that makes me question whether the use of shrines and temples in Ninjago really genuinely devalues Japan's shinto religious tradition. I certainly don't think the use of Christian religious imagery in the Zelda games was insulting, though I appreciate the reduction of explicit Christian religious symbols if only because it leaves more room for the series' inherent mythology and related symbols like the Triforce.

Your own point about cultures and their prevalence in regards to Bionicle comes to mind here. Shintoism is nowhere near as prevalent in the world as Christianity. Taking Christian symbols out of context doesn't threaten their cultural relevance, while taking Shinto shrines very well could.

 

OK, very fair point. Thank you for taking the time to read my posts and to respond respectfully rather than with sarcasm. Edited January 29, 2014 by Aanchir: Rachira of Time

[Makaru]

 

basic summary of the replies to this topic thus far: "I won't let a silly little thing like respect for other cultures get in the way of my entertainment!"

Do you realize how insulting you sound right now? I put a lot of time and effort into my posts and you sum them up as willful ignorance? Honestly, having met you at Brickfair and known you to be a pretty nice person I would have expected far better of you. This is the kind of toxic attitude that makes conversations like these so unpleasant — there is often a complete failure, sometimes even on both sides of the aisle, to try and relate to people with differing opinions without looking down at them.

If we are going to make these things personal, take it to PM or report it, please.

 

This post is an open letter to everyone here.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Makaru

[Aanchir]

 

 

basic summary of the replies to this topic thus far: "I won't let a silly little thing like respect for other cultures get in the way of my entertainment!"

Do you realize how insulting you sound right now? I put a lot of time and effort into my posts and you sum them up as willful ignorance? Honestly, having met you at Brickfair and known you to be a pretty nice person I would have expected far better of you. This is the kind of toxic attitude that makes conversations like these so unpleasant — there is often a complete failure, sometimes even on both sides of the aisle, to try and relate to people with differing opinions without looking down at them.

 

If we are going to make these things personal, take it to PM or report it, please.

 

I don't know what there would be to report — it's not like a rule can be written to make people take each other's opinions seriously. But I guess if I have anything more of this sort to say to a particular member that is not related directly to the subject of Ninjago I can express that in a PM conversation. It just feels a bit weird to be insulted in a public discussion and then be expected to deal with it privately and let other people think you had no issue with it.

[TNTOS]

If this line was truly offensive and harmful to Japan, wouldn't some Japanese people have complained about it by now?

I generally try to stay out of these kinds of topics, but I wanted to highlight Sir Kohran's post here because I haven't seen anyone yet address this (in my opinion) very good point yet.

 

I think it would be best if we could get the perspective of some actual Japanese Lego fans on this issue. Not sure how, though. Maybe find a Japanese Lego fansite and contact its members and see what they think of Ninjago (unfortunately I don't know of any Japanese Lego fansites, but it still seems like a good idea to me if anyone wants to try it).

 

-TNTOS-

[Sumiki]

Thing is, Ninjago is a part of the strange lens through which we in the West observe Japanese culture and history. It's deformed, insulting, and in many instances downright wrong.

There's nothing wrong with using something Japanese - or from any culture - as long as those who are inspired by the culture don't twist and misrepresent things to make money, which is more or less what LEGO's done with Ninjago.

 

Like I stated earlier, I don't think that LEGO's intentionally doing this - but it's still a fact.

[believe victims]

 

If this line was truly offensive and harmful to Japan, wouldn't some Japanese people have complained about it by now?

I generally try to stay out of these kinds of topics, but I wanted to highlight Sir Kohran's post here because I haven't seen anyone yet address this (in my opinion) very good point yet.

 

I think it would be best if we could get the perspective of some actual Japanese Lego fans on this issue. Not sure how, though. Maybe find a Japanese Lego fansite and contact its members and see what they think of Ninjago (unfortunately I don't know of any Japanese Lego fansites, but it still seems like a good idea to me if anyone wants to try it).

 

-TNTOS-

 

I would like to point out that Kahi, who is of East Asian descent, provided his perspective on the topic, though I do not know if Japanese is in his lineage.

 

I would love the input of some Japanese fans on this, though I do think that disregarding all points made because of this single point would be foolish.

[bonesiii]

cathedrals are used to store AK-47s and WWII US Army vets fight colorful Christian-based enemies by flailing around in circles.

You've used this analogy twice, and I agree with it to some extent. However, I'm having trouble understanding how the second part applies. The enemies so far have been evil skeletons, snake-people (and a guy turned evil by mind-altering snake venom), puppeteered warrior golems, and next evil androids.

 

Incidentally, the final episode of the Red John saga in the Mentalist actually featured the 'hero', Jane, storing a gun in a church.

 

As a Christian myself, I must say it did not even occur to me to feel offended by this. Not sure why not, or if that is necessarily the right reaction, but the idea just didn't occur to me. Of course, I generally don't believe in being offended anyways -- it can be too easily abused as an excuse to create antagonism just to fight with people.

 

[Edit: BTW, you asked earlier why I thought you were having an aversion to magic in a fantasy story -- the "flailing around in circles" part here is what I meant. They spin in circles to activate a fictional magical power. If hypothetically a toyline celebrating fantasy versions of WWII vets who had discovered some kind of powerful magic like that, I wouldn't be offended. Nor would I be offended per se at weapons stored in a church. The last part does sound offensive, but again, I don't think that part of the analogy applies.]

 

You're not a victim here, so I'd appreciate a little less victim complex. I'm calling out what is, to me, a pretty terrible thing Lego did to a culture, and seeing what people have to say about it, and responding as I see fit. I'm not silencing anyone, calling anyone names, telling anyone they CANNOT enjoy the line. I am simply making the argument that TLG has done something offensive to Japanese culture with this line, and that should not be ignored.

Please be aware that we have a rule against trolling, and the classic pattern of behavior that that label refers to is sounding hyperbolically angry, sparking others who support what you're being angry about to be angry in reaction to you, and then complaining about the other person's reply. Again, we have rules against that behavior and you are walking a very thin line, if not crossing it. I'm going to call this an official warning this time. Please address ideas, not people.

 

To the final sentence in this quote, I agree with your perspective on this, but I think the fact remains that they did not intend to offend anyone. And another fact also remains, that you can probably find people who will be offended if you do anything. I dunno, I just keep thinking of how LEGO reacted so graciously when the Maori people requested (even demanded, often not in friendly terms) that aspects of their culture not be used. I find it hard to believe LEGO is intending harm with this. Worse, it is possible for you to create harm by insisting on seeing it where none was intended.

 

Why try to reopen wounds that have been healing? Why not contribute to the healing?

 

 

Posted Jan 28 2014 - 06:08 PM

Quote

It isn't meant to be a direct representation of Japan's mythology, culture or people, nor does it ever try to be

Why do people keep saying this like it's the end of the argument? Taking a Cool Foreign Culture and using it for the basis of your fictional world doesn't make it any more respectful to tear it to shreds and mash it back together than if they WERE saying it's supposed to be Japan.

 

Your post seemed to me to create the impression that your argument was built on the premise that Ninjago is meant to accurately represent Japanese culture, or at least that the average fan would get that impression. That is why replies are refuting that false premise. Even the second interpretation does not seem likely to me, though it's possible in some cases. But then, why not make the topic be about positively informing people of that thing?

 

Again, if you present the actual as "anything but this exactly, or nothing, is offensive", then surely most people are going to conclude that being devoted to that actual apparently tends to make you a curmudgeon, and not be attracted to it. You pit it against the partial, radically changed versions of it. But the problem is people enjoy the radically different version, enough that if they feel they must choose between them, they probably will side against you.

 

Incidentally, I raised this point many posts ago on page one, and the further posts have seemed to ignore it, in favor of continuing to focus on the stronger disagreements. I would like to know that this is not just being brushed aside. Preservationalism is important to me. Maybe I'm reading that into your motives when something else is your goal instead, though -- here's your chance to comment.

Edited January 29, 2014 by bonesiii

[Kakaru]

 

 

If this line was truly offensive and harmful to Japan, wouldn't some Japanese people have complained about it by now?

I generally try to stay out of these kinds of topics, but I wanted to highlight Sir Kohran's post here because I haven't seen anyone yet address this (in my opinion) very good point yet.

 

I think it would be best if we could get the perspective of some actual Japanese Lego fans on this issue. Not sure how, though. Maybe find a Japanese Lego fansite and contact its members and see what they think of Ninjago (unfortunately I don't know of any Japanese Lego fansites, but it still seems like a good idea to me if anyone wants to try it).

 

-TNTOS-

 

I would like to point out that Kahi, who is of East Asian descent, provided his perspective on the topic, though I do not know if Japanese is in his lineage.

 

I would love the input of some Japanese fans on this, though I do think that disregarding all points made because of this single point would be foolish.

 

No, you're right: the points you've brought up on cultural appropriation and broad ignorance of the issues are entirely valid, but in the end the feelings of those directly affected by said ignorance and appropriation are what matter most. However, a large portion of this topic has been speculation from a group of westerners and if given the choice I would rather side with caution and admit my underqualification to speak on behalf of either side of the topic rather than to defend ignorance on the ground that it allows me to have my fun.

 

also yo, just because the damage was unintentional does not excuse it. It's our job as a fanbase to point out mistakes and how they could be improved rather than to be apologists for every mistake we find in what we enjoy. Awareness and sensitivity does not have to detract from our ability to enjoy it. Ninjago was created through ingrained cultural ignorance that was not intentionally malicious, but the fact remains that it has its flaws and it's okay to admit that it could stand a measure of respect for the source of its inspiration, particularly where actual people and personal religious symbols are concerned.

 

The damage wasn't intentional but I don't think that's the point being made here. The fact is that it happened and people should be more aware of it in order to prevent ignorance of sensitive topics in the future.

 

So people can get offended at almost anything. Does that mean we should stop trying to better ourselves because "where does it end?" No. It means we recognize when that offense is a very real and valid concern that can harm people and their culture as a whole, and we take action to prevent ourselves from making those mistakes in the future. If someone gets offended at something trivial that has no bearing on anyone's life or well-being then you can well brush it off as an overly-sensitive opinion, bu otherwise take care to avoid becoming an apologist for harmful ideas and actions, intentional or not.

[believe victims]

Worse, it is possible for you to create harm by insisting on seeing it where none was intended.

 

Intended harm and actual harm completely different beasts. Whether Lego intended offense or not doesn't change whether or not it is, in fact, offensive. I can present a completely racist image of Africa and not even realize it until someone speaks up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't racist.

 

Your post seemed to me to create the impression that your argument was built on the premise that Ninjago is meant to accurately represent Japanese culture, or at least that the average fan would get that impression. That is why replies are refuting that false premise. Even the second interpretation does not seem likely to me, though it's possible in some cases. But then, why not make the topic be about positively informing people of that thing?

 

My argument was built on the premise that Ninjago is based almost entirely on misconstrued visions of what Japanese culture is. So far the "refutations" I've gotten are that that's ok because it's not supposed to be Japan.

 

Also, if they were not cashing in on a Cool Foreign Culture, then why use ninja in the first place? Why not invent their own warrior class? The foreign nature of the ninja is what caused the "ninja fever" that inspired this line.

 

You've used this analogy twice, and I agree with it to some extent. However, I'm having trouble understanding how the second part applies. The enemies so far have been evil skeletons, snake-people (and a guy turned evil by mind-altering snake venom), puppeteered warrior golems, and next evil androids.

Admittedly, in this case I'm referring specifically to Garmadon, whose appearance appears to be based on images of Japanese youkai/demons/what have you. Also tangentially related is the Westernization of the dragons.

 

Incidentally, the final episode of the Red John saga in the Mentalist actually featured the 'hero', Jane, storing a gun in a church.

As a Christian myself, I must say it did not even occur to me to feel offended by this. Not sure why not, or if that is necessarily the right reaction, but the idea just didn't occur to me. Of course, I generally don't believe in being offended anyways -- it can be too easily abused as an excuse to create antagonism just to fight with people.

 

There's a difference between using a holy place to store a weapon and reducing its sole purpose to that, as the Mountain Shrine set does.

 

Again, if you present the actual as "anything but this exactly, or nothing, is offensive", then surely most people are going to conclude that being devoted to that actual apparently tends to make you a curmudgeon, and not be attracted to it. You pit it against the partial, radically changed versions of it. But the problem is people enjoy the radically different version, enough that if they feel they must choose between them, they probably will side against you.

 

My argument has been that all I want is for Japanese culture to be treated with respect, and actual research to have gone into the inspirations, since it's pretty obvious that they put more research into making modern-looking vehicles than finding out what feudal Japan was actually like.

[Noxryn]

To the final sentence in this quote, I agree with your perspective on this, but I think the fact remains that they did not intend to offend anyone.

It doesn't matter if harm is intended if harm is caused regardless. Just because I don't mean to trip someone, doesn't mean that person isn't hurt and doesn't mean I am absolved of all responsibility and it definitely doesn't mean that I should not apologize and it doesn't mean I should not be more careful where I'm sticking out my leg.

 

 

And another fact also remains, that you can probably find people who will be offended if you do anything.

If it's insulting groups of people, inaccurately portraying important cultural icons, if it's dehumanizing people, or making light of real plights people are sitting in... then yes, people will be offended. They have a right to be offended, and they have a right to state as much. Whether or not harm is intended, if it's caused then isn't it simply better to apologize for causing harm and then trying to actively not do it again? Isn't it better to grow up from the experience, realize something might be out of line and actually try to correct it?

 

I dunno, I just keep thinking of how LEGO reacted so graciously when the Maori people requested (even demanded, often not in friendly terms) that aspects of their culture not be used.

If Lego was gracious they wouldn't have used it in the first place. By using what is not theirs, by re-branding it and selling it for a profit, why on earth should the Maori people take the time to kindly word anything? They had every right to feel upset, to feel that their culture was being needlessly peddled around and distorted for a company to make money off it. At that point it was only responsible that Lego fix their error, hopefully grow up from it, and learn that appropriating important cultural aspects and icons is rude and shouldn't be done by their company.

 

Lego was in the wrong there, 100%. The issue this thread is getting at is that they are essentially doing the same thing here, but with cultural icons and stripping meaning from cultural locations and positions.

 

I find it hard to believe LEGO is intending harm with this. Worse, it is possible for you to create harm by insisting on seeing it where none was intended.

It doesn't matter if offense was intended or not. It doesn't. If offense is caused, it's caused. If you bump into someone and knock them over, they are still potentially hurt and you should still apologize and help them up. From what I've noticed and read, Lego has made some transgressions with this line and they should actively work to make sure it doesn't happen in the future: Why is it such a chore for Lego to become more respectful of other cultures and peoples? Why is it such a negative thing for them to go out and actually research information and use it respectfully when creating a line, if only to avoid another situation like with the Maori culture? Just because it's a fun line you enjoy doesn't mean Lego shouldn't actively try to make it better by trying to respect the culture they're taking things from and making a profit off. And it certainly doesn't mean that Ninjago is perfect and can't possibly improve: this is one way it can improve, by showing respect towards the source-culture it's taken from.

 

Or they could forgo taking from other cultures if all they want to do is re-brand and sell it without respecting it.

 

Why try to reopen wounds that have been healing? Why not contribute to the healing?

Lego opened the wounds, not SC. Pointing out that Lego is doing so is the only way to heal the wounds... you know, make them stop picking at it.

[bonesiii]

My argument was built on the premise that Ninjago is based almost entirely on misconstrued visions of what Japanese culture is.

Have you considered that probably nearly every treasured aspect of any culture is likely also based in large part on misconstruing of previous things?

 

Take the modern English language for example. I could introduce you to many people, especially professors, who get worked into a tizzy because the current English language is not accurate to what English once was. Yet, they never seem to consider that the version of English they prefer was in turn created in the exact same way -- modification of what went before that, often including misunderstandings.

 

Another thing is that the very same idea can be invented by intentionally mixing and matching elements, without actually misunderstanding anything, due to devotion to the principle illustrated in Star Trek as a Vulcan saying, infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Someone else may happen across that same combination due to a misunderstanding. Does the potential for the second mean that the first is wrong too? Because you can probably find people who have arrived at ideas through misunderstandings that mirror every idea you hold dear through other means.

 

There are things I often think about, and I do think the philosophy I've developed to try to make sense of questions like this makes sense. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's also possible you may be missing things too.

 

I think in general the key to life is to consciously choose to fight the temptation to be offended, and instead approach things from a constructive criticism perspective and a teaching approach -- as well as a humble learning approach!

 

 

 

BTW, another point I was going to bring up but ran out of time is, I'm a little confused on why you say it is okay for people to enjoy Ninjago, but not okay for it to exist in the ways it is because of how it got that way. But Ninjago was formed that way because people already enjoy the "ninja myth" culture. And if they enjoy that because of misunderstanding what originally inspired it, is not the enjoying contributing to the perpetuation of that version of ninjas, etc.? If they instead enjoyed highly accurate portrayals of Japanese culture instead, then that would be what the story aimed at. So isn't LEGO simply echoing the desires that are out there, which you yourself said are okay?

 

Another thing you might want to consider is that culture is not a static thing, and the legend-ized pop culture version of Ninjas may, from an objective point of view, be a legitimate culture of its own. In that case, you yourself may be risking being insensitive to a culture whose motivations for being formed was primarily innocent.

 

There's a difference between using a holy place to store a weapon and reducing its sole purpose to that, as the Mountain Shrine set does.

True, but then LEGO does not have the option, due to their policies, to present the religious side of it. Of course, this is why it would have been better not to use that label at all. But I think the motive was simply to make a cool sounding name (which you apparently have a taste not to enjoy, but that doesn't really solve the problem a set designer has of needing to give sets cool-sounding names), and look at it more from an "ideaspace" perspective rather than religious. So, "shrine" is probably meant to describe a similarity in feel and appearance of a thing, rather than have anything to do with specific purposes of specific real-world shrines. (The word is a common feature of English, incidentally. For example, a poster of a pop music artist may be poetically called a "shrine" to that artist, without any serious implications per se, although it can also be used derogatorily to imply it's obsessive, depending on the motives of the person who put it up.)

 

On the other hand, you are certainly free to imagine that LEGO is hinting, though due to policy unable to say it outright, that that is not its only purpose. You could insert whatever purpose you would desire, technically.

 

Also, isn't it possible for a fictional world to have philosophical implications, especially focused on seeking peace (and using violence only where necessary to defend it), to a place used to store the weapons used to attain that peace? These weapons aren't being used to kill people even, at least if bad memory serves, in a similar way to the Toa Code, but to defend against villains' attacks and capture villains. Merely being a weapon rack need not be the only purpose.

Edited January 29, 2014 by bonesiii

[believe victims]

BTW, another point I was going to bring up but ran out of time is, I'm a little confused on why you say it is okay for people to enjoy Ninjago, but not okay for it to exist in the ways it is because of how it got that way. But Ninjago was formed that way because people already enjoy the "ninja myth" culture. And if they enjoy that because of misunderstanding what originally inspired it, is not the enjoying contributing to the perpetuation of that version of ninjas, etc.? If they instead enjoyed highly accurate portrayals of Japanese culture instead, then that would be what the story aimed at. So isn't LEGO simply echoing the desires that are out there, which you yourself said are okay?

 

What I meant was that you can enjoy the sets I suppose, and whatever of the story IS original. I did not mean that the fetishization of Japanese culture in the West is ok.

 

Another thing you might want to consider is that culture is not a static thing, and the legend-ized pop culture version of Ninjas may, from an objective point of view, be a legitimate culture of its own. In that case, you yourself may be risking being insensitive to a culture whose motivations for being formed was primarily innocent.

 

Innocent motivations like orientalism, imperialism, and cultural fetishization?

 

I think in general the key to life is to consciously choose to fight the temptation to be offended, and instead approach things from a constructive criticism perspective and a teaching approach -- as well as a humble learning approach!

Funny how you shift the blame over to me by saying that the issue is me being offended, and not the line being offensive. Clever method of delegitimizing my views. Nobody can learn from this experience if nobody admits anything is wrong, and despite my best efforts to prove otherwise, people still aren't convinced that something wrong HAS occurred.

[Krayzikk]

This argument...

 

Wow, where do I begin. Well, first of all, can we consider this for a moment; I don't usually venture into this part of the forums, and you lot have managed to create a stir clear across the forums. Is this what BZP has descended into? Whiteknighting over every darn topic that comes down the pike? You know, I haven't been here as long as some, but I've been here longer than many, and I can remember when a line wouldn't get attacked for using cultural tropes that have been in existence longer than most of the people in this topic have been alive.

 

First of all, I'd like to make a note about the original post; "Spinjitzu" is no more a corruption of any one of a dozen other martial arts or martial arts maneuvers that includes a similar naming scheme. Next, cultural appropriation; Much of Japan's culture originally came about through appropriation from China. Does that justify it in the modern world? No. But it is important to remember as a historical context.

 

Next, does anyone remember a little theme called "Exo-Force"? You know, the one that turned ancient Japanese architecture into the Golden City? And overall oozed cultural tropes from every pore? I don't remember any of these issues then.

 

I also remember someone, namely Critics, stating earlier that this wouldn't be so bad if Japan did it, largely because they wouldn't be so insensitive.

 

...

 

...

 

Okay, I'll resist my one word answer.

 

Who here is familiar with Naruto? I bet everyone is, even if they've never watched or read it. It's one of the most popular shounen anime and manga around the world. It's also entirely based around distorting Japanese culture (The Nine-Tailed Fox, for example), even the very idea of ninjas. The series refers to them as ninja verbatim, and in fact, they're even less accurate to real life ninjas than Ninjago is. And it is made in Japan, by a man named Kishimoto. That's really just the tip of the iceberg, really, if you name an anime, there will almost certainly be a bad distortion of a ninja in it. Gundam Build Fighters? Niels Nielsen, American japanophile, and often referred to as "Samurai Boy" because his entire schtick is appropriating another culture.

 

And it's not just limited to that. Let's take an anime; Toaru Majutsu no Index, for example. Take a look at their interpretation of western culture. Wildly inaccurate, no?

 

TL;DR

 

Fighting about this is foolish, especially when it's something Japan does to itself as well.

 

But here we get to the crux of the issue; If anyone, and I mean anyone, can provide me with a reputable source indicating that anyone of Japanse heritage or nationality has actually complained about Ninjago's portrayal of their culture, I will gladly drop any opposition. In fact, I'll probably agree with you.

 

If you can't, this argument is pointless. Either way, how about everyone just calms down and discusses the matter. No one is getting anywhere by spouting walls of text at each other.

[believe victims]

Gundam Build Fighters? Niels Nielsen, American japanophile, and often referred to as "Samurai Boy" because his entire schtick is appropriating another culture.

 

...how is a Japanese character joking about the exact thing this topic is about proof that this is a non-issue?

[fishers64]

some critics, okay, I agree with you. Frankly, if Ninjago is offensive to you because of cultural appropriation, you do have a legitimate basis for that offense. However, can we agree that this offense was caused out of western cultures' ignorance of certain aspects of the East, including what is offensive to be appropriated by a kid's toyline?

 

* * *

I think some people here see "hey, there are some problems with this line and here's why," but think that they see "I DONT LIEK IT AND ANYOEN WHO DOES IS RONG!!!!1!!!!11111"

Which is entirely not true.

Ninjago fans in this thread are rapidly turning into reactionary apologists. No one's saying that you can't like Ninjago. Acknowledging the fact that it has problematic aspects does not mean you have to hate something that you previously enjoyed, even if your previous enjoyment was based, in whole or in part, on ignorance towards its cultural appropriation.

I mean, I'm a fan of Doctor Who but I realize that the writing of its current incarnation is terrible and Steven Moffat ran out of half-decent ideas a series and a half ago. Doesn't stop me from being a fan, but I realize that it's got its problems. Heck, any franchise does.

I don't think anyone is turning into a "reactionary apologist." Nothing is perfect in this world, and Ninjago fits into the category of imperfection. I reserve the right to like and enjoy Ninjago despite its flaws, but I don't think that should blind me to any flaws it does have.

[Hahli Husky]

Jess (some critics), just wanted to say I enjoyed your write-up in the first post about the issues of cultural appropriation and how it may apply to something like Ninjago. Starting a dialogue on these issues and keeping it fresh instead of just taking it as "something it just is" is excellent! It sends a powerful message to current and future content creators, so that media may continue to improve and come closer to a balance of fantastic imagination and the respect and positive portrayal of history, cultures, religions, races, sexes, etc. It's entirely possible to enjoy something while realizing and addressing the problems it may have! It's important to consider the views and feelings of others about the things that you may love. You definitely don't have to, but the overwhelming default voice of humanity saying "just be quiet and enjoy it for what it is" can be very dangerous and may create misunderstandings and harmful stereotypes, and erase and silence cultures and the people who are a part of them. It's always important to do research and listen to those who are actually a part of the culture you want to write about. I have no idea if LEGO did this for Ninjago or not.

 

I actually ran across Moff's Law today and wanted to share a piece from the Fiction Theory blog that made me think of this:

 

"Whether or not we write about the world we want, what we write about is the world we make. It is never just fiction. It’s a metaphor, a cause, an idea, a language-based viral infection, a cultural transaction, a personal manifesto, a plan, a vision, a possibility – but never is it just anything. Never."

Edited January 29, 2014 by Hahli Husky

[Krayzikk]

 

Gundam Build Fighters? Niels Nielsen, American japanophile, and often referred to as "Samurai Boy" because his entire schtick is appropriating another culture.

 

...how is a Japanese character joking about the exact thing this topic is about proof that this is a non-issue?

Clearly you've missed the point; The point being that this is something that happens within Japan's own borders. I enjoy that you latch on to the one point that you can properly refute.

 

However, this brings me back to the crux of my point;

 

This is all well and good for us to debate, people who exist outside of the region in discussion. But if it is only us, then it is just foolishness. Can you provide any documented instances wherein anyone of Japanese descent or heritage expressed anger or upset about this?

[You just lost the game]

 

1. lol

 

2. I'd say it's more the toning down of what ninjas really are. I'm sure parents would love their kids playing with trained killers in Lego form.

 

3. No it isn't. See above point.

 

4. And please tell me how you'd do Ninjago better.

 

5.Indeed

 

1. http://www.majhost.com/gallery/gatodesu/HerpDerp/wankgate/1372521884234.gif

 

2. Toning down ninjas from being spies to being warriors. You use the word 'trained killers.' Warriors would seem to fit that definition better than spies. The implication that you couldn't be true to Japanese culture without making them into cold blooded murderers is preposterous. While it is true that ninjas were involved in things such as assassinations, that wasn't the only thing they did.

 

3, Please explain to me how this isn't degrading Japanese culture. You referring me to previous arguments that I and others have made points against does not successfully debunk my points.

 

4. First remove the idea that shrines are for weapons and all that jazz entirely from the narrative. Make the ninjas actual ninjas who do stuff like reconnaissance missions and sabotage. Change the name of spinjitsu to something else entirely. Be more respectful to Japanese culture in general. Etc. etc.

 

5. I am glad that we agree that Ninjago is not above criticism for things that it does wrong.

1. Second best GIF I've seen all day.

 

2. I know that ninjas didn't do just assassinations, such as modern day spies, but it was part of their job description.

 

3. I totally forgot what I was arguing about on this point, so I'll leave it empty until I feel a need to argue this point.

 

4.If I recall correctly, I only remember one instance of a "shrine" being used as a weapons-depot ,and even then I think it was a dojo that kinda sorta looked like a shrine.

If I also recall correctly, there are several instances in the TV series where reconnaisance and sabotage are used by the ninjas.

So in this sense, they are ninjas, just with the power to turn into tornadoes.

They could change the name, but to what? Spin-Fu? The ability to change into tornadoes? Ninjas were obviously trained in the art of ninjitsu, so making these ninjas masters of spinjitsu makes some sense. A combination of Ninjago's trademark spinning and ninjitsu. Maybe the better thing to do, would be to call the ninjas, 'Spinjas', as to more accurately represent what they are.

 

5.Indeed

 

Pirates and knights are "parodied" by Lego. I don't see anyone complaining about them.

 

Then again, they're not even being "parodied" like you say. They're being toned down.

 

If pirates and knights were made to be as realistic as possible, we may have some problems here.

 

So in what possible way could you make ninjas more "respectful" to it's source material, without coming off too violent for kids, or eliminating any creative license put into it?

First off, we're not talking about those lines (so why bring them up?) and even if they were relevant to mention, pirates and knights are prominent within the cultural history of where Lego exists (it's part of their own culture, in other words and they aren't as grossly misrepresented as in this case).

 

(Also Ninjago isn't a toned down version of a ninja, or of Japanese culture at all -- it's completely incorrect, unless you really think religious shrines are used to house weaponry? Or that Spinjutsu is really a toned down ninjutsu [because no it's not], or that violence is all that makes something culturally relevant? -- The post below explains a lot better what could be done to make it more respectful)

 

Ninjago suffers from taking something that belongs to one culture and removing all cultural significance from it, erasing the culture that created it from the picture (or incorporating it in insulting manners, namely with using religious shrines as weapon depots, or putting forth common stereotypes of that culture -- look at Sensei Wu) and they're just trying to make money off it. It's not respectful to take someone else's culture, to remove any and all significance and respect for it, reduce it down to a child's plaything that bears no resemblance to the source material or pays no respect to the source material, all to make a profit off the ideas, concepts and creations of that source -- that culture.

 

I don't know why everyone's defending Lego for it, granted Lego could do a lot better by actually not using lazy writing and disrespecting other cultures.

 

1. If you're going to say Lego is degrading a culture, why not bring them all under questioning? If Lego is actually degrading a culture, it's entirely plausible to say they're doing it to another! You could even say Lego is racist to aliens because they're almost always the bad guys!

 

2.You're right, Ninjago has almost nothing to do with Japanese culture. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

3. The only thing that Ninjago took from Japanese culture, is the ninjas themselves, architectural design, and that's about it.

Ninjago isn't a parody of Japanese culture, it's its own unique fantasy land, so why should it be taken as a degrading of a culture?

Lego even gets its own culture wrong in the form of its Castle themes, yet I hear no one complaining about it.

 

4.lol

 

basic summary of the replies to this topic thus far: "I won't let a silly little thing like respect for other cultures get in the way of my entertainment!"

I love it when someone adds an intelligent and well thought out point to a thread.

Edited January 29, 2014 by You just lost the game

[Kakaru]

some critics, okay, I agree with you. Frankly, if Ninjago is offensive to you because of cultural appropriation, you do have a legitimate basis for that offense. However, can we agree that this offense was caused out of western cultures' ignorance of certain aspects of the East, including what is offensive to be appropriated by a kid's toyline?

 

* * *

This is exactly it yeah!! This wasn't a deliberate and malicious attempt to water down and appropriate eastern culture, but the fact is that all these misconceptions are very ingrained in western thought and a lot of people simply don't realize it's happening even as they create material that perpetuates these motifs. It was definitely an accident, but we should strive to become aware of it so it doesn't happen again. I think that's really all we can do in regards to a situation like this.

 

 

I think some people here see "hey, there are some problems with this line and here's why," but think that they see "I DONT LIEK IT AND ANYOEN WHO DOES IS RONG!!!!1!!!!11111"

 

Which is entirely not true.

 

Ninjago fans in this thread are rapidly turning into reactionary apologists. No one's saying that you can't like Ninjago. Acknowledging the fact that it has problematic aspects does not mean you have to hate something that you previously enjoyed, even if your previous enjoyment was based, in whole or in part, on ignorance towards its cultural appropriation.

 

I mean, I'm a fan of Doctor Who but I realize that the writing of its current incarnation is terrible and Steven Moffat ran out of half-decent ideas a series and a half ago. Doesn't stop me from being a fan, but I realize that it's got its problems. Heck, any franchise does.

I don't think anyone is turning into a "reactionary apologist." Nothing is perfect in this world, and Ninjago fits into the category of imperfection. I reserve the right to like and enjoy Ninjago despite its flaws, but I don't think that should blind me to any flaws it does have.

 

you get it yes exactly

 

you can like something and accept that it has problems and be aware that it can improve

[bonesiii]

saying that the issue is me being offended, and not the line being offensive.

You said that in your approach, it does not matter if offense is intended. If it isn't intended, the only other option is that the person who is being offended is choosing to be offended. What other alternative is there?

 

Innocent motivations like

For example, a kid who already likes to imagine fantasy battles with cool-looking weapons, and the pop culture version of ninjas appeals to that. It's often said that a good idea in a story may be inspired by anything. I've gotten some of my best ideas for designs (judging by fans of those ideas) from the random shape of a tree, for example. Now, looking to the explanation posted above of how the idea for Ninja costumes came about [Edit: Also if someone missed that, Shockwave just posted it directly below this post], isn't it possible that the original people who came up with the idea saw it as recognizing an idea within the realm of imagination, that they enjoyed?

 

Nobody can learn from this experience if nobody admits anything is wrong, and despite my best efforts to prove otherwise, people still aren't convinced that something wrong HAS occurred.

My point from the start is that you have not given us a clear reason that something wrong is done. You seem to have conceded that no harm was intended. Where is the idea that something wrong has been done coming from? (Referring to the general things. Again, some things like the shrine thing are not the same and most of us appear to be agreeing on that.) It seems to me that there's a point in the chain of your reasoning where to reach the idea that LEGO did something wrong, we are being asked to simply agree with your assertions that it is wrong, for no apparent reason.

 

You probably have legitimate reasons to see it as wrong, but so far I'm not seeing a clear explanation of why. It does appear that you're saying you're choosing to be offended, apparently for no other purpose than to be offended. You should keep in mind that we're not telepathic, and it may make sense in your head, but you might not be communicating it in a good or clear way. Others who feel similarly to you may resonate with it and get it, but the rest of us may still misunderstand where this is coming from because you have failed to clearly explain it.

Edited January 29, 2014 by bonesiii

[~Shockwave~]

Well, based on a bit of research, it seems that there are some misconceptions flying around this topic and I'm surprised they haven't been addressed.

 

Most sources seem to agree that Ninja where typically lower class hired assassins and known for stealth. But rather than the black outfits they are associated with, they typically wore civilian attire to not stand out. The black outfits seem to owe their credit to traditional staged plays where stagehands wore the attire and the outfit meant they were to be ignored by the audience. They would apparently participate in the play and any of their actions were thought to be from thin air.

 

Honestly, more than anything, I found this rather interesting. As I never knew most of that. It doesn't really change much, if at all. But, if nothing else, I went and looked up some stuff and learned something new. And from the information I gathered, it doesn't seem terribly hard to make the jump from the information I found to the pop-culture ninja we have in the west. Does that make it any less or more offensive? That's obviously up to debate, but if ninjago wasn't a thing I may not know that. So there's that.

 

(and this goes without saying, I hope, that I haven't done a lot of research, and what I found may be wrong.)

Edited January 29, 2014 by ~Shockwave~

[believe victims]

You said that in your approach, it does not matter if offense is intended. If it isn't intended, the only other option is that the person who is being offended is choosing to be offended. What other alternative is there?

Something does not need to be INTENTIONALLY offensive to be considered offensive. That's the alternative, and it baffles me that it's such a hard concept to grasp.

For example, a kid who already likes to imagine fantasy battles with cool-looking weapons, and the pop culture version of ninjas appeals to that.

 

The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point. If you wouldn't base a story on ol' Jim Crow, why would you base one on a pop culture ninja?

 

I have spent much of this topic telling you what was wrong: Japanese culture was chewed up, spat out, mashed up, whitewashed, dazzled up, and turned into a toyline for kids. It's not just a toyline with harmless Japanese influences, it's a toyline that splats Japanese culture wherever it wants, regardless of original significance. The appropriation of shrines and temples is evidence of that. You seem to be choosing to interpret that as "cultural purism" when what I'm actually asking for is a little respect for a culture.

[25K Now!]

 

You guys need to calm down first before continuing the debate. Gather your thoughts, drink some water, watch a movie or something, then come back and try doing so in a more civilised manner that does not involve mocking others on Tumblr.

 

My 6RMB - People have differing opinions. Accept that. Just debate more politely please? We're in public. Sort of. Maybe?

[Krayzikk]

Critics, I believe something may have been lost in, pardon the pun, translation here.

 

It is all well and good to be indignant over issues, in fact, it is something the world needs more of. But only when there is cause to be indignant. Can you point out any times wherein a member of the ethnicity you insist has been slandered so has actually voiced anger, or even distaste on the matter?

 

If all that can be mustered is "a new fool has joined the ring" posted on another form of media, then I'm afraid I can't see any ground upon which for indignation.

[You just lost the game]

 

You said that in your approach, it does not matter if offense is intended. If it isn't intended, the only other option is that the person who is being offended is choosing to be offended. What other alternative is there?

Something does not need to be INTENTIONALLY offensive to be considered offensive. That's the alternative, and it baffles me that it's such a hard concept to grasp.

For example, a kid who already likes to imagine fantasy battles with cool-looking weapons, and the pop culture version of ninjas appeals to that.

 

The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point. If you wouldn't base a story on ol' Jim Crow, why would you base one on a pop culture ninja?

 

I have spent much of this topic telling you what was wrong: Japanese culture was chewed up, spat out, mashed up, whitewashed, dazzled up, and turned into a toyline for kids. It's not just a toyline with harmless Japanese influences, it's a toyline that splats Japanese culture wherever it wants, regardless of original significance. The appropriation of shrines and temples is evidence of that. You seem to be choosing to interpret that as "cultural purism" when what I'm actually asking for is a little respect for a culture.

 

1. If it's unintentionally offensive, it shouldn't be taken as being offensive.

 

2. I guess European and alien cultures have been degraded to, because you could say Lego does this to them as well.

[believe victims]

 

 

You said that in your approach, it does not matter if offense is intended. If it isn't intended, the only other option is that the person who is being offended is choosing to be offended. What other alternative is there?

Something does not need to be INTENTIONALLY offensive to be considered offensive. That's the alternative, and it baffles me that it's such a hard concept to grasp.

For example, a kid who already likes to imagine fantasy battles with cool-looking weapons, and the pop culture version of ninjas appeals to that.

 

The "pop culture version of ninjas" is practically a racist stereotype at this point. If you wouldn't base a story on ol' Jim Crow, why would you base one on a pop culture ninja?

 

I have spent much of this topic telling you what was wrong: Japanese culture was chewed up, spat out, mashed up, whitewashed, dazzled up, and turned into a toyline for kids. It's not just a toyline with harmless Japanese influences, it's a toyline that splats Japanese culture wherever it wants, regardless of original significance. The appropriation of shrines and temples is evidence of that. You seem to be choosing to interpret that as "cultural purism" when what I'm actually asking for is a little respect for a culture.

 

1. If it's unintentionally offensive, it shouldn't be taken as being offensive.

 

2. I guess European and alien cultures have been degraded to, because you could say Lego does this to them as well.

 

1. No, if it's unintentionally offensive, it's still problematic. If I accidentally blackface, I still need to own up to it and make amends.

 

2.Lego IS European, and the Castle and Viking lines are actually way more respectful to their origin cultures than Ninjago is. Do you know why? Because people from a culture know the boundaries of the culture.

 

As for alien, I have long objected to the fact that in every space line besides Life on Mars the aliens are solely antagonists. That has no bearing on this discussion, however.

[Hahli Husky]

-giant image clipped-

 

You guys need to calm down first before continuing the debate. Gather your thoughts, drink some water, watch a movie or something, then come back and try doing so in a more civilised manner that does not involve mocking others on Tumblr.

 

My 6RMB - People have differing opinions. Accept that. Just debate more politely please? We're in public. Sort of. Maybe?

 

Thank you for trying to step in TPA, but please leave this sort of thing to staff. There is a difference between arguing and flaming, and debate. So far there has been nothing breaking rules that hasn't been taken care of, other than people trying to step in the way a staff member would. If you feel a post is breaking rules, please just report it. So far I don't see anyone doing this; as long as people do not personally attack each other on BZP or start flaming or trolling, then the debating is perfectly fine. Just because people do not agree with one another does not mean that they aren't allowed to discuss it.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Hahli Husky