Jump to content

The Problem with Ninjago


believe victims

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

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.

I'm sorry, maybe I can't be seen when I'm not quoting large walls of text.

 

First of all, your first contention; Let's go once again to my question that you've notably ignored thus far. Has anyone been offended? It's as simple as that. Can you point to a moment where someone of the ethnic group you so valiantly work to support has actually been offended by this?

 

Second; So it's fine for Lego to dilute their own culture, it's fine when Japan distorts their own culture far beyond what Ninjago has done (I refer you once again to one of the best selling mangas, Naruto, wherein ninjas are treated even worse, and Japanese culture even further distorted.), it's fine when Japan distorts our culture (Index, and every other anime where a Western religion plays a prominent role.), but it's not fine when the West does it to the East?

fK5oqYf.jpg

 

On this eve, the thirtieth anniversary of that first colony, many are left to wonder; is the world fast approaching a breaking point?

 

 

  Breaking Point: An OTC Mecha RPG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

How does that change the fact that to be offensive without being intended that way, you have to have people choosing to be offended by it? Again, what alternative is there to this? No matter what is done, you can probably find someone choosing to be offended about it. Shall we do nothing at all? But then, some will take offense to that.

 

Aiyaiyai. :P

 

It just seems to me to be an infinitely more rational approach to choose only to be offended if it's clear someone intended offense. That way we don't have to walk on eggshells because of the fear that somewhere out there, somebody we haven't yet had time to research has formed a philosophy (or entered one formed by others) that takes offense to anything and everything we do or do not do.

 

Now, they may be "being offended" for legitimate reasons. But it would still be them being offended, rather than the thing being inherently offensive. A thing by itself is just a thing; what emotions it invokes in others depends on things in their brains. Yes? And then we would want to know, why specifically is that thing offensive? We have all witnessed people who go around intentionally acting offended to create strife, apparently feeding off of that strife. I have family who work in retail, and there are so many customers who just seem to enjoy taking out their stresses in life on the store workers, hunting very hard to find fault, whether or not there was actually legitimate fault (often the attitude is instead the result of a misconception on the customer's part, but they may be too prideful to admit it).

 

Now, since we know this principle exists, we cannot just blindly trust that people who say they are offended are so for legitimate reasons. So it is reasonable to ask those who do this to clearly explain the reasons they are offended. That is what I am asking you to do. :)

 

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

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

 

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

 

Incidentally, why must we see these things as western imperialism? You can probably find some imperialism in every historical culture, and there were actual "empires" in cultures across the globe, including Japan, if bad memory serves. The west, for a while, had a more widespread power base, but that does not imply that only it had the problem. I dunno, interesting food for thought, I hope. :)

 

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.

But these are merely emotional descriptions. I would like to know why we must rationally see these as the only valid descriptions, and not more positively-connotated things instead? At core, it appears your argument remains that since relevant elements of Japanese culture were not portrayed in their entirety, and some aspects of those elements are replaced with common pop-culture versions, even most aspects, this "equals bad." But why not instead see this as simply a fun fusion?

Edited by bonesiii

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

oh

 

I swore a solemn vow that I wouldn't step into this quagmire, but...what? If I heard you use a homophobic slur in a bar and grill while I'm watching football, and I'm bisexual, I'm going to turn around and ask you what your deal is, because using demeaning stereotypes and words to associate traits to cultures is offensive in any context. The fact that people on BZP and in the real world really fail to grasp that after the hard work of so many people on and off this site is not only stunning, it is thoroughly depressing and disappointing. There's no other way to phrase it, and there's no way to pretty it up or sugarcoat it. It's offensive, and by letting it slide because "aw shucks gee whiz I didn't mean it man" is only ensuring the same problem will be shouldered onto the next generation.

 

As for offending alien cultures, I'll send ET and the Martian Manhunter my regards the next time we pass by each other.

 

-Tyler

Edited by Aegon Targaryen

SAY IT ONE MORE TIME 

TELL ME WHAT IS ON YOUR MIND

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

 

1. Indeed, but that's only if someone complains over it, which they shouldn't, if it's unintentional.

 

2. No, not really.

In the case of the castle themes, mideval knights would not have the symbol of their city or state on their shields.

Instead they'd have their family's Coat-of-Arms on their shield so that other knights would know who they were. Lego puts the symbol of whatever sect they belong to on their shields.

In the case of vikings, they never actually had horns on their helmets, but Lego added them anyway because it's the stereotypical view of vikings.

I could name more, but I won't unless need be.

 

3. It has bearing because it brings up the same issue.

Edited by You just lost the game

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

How does that change the fact that to be offensive without being intended that way, you have to have people choosing to be offended by it? Again, what alternative is there to this? No matter what is done, you can probably find someone choosing to be offended about it. Shall we do nothing at all? But then, some will take offense to that.

I can honestly say that I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

avatar by Lady Kopaka


tumblr_ng1pw4xLEM1tryxewo1_1280.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Indeed, but that's only if someone complains over it, which they shouldn't.

Hm so if I wear blackface accidentally, nobody should call me out on it? I should be allowed to continue? If I burn your house down on accident, should I tell you you cannot grieve over the lost house?

2. No, not really.

In the case of the castle themes, mideval knights would not have the symbol of their city or state on their shields.

Instead they'd have their family's Coat-of-Arms on their shield so that other knights would know who they were. Lego puts the symbol of whatever sect they belong to on their shields.

In the case of vikings, they never actually had horns on their helmets, but Lego added them anyway because it's the stereotypical view of vikings.

I could name more, but I won't unless need be.

 

Those are all aesthetic nitpicks. Knights still serve the purpose knights serve. Kings are still kings. Norsemen are still Norsemen.

3. It has bearing because it brings up the same issue.

 

When sapient aliens make themselves known, I'll give you this point.

 

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

 

An "in universe" explanation for why it isnt racist "in universe" doesn't mean anything when it comes to relations in real life.

Edited by some critics
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

 

 

{Overly large pic removed}

 

I swore a solemn vow that I wouldn't step into this quagmire, but...what? If I heard you use a homophobic slur in a bar and grill while I'm watching football, and I'm bisexual, I'm going to turn around and ask you what your deal is, because using demeaning stereotypes and words to associate traits to cultures is offensive in any context. The fact that people on BZP and in the real world really fail to grasp that after the hard work of so many people on and off this site is not only stunning, it is thoroughly depressing and disappointing. There's no other way to phrase it, and there's no way to pretty it up or sugarcoat it. It's offensive, and by letting it slide because "aw shucks gee whiz I didn't mean it man" is only ensuring the same problem will be shouldered onto the next generation.

 

As for offending alien cultures, I'll send ET and the Martian Manhunter my regards the next time we pass by each other.

 

-Tyler

 

The problem with this, is that you use calling someone a homophobic slur, as being the same as someone "degrading" a culture.

You can unintentionally insult someone's culture because you don't understand the history.

If you use a slur, you use it for what you know it means.

 

1. Indeed, but that's only if someone complains over it, which they shouldn't.

Hm so if I wear blackface accidentally, nobody should call me out on it? I should be allowed to continue? If I burn your house down on accident, should I tell you you cannot grieve over the lost house?

2. No, not really.

In the case of the castle themes, mideval knights would not have the symbol of their city or state on their shields.

Instead they'd have their family's Coat-of-Arms on their shield so that other knights would know who they were. Lego puts the symbol of whatever sect they belong to on their shields.

In the case of vikings, they never actually had horns on their helmets, but Lego added them anyway because it's the stereotypical view of vikings.

I could name more, but I won't unless need be.

 

Those are all aesthetic nitpicks. Knights still serve the purpose knights serve. Kings are still kings. Norsemen are still Norsemen.

3. It has bearing because it brings up the same issue.

 

When sapient aliens make themselves known, I'll give you this point.

 

1. I edited my point here, so it would make more sense.

The problem with this, is that you know using a blackface would be insulting to someone. There's no excuse for it.

Borrowing things from other cultures can be unintentionally insulting if you don't understand the history of said culture or what you're borrowing

 

2. No different from the things you say Lego is doing.

 

3. Indeed.

Edited by You just lost the game

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

How does that change the fact that to be offensive without being intended that way, you have to have people choosing to be offended by it? Again, what alternative is there to this? No matter what is done, you can probably find someone choosing to be offended about it. Shall we do nothing at all? But then, some will take offense to that.
I can honestly say that I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Simply this -- the idea of something being offensive exists in human minds, not in objects themselves. So it seems to me there's only two options -- either the idea exists both in the person's mind who created the object (intending offense) and the person being offended, or only in the person being offended. He seemed to oddly disagree with this basic fact, and I'm confused as to why.

 

Keep in mind, this doesn't change the possibility that the person choosing to be offended has legitimate reasons for doing so.

 

 

Edit:

 

Quote

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

 

An "in universe" explanation for why it isnt racist "in universe" doesn't mean anything when it comes to relations in real life.

That's true, but I don't see what it has to do with the part you put in quotes there...

 

To another point that's been thrown back and forth -- the idea of using blackface. This is something that I understand, coming from America where this comes from. Nobody in American who understands what that means would do such a thing (well, racists would I guess, but I mean decent people).

 

And something may accidentally seem similar to someone in another culture, but the key here is that the people making it are unlikely to know whether or not that is the case. So blackface is not a good analogy in this case. Generally probably the best way to avoid the risk is to look at media being made and accepted in that culture for comparison, and this is where I think the relevance of the point many have made that Japanese media makes and accepts very similar, even much farther alternate versions of things like ninjas. It does seem very debatable whether this really is offending people who belong to that culture.

 

It's a possibility that should be treated seriously, I agree, but the point is, if you don't really know if it's taken that way, then your position is supporting preemptive avoiding of offense, even in the face of evidence that appears clearly contrary to the idea that it would (the Japanese media that's similar). This is I think where we are getting confused, and why we are seriously doubting the claim that it is offensive for the most part.

Edited by bonesiii

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

{Overly large pic removed}

 

I swore a solemn vow that I wouldn't step into this quagmire, but...what? If I heard you use a homophobic slur in a bar and grill while I'm watching football, and I'm bisexual, I'm going to turn around and ask you what your deal is, because using demeaning stereotypes and words to associate traits to cultures is offensive in any context. The fact that people on BZP and in the real world really fail to grasp that after the hard work of so many people on and off this site is not only stunning, it is thoroughly depressing and disappointing. There's no other way to phrase it, and there's no way to pretty it up or sugarcoat it. It's offensive, and by letting it slide because "aw shucks gee whiz I didn't mean it man" is only ensuring the same problem will be shouldered onto the next generation.

 

As for offending alien cultures, I'll send ET and the Martian Manhunter my regards the next time we pass by each other.

 

-Tyler

 

The problem with this, is that you use calling someone a homophobic slur, as being the same as someone "degrading" a culture.

You can unintentionally insult someone's culture because you don't understand the history.

If you use a slur, you use it for what you know it means.

 

 

But this entire topic has been dedicated towards listing the ways that it's offensive so that people understand how Japanese culture is degraded. Ignoring all the points made over three pages of discussion just so you can continue backpedaling and saying how no offense was meant with the theme is just contributing to your own ignorance, and all it does is make some critics more and more right by the post. At this point, you know how the culture is being degraded with the theme, at least in the eyes of its protesters, and you know the basis behind the slurs. So why continue to support either?

 

 

 

 

 

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.

How does that change the fact that to be offensive without being intended that way, you have to have people choosing to be offended by it? Again, what alternative is there to this? No matter what is done, you can probably find someone choosing to be offended about it. Shall we do nothing at all? But then, some will take offense to that.
I can honestly say that I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Simply this -- the idea of something being offensive exists in human minds, not in objects themselves. So it seems to me there's only two options -- either the idea exists both in the person's mind who created the object (intending offense) and the person being offended, or only in the person being offended. He seemed to oddly disagree with this basic fact, and I'm confused as to why.

 

Keep in mind, this doesn't change the possibility that the person choosing to be offended has legitimate reasons for doing so.

 

 

People who are being offensive and oppressive, I've found, rarely tend to realize it until it's too late.

 

-Tyler

SAY IT ONE MORE TIME 

TELL ME WHAT IS ON YOUR MIND

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly some critics, you seem to part of a vocal minority. This is the minority who calls for riot over a toyline of spinning white dudes in ninja outfits, based at children who think feudalism is some kind of game show.

Edited by Douglas

BZPRPG Profiles

IC:

"It comes with the job," Halfimus explained, "I'm not paid enough to give anything outside quick flavour descriptions."

So pay me more AuRon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

{Overly large pic removed}

 

I swore a solemn vow that I wouldn't step into this quagmire, but...what? If I heard you use a homophobic slur in a bar and grill while I'm watching football, and I'm bisexual, I'm going to turn around and ask you what your deal is, because using demeaning stereotypes and words to associate traits to cultures is offensive in any context. The fact that people on BZP and in the real world really fail to grasp that after the hard work of so many people on and off this site is not only stunning, it is thoroughly depressing and disappointing. There's no other way to phrase it, and there's no way to pretty it up or sugarcoat it. It's offensive, and by letting it slide because "aw shucks gee whiz I didn't mean it man" is only ensuring the same problem will be shouldered onto the next generation.

 

As for offending alien cultures, I'll send ET and the Martian Manhunter my regards the next time we pass by each other.

 

-Tyler

 

The problem with this, is that you use calling someone a homophobic slur, as being the same as someone "degrading" a culture.

You can unintentionally insult someone's culture because you don't understand the history.

If you use a slur, you use it for what you know it means.

 

 

But this entire topic has been dedicated towards listing the ways that it's offensive so that people understand how Japanese culture is degraded. Ignoring all the points made over three pages of discussion just so you can continue backpedaling and saying how no offense was meant with the theme is just contributing to your own ignorance, and all it does is make some critics more and more right by the post. At this point, you know how the culture is being degraded with the theme, at least in the eyes of its protesters, and you know the basis behind the slurs. So why continue to support either?

 

 

 

Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture.

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

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I edited my point here, so it would make more sense.

The problem with this, is that you know using a blackface would be insulting to someone. There's no excuse for it.

Borrowing things from other cultures can be unintentionally insulting if you don't understand the history of said culture or what you're borrowing

So you should be allowed to continue doing an insulting thing, even if it hurts other people every time?

 

2. No different from the things you say Lego is doing.

 

My points were far more than aesthetic, and also included such things as religious structures/traditions, which neither line you mentioned had.

 

Honestly some critics, you seem to part of a vocal minority. This is the minority who calls for riot over a toyline of spinning white dudes in ninja outfits, based at children who think feudalism is some kind of game show.

 

If the majority was always right, slavery would never have gone out of style.

Edited by some critics
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

How does that change the fact that to be offensive without being intended that way, you have to have people choosing to be offended by it? Again, what alternative is there to this? No matter what is done, you can probably find someone choosing to be offended about it. Shall we do nothing at all? But then, some will take offense to that.

 

I can honestly say that I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

Simply this -- the idea of something being offensive exists in human minds, not in objects themselves. So it seems to me there's only two options -- either the idea exists both in the person's mind who created the object (intending offense) and the person being offended, or only in the person being offended. He seemed to oddly disagree with this basic fact, and I'm confused as to why.

 

Keep in mind, this doesn't change the possibility that the person choosing to be offended has legitimate reasons for doing so.

 

If someone is offended by something, it doesn't matter whether or not the offense was intended.

 

In this case, we have an offensive, culturally appropriative LEGO line (and it baffles me that this point is even being debated in the first place because it's pretty dang obvious). Now, I expressed my belief early on in the topic that I didn't think that LEGO intended Ninjago to be like this, but that doesn't mean that it isn't, or that people should choose to not be offended over something to blatant.

 

If I went up to a person of color and started saying racist things, it doesn't matter if I realize what I'm doing. The correct response is acknowledgement, apology, and working towards trying not to do those things in the future - not "I didn't know, therefore you should stop choosing to be offended, regardless of whether or not your offense was legitimate." To be perfectly honest, that's what your argument boils down to, hence my confusion.

avatar by Lady Kopaka


tumblr_ng1pw4xLEM1tryxewo1_1280.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

voidstars.png


1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89


"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture.

 

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

 

 

Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here.

 

-Tyler

SAY IT ONE MORE TIME 

TELL ME WHAT IS ON YOUR MIND

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who are being offensive and oppressive, I've found, rarely tend to realize it until it's too late.

That's a very valid and important point. :)

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. I edited my point here, so it would make more sense.

The problem with this, is that you know using a blackface would be insulting to someone. There's no excuse for it.

Borrowing things from other cultures can be unintentionally insulting if you don't understand the history of said culture or what you're borrowing

So you should be allowed to continue doing an insulting thing, even if it hurts other people every time?

 

2. No different from the things you say Lego is doing.

 

My points were far more than aesthetic, and also included such things as religious structures/traditions, which neither line you mentioned had.

 

1. If you know what you're doing is insulting, you absolutely shouldn't be doing it.

If you unintentionally insult someone, you'll get away with it once, and then be told to not do it again. Simple.

 

2. So you're saying this isn't a topic about culture problems, but religious problems?

Religious things can be a part of any culture, and have nothing to do with it.

Edited by You just lost the game

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If you know what you're doing is insulting, you absolutely shouldn't be doing it.

If you unintentionally insult someone, you'll get away with it once, and not do it again. Simple.

How will you know if you unintentionally insulted someone if nobody is allowed to tell you?

 

2. So you're saying this isn't a topic about culture problems, but religious problems?

Religious things can be a part of any culture, and have nothing to do with it.

 

Religious things are just a part of a culture, and the two are more intertwined than you think. Shintoism, especially, is tied to Japanese culture.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture.

 

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

 

 

Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here.

 

-Tyler

 

As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there.

They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it.

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

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

Edited by You just lost the game

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, by a show of hands, who here feels offended by Ninjago?

 

Funny, thats what I tried to ask.

 

I think, Snelly, that you'll find yourself just as ignored as I. Which, coincidentally, indicates one very important thing; The opposition is unable to refute any degree of formal logic or pointed questioning. Thus, they do not acknowledge the points made that they cannot make to fit within their argument framework.

 

By the standards of formal debate, in short, they show their ineffectiveness by their lack of response.

 

I think we're very much done here.

fK5oqYf.jpg

 

On this eve, the thirtieth anniversary of that first colony, many are left to wonder; is the world fast approaching a breaking point?

 

 

  Breaking Point: An OTC Mecha RPG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you who are disagreeing with the topic starter are risking crossing the line I was talking about. Please keep in mind the rules against trolling, etc. go both ways. If things continue as they are, I may give this topic a brief haitus so people can calm down.

 

 

Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means

Why is my response to this still being ignored? In practice, this means that only pure Japanese culture may be used, but this might not be as easily relatable to others, and thus may entirely fail. However, a partial mixing with Japanese culture may be easier to relate to, and actually draw people in to a stronger interest in it. So it need not "cheapen" but can actually attract people, and serve as a bridge toward deciding to learn more and more about it. :)

 

To the first part, what we are really debating about is 1) has it genuinely been shown to be offensive to the actual culture? Given that that very culture does similar things, this seems questionable. 2) what's being asked is not so much whether it's offensive; but why.

 

Go back to the experience of retail workers perpetually being bombarded by people who seem to just enjoy taking offense at the slightest little thing. Should they feel guilty for trying to do their job well, and running into people who think it's a lousy job? Ideally, we should be working toward a way where the end result is nobody is offended. Now, since it is clear that some people who are offended (not all) are doing this out of bad motives, then the default position should probably be to try hard not to be. Yes? :)

 

It's like the old Romeo and Juliet lesson from Shakespeare. If being offended is the only virtue you concern yourself with, actual peace-seeking is lost, and the slightest ancient offenses can become blown way out of proportion. I say that avoiding being offensive is certainly an important goal to seek, however, we should all also try very hard to seek peace and foster peace in others, by whatever means we know to try. ^_^

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

People of average intelligence can understand that Ninjago isn't meant to be an accurate or even partly accurate representation of Japanese culture.
Yet people nitpick at it just because they fell like being offended by something.


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

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

The opposition is unable to refute any degree of formal logic or pointed questioning. Thus, they do not acknowledge the points made that they cannot make to fit within their argument framework.

By the standards of formal debate, in short, they show their ineffectiveness by their lack of response.

I think we're very much done here.


I think it's fairly clear, if you read the discussion, who thinks that Ninjago is problematic and who thinks that it isn't. No one's going to drop the debate for a mere show of hands.

avatar by Lady Kopaka


tumblr_ng1pw4xLEM1tryxewo1_1280.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture.

 

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

 

 

Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here.

 

-Tyler

 

As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there.

They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it.

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

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

 

 

ron_burgundy.jpg?w=500

 

Let me try and sum up your argument with another analogy:

 

- People with cancer exist out there somewhere.

- I don't personally know anybody who has cancer, either because they haven't told me or because they're scared to admit it.

- Therefore, I'm pretty sure cancer's a myth.

 

Except that's not the case at all. This is a real problem, especially considering the rest of LEGO's brand image and how progressive they are, as Makaru stated way earlier today, in a number of other lines. It's an anomaly that shouldn't exist, and it's only been lifted up further by decades of further stereotyping in a number of medias. It's wrong. I don't get what's so hard to grasp about that.

 

-Tyler

SAY IT ONE MORE TIME 

TELL ME WHAT IS ON YOUR MIND

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saying that something offensive said unintentionally isn't so, is like saying that spreading a deadly disease to someone accidentally doesn't still kill them

Though there is a very large difference between words and a deadly disease.

 

1. If you know what you're doing is insulting, you absolutely shouldn't be doing it.

If you unintentionally insult someone, you'll get away with it once, and not do it again. Simple.

How will you know if you unintentionally insulted someone if nobody is allowed to tell you?

 

2. So you're saying this isn't a topic about culture problems, but religious problems?

Religious things can be a part of any culture, and have nothing to do with it.

 

Religious things are just a part of a culture, and the two are more intertwined than you think. Shintoism, especially, is tied to Japanese culture.

 

1. I never said that someone couldn't tell you, but blowing it out of porportion or insinuating that someone is racist because they said something they didn't like, is the proper response to such things.

 

2. Religious things intertwine around culture rather than the other way around, for most cultures.

Edited by You just lost the game

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there.

 

I've stated numerous times that that is not the case. I'm certainly not dredging up that laundry list now.

 

Why is my response to this still being ignored? In practice, this means that only pure Japanese culture may be used, but this might not be as easily relatable to others, and thus may entirely fail. However, a partial mixing with Japanese culture may be easier to relate to, and actually draw people in to a stronger interest in it. So it need not "cheapen" but can actually attract people, and serve as a bridge toward deciding to learn more and more about it.

 

I've responded every time to say it's NOT a "partial mixing", its a mutilation. It's almost purely Japanese cultural concept that have been run through a grinder, whitewashed, and slapped back together with none of the original meaning intact. It's a pretty shoddy bridge if you ask me, and only furthers cultural misconceptions about the culture, whether it intends to or not.

 

1. I never said that someone couldn't tell you, but blowing it out of proportion or insinuating that someone is racist because they said something they didn't like, is the proper response to such things.

You said almost EXACTLY that. Also, not once did I blow it out of proportion. This entire time, I have been saying what the LEGO company did wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

2. Religious things intertwine around culture rather than the other way around, for most cultures.

Not Shintoism, the religion being discussed.

Edited by some critics
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty shoddy bridge if you ask me

No arguments there, lol. Still.

 

Edit: Keep in mind I'm not really talking about the quality of the bridge, in that point, but about using it as a bridge, rather than a bludgeon.

Edited by bonesiii

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture.

 

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

 

 

Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here.

 

-Tyler

 

As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there.

They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it.

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

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

 

 

 

 

Let me try and sum up your argument with another analogy:

 

- People with cancer exist out there somewhere.

- I don't personally know anybody who has cancer, either because they haven't told me or because they're scared to admit it.

- Therefore, I'm pretty sure cancer's a myth.

 

Except that's not the case at all. This is a real problem, especially considering the rest of LEGO's brand image and how progressive they are, as Makaru stated way earlier today, in a number of other lines. It's an anomaly that shouldn't exist, and it's only been lifted up further by decades of further stereotyping in a number of medias. It's wrong. I don't get what's so hard to grasp about that.

 

-Tyler

 

That analogy just went way over my head, as I don't understand how it has any relevance to this discussion.

Saying it shouldn't exist, assumes it does exist. When I see Lego making something historically inaccurate, I see it more as flexing their creative license.

In Ninjago's case, they barely used anything from Japanese culture, and made what they took into their own creature.

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new to BZPower, and I realize that I'm walking on eggshells, so I'm just going to ask a couple questions:

 

1. I don't feel like the question of "Who's offended?" has been answered, so I'm going to add my voice to those whom have asked the question. I'm a huge fan of Japanese culture. I am a brown belt in a mostly traditional Judo dojo, I love the Japanese culture, and I have Japanese friends (friends I might add who enjoy ninjago). I'm not offended, I think it's humorous; because it's not meant to be a representation of Japanese culture. If it were, I would be truly offended.

 

2. So should I take the Chinese offense of creating BIONICLE ripoffs as a racial slur to Americans, since it misrepresents the BIONICLE culture?

 

And with that, I respectfully withdraw (unless someone addresses me directly).

 

-NRP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

avatar by Lady Kopaka


tumblr_ng1pw4xLEM1tryxewo1_1280.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture.

 

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

 

 

Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here.

 

-Tyler

 

As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there.

They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it.

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

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

 

 

 

 

Let me try and sum up your argument with another analogy:

 

- People with cancer exist out there somewhere.

- I don't personally know anybody who has cancer, either because they haven't told me or because they're scared to admit it.

- Therefore, I'm pretty sure cancer's a myth.

 

Except that's not the case at all. This is a real problem, especially considering the rest of LEGO's brand image and how progressive they are, as Makaru stated way earlier today, in a number of other lines. It's an anomaly that shouldn't exist, and it's only been lifted up further by decades of further stereotyping in a number of medias. It's wrong. I don't get what's so hard to grasp about that.

 

-Tyler

 

That analogy just went way over my head, as I don't understand how it has any relevance to this discussion.

Saying it shouldn't exist, assumes it does exist. When I see Lego making something historically inaccurate, I see it more as flexing their creative license.

In Ninjago's case, they barely used anything from Japanese culture, and made what they took into their own creature.

 

 

Hey, yeah, historical revisionism as creative license, man! Because that's worked out so well...every other time in history!

 

The analogy isn't hard to grasp - just because you do not know people who are offended, or you think they're such a minutely small minority, does not mean it is not offensive.

 

-Tyler

SAY IT ONE MORE TIME 

TELL ME WHAT IS ON YOUR MIND

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. I never said that someone couldn't tell you, but blowing it out of proportion or insinuating that someone is racist because they said something they didn't like, is the proper response to such things.

You said almost EXACTLY that. Also, not once did I blow it out of proportion. This entire time, I have been saying what the LEGO company did wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

2. Religious things intertwine around culture rather than the other way around, for most cultures.

Not Shintoism, the religion being discussed.

 

1. As I read your original post, I got the feeling that you were saying that Lego intentionally degraded a cuture, where I then drew the perverbial line. I then realised I was wrong ,and then wondered why anyone was really getting offended by it.

 

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

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see what you're being offended about in that set ,other than it just looks like a shrine.

I thought it was the name. Regardless, it's not valid to say that a conclusion doesn't work if it has no support other than the support it has.

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. So should I take the Chinese offense of creating BIONICLE ripoffs as a racial slur to Americans, since it misrepresents the BIONICLE culture?

 

BIonicle was a.produced by a DANISH toy company and b.almost completely fictional. By comparing it to actual Japanese culture, you're being offensive yourself. How is implying Japanese culture is fiction an ok thing to do?

 

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

 

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new to BZPower, and I realize that I'm walking on eggshells, so I'm just going to ask a couple questions:

 

1. I don't feel like the question of "Who's offended?" has been answered, so I'm going to add my voice to those whom have asked the question. I'm a huge fan of Japanese culture. I am a brown belt in a mostly traditional Judo dojo, I love the Japanese culture, and I have Japanese friends (friends I might add who enjoy ninjago). I'm not offended, I think it's humorous; because it's not meant to be a representation of Japanese culture. If it were, I would be truly offended.

 

2. So should I take the Chinese offense of creating BIONICLE ripoffs as a racial slur to Americans, since it misrepresents the BIONICLE culture?

 

And with that, I respectfully withdraw (unless someone addresses me directly).

 

-NRP

 

I would like to repeat that first question, and also agree with the point you made about Ninjago not being meant as a representation of Japanese culture (although I will take it from you, not having experience with that culture myself).

 

If there are any relations between Ninjago and particular cultures around the world, it would be because someone drew upon that culture for inspiration when they were creating the series, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't really see what you're being offended about in that set ,other than it just looks like a shrine.

I thought it was the name. Regardless, it's not valid to say that a conclusion doesn't work if it has no support other than the support it has.

 

 

...What?

 

-Tyler

SAY IT ONE MORE TIME 

TELL ME WHAT IS ON YOUR MIND

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Yes, they do.

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

So what's your point?

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Yes, lots of posters pointed out how Lego is so-called "degrading" Japanese culture.

 

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

 

 

Because it's offensive. It only serves to cheaply malign the sanctity of Japanese culture in the eyes of a consumer base too young to truly understand what it means. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that point because it seems like garden variety, homegrown common sense. I don't think I'm expecting too much here.

 

-Tyler

 

As I have stated before, the only things taken from Japanese culture is the ninja themselves, the architectural designs, and some names here and there.

They didn't take all of Japanese culture and parody it.

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

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

 

 

 

 

Let me try and sum up your argument with another analogy:

 

- People with cancer exist out there somewhere.

- I don't personally know anybody who has cancer, either because they haven't told me or because they're scared to admit it.

- Therefore, I'm pretty sure cancer's a myth.

 

Except that's not the case at all. This is a real problem, especially considering the rest of LEGO's brand image and how progressive they are, as Makaru stated way earlier today, in a number of other lines. It's an anomaly that shouldn't exist, and it's only been lifted up further by decades of further stereotyping in a number of medias. It's wrong. I don't get what's so hard to grasp about that.

 

-Tyler

 

That analogy just went way over my head, as I don't understand how it has any relevance to this discussion.

Saying it shouldn't exist, assumes it does exist. When I see Lego making something historically inaccurate, I see it more as flexing their creative license.

In Ninjago's case, they barely used anything from Japanese culture, and made what they took into their own creature.

 

 

Hey, yeah, historical revisionism as creative license, man! Because that's worked out so well...every other time in history!

 

The analogy isn't hard to grasp - just because you do not know people who are offended, or you think they're such a minutely small minority, does not mean it is not offensive.

 

-Tyler

 

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

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

I don't see anything offensive in that.

 

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

        67685335.jpg             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

I don't see anything offensive in that.

 

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...