Quote:
Originally Posted by mercedesjin
To me, the idea of racism has been borrowed. Therefore, it's racist.
Remember the hypothetical situation I gave earlier? The child I described didn't know that it was wrong to believe that people of other races were inferior. The child doesn't have the intention of causing others pain. That's simply what the child believes: that it's a fact that others are inferior. That's all.
Now, look at the picture. The Japanese don't know that it's wrong to produce an image such as that. They don't have the intention of causing others pain. They simply believe that it's acceptable to use a picture blackface. That's all.
Both situations, to me, are still racist.
|
A necessary part of racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. The child in your hypothetical believes that one race is superior to others, so when that child says things to diminish other races, it is racism.
But this case is a little different. Knowing the history of "lil' sambo" imagery in Japan I think it is safe to say that the game programmers do NOT believe one race is superior to others through the use of this character. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it ignorant? Yes. In America is "lil' sambo" imagery taboo? Totally.
But Japan isn't America, and just because we see that image as derogatory to blacks in modern today, doesn't mean every person in the world does, and it doesn't mean they are racist.
Again, there is no racist intention, which is a fundamental part of calling something "racist". (A word that I think is thrown around much too loosely lately.)