Which Franchise has the most Diversity?

[AGD]

Just out of curiosity, which Show/Book/Whatever has in your Opinion the most distribution of Character numbers, Character depth and Character Screen Time to Characters of different ethnicities, religions, sexes, sexualities, genders, ages, health etc.

I must think of Walking Dead, Sense8, The Legend of Korra and the X-Men.

[Yora]

Mass Effect is looking pretty good, I would say. Even though in that future the predominant human ethnicity seems to already be "brownish".

[Nerd-o-rama]

Since we're talking about it elsethread, Undertale's notable for its wide variety of gender and sexuality representations even among a relatively small cast of main characters. Ethnicity doesn't really enter into it since there's only really two human characters (although they at least have different color palettes, and it's not like all the monsters look the same either). Just counting the hero and the "major characters" you have about an equal split of genders (including the gender-ambiguous, possibly agendered main character and...whatever Mettaton's story is, which sure sounds like at least a metaphor for transexuality. He's a ghost possessing a robot though so the situation's a bit confusing.)

The on-camera romance is about an even split between heterosexual and homosexual, so I'd call diversity well-represented there. I'm not sure what other rubrics we want to use...ages of important characters range from "ambiguously ten-ish" to "ancient but acts middle-aged", a patch came out to make the color-based bullet-hell gameplay gimmicks more usable for the color blind, and most importantly none of any of this is treated as exceptional. It all passes largely without comment in the game world, which is an important component to diversity, I feel.

[Kitten Champion]

Babel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_(film)) comes to mind, particularly in its lack of a central protagonist making each of the marginally interconnected stories relatively equivalent.

Heroes has some similarities to Sense8 in terms of the international scope of production, though slightly more centralized in the United States and on American characters. While mentioning Sense8, all of the Wachowski productions are pretty diverse in terms of casting.

For a prime time network show, Agents of SHIELD sports a fairly diverse cast and in central roles. I mean, its action heavy is a Chinese woman in her early 50's and it turned its early 30's White Male Generic Action Lead into a villain with serious mental issues that often comes off as pretty pathetic.

Fast and the Furious is notable given how profitable it's become as a blockbuster franchise, all things being relative.

[huttj509]

For a prime time network show, Agents of SHIELD sports a fairly diverse cast and in central roles. I mean, it's action heavy is a Chinese woman in her early 50's and it turned its early 30's White Male Generic Action Lead into a villain with serious mental issues that often comes off as pretty pathetic.


I find it amusing when she's standing next to some other characters (like Bobbi). She's not tall, but they tend to shoot her from an angle that makes her look as physically imposing as the character is...searching for word...spiritually imposing.

[Peelee]

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Bonus points for being Alabama-based, as well.

[Razade]

South Park probably.

[Eldan]

Star Control. Only one character is human, everyone else is a different species!

I'm joking, of course.

[Gnoman]

Just out of curiosity, which Show/Book/Whatever has in your Opinion the most distribution of Character numbers, Character depth and Character Screen Time to Characters of different ethnicities, religions, sexes, sexualities, genders, ages, health etc.

I must think of Walking Dead, Sense8, The Legend of Korra and the X-Men.

Most of it's blink-and-you'll miss it description, but the Honorverse is incredibly diverse in ethnicity (to the point where there's about a dozen ethnicity that don't even exist IRL due to either genetic modification or simply living on different planets), is evenly split in sexes, and has more religious variety than you can shake a stick at. It's not so good on sexuality, having only one confirmed lesbian and one bisexual woman, although the main character's mother is considered quite odd on her home planet for not being bisexual, and a very diverse notion of romantic and sexual arrangements are mentioned a few times as a normal thing. Gender is an almost nonexistent concept, and medical technology has made age and health all but obsolete.

[cobaltstarfire]

Tamora Pierces Tortal works (and probably her others though I have not read them) feel pretty diverse when it comes to gender, usually with a female main character. There are a few where by the nature of the stories there are more men. (the Lioness and Protector of the Small are both about girls becoming knights, one in secret, and one as the first to aim for it after women were allowed to become knights).

Race and sexuality not so much, though Pierce has said that she would like to try and write some stuff with a broader range of sexuality appearing in the future.

[t209]

Battletech: From a black-Japanese Samurai mech pilot to A unit of Muslim mechas fighting along side Japanese and Danes to a dark-skinned redhead named "Rabbi Martinez".

[Sapphire Guard]

Metal Gear is pretty good. We get child soldiers and hundred year old snipers, , confirmed LGBT characters, ethnicities and nationalities from all over the world. Not sure about religions but there's plenty of clashes of ideology, and lots of people with missing eyes and hands etc.

[TheThan]

Really why should we care?

But to answer your question I think the X-men comics has the the most diversity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X-Men_members) amongst the lines you mentioned.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Metal Gear is pretty good. We get child soldiers and hundred year old snipers, , confirmed LGBT characters, ethnicities and nationalities from all over the world. Not sure about religions but there's plenty of clashes of ideology, and lots of people with missing eyes and hands etc.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Metal Gear, it's pretty great for this...although you still have to deal with Kojima and his characters getting really weird about women, especially in the later "Big Boss" games, namely Peace Walker and V.

[digiman619]

Don't forget the most diverse anime, Cowboy Bebop.

[Giggling Ghast]

Captain Planet and the Planeteers.

Granted, none of the Planeteers were gay, bisexual or transgender, but they were children.

[Lycunadari]

Tamora Pierces Tortal works (and probably her others though I have not read them) feel pretty diverse when it comes to gender, usually with a female main character. There are a few where by the nature of the stories there are more men. (the Lioness and Protector of the Small are both about girls becoming knights, one in secret, and one as the first to aim for it after women were allowed to become knights).

Race and sexuality not so much, though Pierce has said that she would like to try and write some stuff with a broader range of sexuality appearing in the future.

Her Emelan books are much more diverse than the Tortall books - of the 4 main characters and their 4 teachers, there are three girls, two women, one boy and two men, two are black, two asian-ish, two white and two mixed/ racially ambigous, one is a lesbian, one is bi, one is either bi or a lesbian, one might be aromantic and there is a poly relationship. Also, one character is fat (and it's not treated as bad), one is disabled and at least two of them have PTSD (in the later books). The rest of the cast is similarly diverse, though things like sexuality are obviously not stated in minor characters. (Oh, and the magic system is also very diverse).So yeah, Tamora Pierces books are really diverse and it's great. :smallsmile:

[Peelee]

Captain Planet and the Planeteers.

Granted, none of the Planeteers were gay, bisexual or transgender, but they were children.

Psh. They were all commoners, too, from all different nationalities. And half the time, the villains weren't even doing anything illegal, they were just polluting as a byproduct of running their corporations within the confines of the law. Workers of the world uniting to bring the ruin of capitalists? I'll do without your Marxist propaganda thankyouverymuch.

Seriously, though, i liked that show. Fun times.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Captain Planet didn't necessarily handle diversity in children's cartoons (or its central conceit) very WELL, but it at least opened the door for it.

Also it's less Marxist than it is environmentalist vigilantism.

[t209]

Psh. They were all commoners, too, from all different nationalities. And half the time, the villains weren't even doing anything illegal, they were just polluting as a byproduct of running their corporations within the confines of the law. Workers of the world uniting to bring the ruin of capitalists? I'll do without your Marxist propaganda thankyouverymuch.

Seriously, though, i liked that show. Fun times.

Not to mention adopting wild animals from its habitation. Yeah, they even berated fire for it even though it's environmentally bad in general.

[Raimun]

Metal Gear is pretty good. We get child soldiers and hundred year old snipers, , confirmed LGBT characters, ethnicities and nationalities from all over the world. Not sure about religions but there's plenty of clashes of ideology, and lots of people with missing eyes and hands etc.

Not to mention people with various mental problems.

[Giggling Ghast]

Also it's less Marxist than it is environmentalist vigilantism.

Protect the environment! Or I'll ****ing kill you! CAPTAIN PLANEEEEET!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SmypHQ5AUxQ

[Starbuck_II]

I don't know, but Zootopia seemed pretty Diverse. I mean, there aren't much gender diverseness maybe. And Religion also isn't mentioned much, but otherwise fits most of criteria you mentioned.

[ben-zayb]

From what I've heard, the TV adaptation of Under the Dome had a richer diversity and more character development than the source material. Of course, that may not be saying much; while the book itself has some diversity in sex, age, health, and body types, I wouldn't consider it to be one of the most diverse.


You can't go wrong with choosing X-Men, although I still now a few people who are pissed at them clarifying Iceman's orientation.


Protect the environment! Or I'll ****ing kill you! CAPTAIN PLANEEEEET!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SmypHQ5AUxQ

You linked Captain Planet wrong. (https://youtu.be/TwJaELXadKo)

[shadow_archmagi]

Star Control. Only one character is human, everyone else is a different species!

I'm joking, of course.

Good lord, someone else played Star Control? :smalltongue:




Sentinels of the Multiverse is doing okay. Roughly 1/4th colored, 1/3rd female characters, not counting the robots and whatnot. I guess 1/3rd female isn't that great, but Parse is so rad I will forgive anything.

[Serpentine]

Tamora Pierces Tortal works (and probably her others though I have not read them) feel pretty diverse when it comes to gender, usually with a female main character. There are a few where by the nature of the stories there are more men. (the Lioness and Protector of the Small are both about girls becoming knights, one in secret, and one as the first to aim for it after women were allowed to become knights).

Race and sexuality not so much, though Pierce has said that she would like to try and write some stuff with a broader range of sexuality appearing in the future.


Her Emelan books are much more diverse than the Tortall books - of the 4 main characters and their 4 teachers, there are three girls, two women, one boy and two men, two are black, two asian-ish, two white and two mixed/ racially ambigous, one is a lesbian, one is bi, one is either bi or a lesbian, one might be aromantic and there is a poly relationship. Also, one character is fat (and it's not treated as bad), one is disabled and at least two of them have PTSD (in the later books). The rest of the cast is similarly diverse, though things like sexuality are obviously not stated in minor characters. (Oh, and the magic system is also very diverse).So yeah, Tamora Pierces books are really diverse and it's great. :smallsmile:
Beaten to it, and twice what's more!

Yeah. Tamora Pierce always set out to write diverse stories, but she's had more freedom to do that in recent books.
Lots of male and female characters - and what's more, lots of diversity in what sort of male and female characters there are (e.g. strong women, feminine women, conservative women, sexually liberated women, passive women, violent women, heroic women, villainous women...).
Lots of racial diversity (the starting point is always a Euro-themed country, but there's plenty of travel to and from and exploration within other types of places).
Not as much sexual diversity as she'd like, but there's increasing and more explicit same-sex attracted people as you go through. You can also still detect the heavily veiled remains of one in her first series that her publishes made her hide. The Winding Circle books have a lot more of it than the Tortall books so far.
There's also mentions of trans and gender-diverse people, although so far I think there's only been one named character who was trans. I wouldn't be surprised if she started including more.
I haven't noticed much diversity in physical ability, but I must admit I haven't been looking. I'll try to keep an eye out next read through.

[Cristo Meyers]

Sentinels of the Multiverse is doing okay. Roughly 1/4th colored, 1/3rd female characters, not counting the robots and whatnot. I guess 1/3rd female isn't that great, but Parse is so rad I will forgive anything.

I'd be more inclined to criticize the relative lack of non-hetero characters, really. There's only two homosexual characters that I can remember: Tachyon and Dr. Medico, and one alien that's completely bewildered by our concept of gender (Tempest). But then again, it's a card game so there's only so much room for characterization.

[shadow_archmagi]

I'd be more inclined to criticize the relative lack of non-hetero characters, really. There's only two homosexual characters that I can remember: Tachyon and Dr. Medico, and one alien that's completely bewildered by our concept of gender (Tempest). But then again, it's a card game so there's only so much room for characterization.

Great, now I have to read the bios of every hero and pick out which ones are established as being anything. THERE GOES MY MORNING. YOU'RE LUCKY IT'S A REALLY SLOW WORKDAY.

[Cristo Meyers]

Great, now I have to read the bios of every hero and pick out which ones are established as being anything. THERE GOES MY MORNING. YOU'RE LUCKY IT'S A REALLY SLOW WORKDAY.

:smalltongue: You're welcome.

Tachyon was established in their prologue comic. She talks about, and you see, her wife. You can find it on the website.

Don't remember where Doc Medico and Tempest were characterized, though. I know it's canon, but it might be due to Word of God.

[shadow_archmagi]

:smalltongue: You're welcome.

Tachyon was established in their prologue comic. She talks about, and you see, her wife. You can find it on the website.

Don't remember where Doc Medico and Tempest were characterized, though. I know it's canon, but it might be due to Word of God.

Reading the bios, almost nobody's relationships are mentioned. Bunker's bio is exclusively about his military history, for example. Absolute Zero mentions a dead fiancee, and Wraith has a dead boyfriend, but beyond that there's not a lot.

[Sholos]

Dr. Medico is the adoptive father of Idealist along with his husband. Everyone else not already mentioned is either in a hetero-relationship or currently unknown. And then there's Guise.

[Cristo Meyers]

Dr. Medico is the adoptive father of Idealist along with his husband. Everyone else not already mentioned is either in a hetero-relationship or currently unknown. And then there's Guise.

Yeah, I'm just trying to remember where that was established. Tempest I'm almost positive was by Word of God somewhere. Doc Medico was... I think one of the hero deck cards?

Bah, this is my biggest criticism of the Sentinels setting. There's so much going on that we never see outside of the little hints of flavor text.

[Darth Ultron]

This is such a sad question, as if ''diversity'' was a real thing that mattered.

Would a Franchise be ''better'' if it was diverse? Well, lots of people would say ''yes'', but why? What makes it ''better''? Well, lots will answer ''um different things are better''. And by ''different'' what are they even talking about?

The worst thing about ''diversity'' in fiction is how hard it is to do. Say you have your Star Trek Space Station Show, and you want to have a Klingon. Well, unless your Klingon is a crazy battle hungry warrior...well, they won't feel like much of a ''Klingon'' to a lot of people. If you have a peace loving wimp that likes to read, they won't ''feel'' like a Klingon.

Or if you have a logical, but very dumb Vulcan, they won't feel right either.

And then you just get into stereotypes....all Vulcans must be shown as smart, all Klingons as warriors, and so on.

And worst of all, all this false ''diversity'' can take over and ruin everything. You can't just have a character act or react...everything they do must somehow be perfectly ''diverse'' at all times.

[digiman619]

This is such a sad question, as if ''diversity'' was a real thing that mattered.

Would a Franchise be ''better'' if it was diverse? Well, lots of people would say ''yes'', but why? What makes it ''better''? Well, lots will answer ''um different things are better''. And by ''different'' what are they even talking about?

The worst thing about ''diversity'' in fiction is how hard it is to do. Say you have your Star Trek Space Station Show, and you want to have a Klingon. Well, unless your Klingon is a crazy battle hungry warrior...well, they won't feel like much of a ''Klingon'' to a lot of people. If you have a peace loving wimp that likes to read, they won't ''feel'' like a Klingon.

Or if you have a logical, but very dumb Vulcan, they won't feel right either.

And then you just get into stereotypes....all Vulcans must be shown as smart, all Klingons as warriors, and so on.

And worst of all, all this false ''diversity'' can take over and ruin everything. You can't just have a character act or react...everything they do must somehow be perfectly ''diverse'' at all times.

This is more of a problem with fictional races rather than real life minorities. If the diversity is about real life minority, though, then it is better, because representation in media, if the character is one of the protagonists, means a whole lot. When Marvel introduced Daredevil, they were afraid that a blind hero would be in bad taste, but they had lots of positive responses from blindness advocacy groups thanking them for raising awareness. 'Out of sight is out of mind' has a measure of truth, so showing such a character keeps it in sight , and therefore in mind.

[cobaltstarfire]

This is such a sad question, as if ''diversity'' was a real thing that mattered.



Diversity Matters, because it stops children from thinking they can't do something because they've never seen someone of their race/sex/gender/ect in that role. (and this is something that happens all the time, children light up when they discover that they have something in common with a character, or a writer, or that there are people like them doing some thing, because suddenly it becomes more real that they could also do those things, or be seen as cool or powerful or whatever)

It matters because if someone writes a story or draws something or whatever else, and inserts their own race/sex/gender/ect into it, they are told it is weird or unrealistic unless everything is western-centric and white men. It matters because if they refuse to change all the characters to meet that "norm" of westernized and mostly white males their work isn't viewed as important or worthwhile.


It matters because people are flat out told or stereotyped that they can't do things based on their race/sex/gender/ect, when in reality they can, it's just not the norm, and it's a vicious repeating cycle that keeps it that way.

It matters because all you have to do is tell someone "this is a traditionally male/female role" and if they are the opposite they will automatically do worse, while if told the same role matches their gender, they will automatically do better.

If you don't care about diversity that's fine, but maybe there's a black girl out there who wants to read about something other than white boys, or a little boy who loves fashion and would like to work in fashion without having his humanity and masculinity questioned. Maybe someone is something other than hetero-sexual and would like to find works about characters who are like them.

Diversity is important because it is empowering to more people.

[Darth Ultron]

This is more of a problem with fictional races rather than real life minorities. If the diversity is about real life minority, though, then it is better, because representation in media, if the character is one of the protagonists, means a whole lot. When Marvel introduced Daredevil, they were afraid that a blind hero would be in bad taste, but they had lots of positive responses from blindness advocacy groups thanking them for raising awareness. 'Out of sight is out of mind' has a measure of truth, so showing such a character keeps it in sight , and therefore in mind.

Well, we are not talking about real life...

Is Daredevil ''diversity''? Really? I see it as cheating...the guy is a fake poser blind guy. Oh, he is ''really' blind with superhuman radar sense so he can detect everything....so not blind. But, as the fake he is, he pretends to be really blind to get sympathy or play some cruel joke on people. Guess that is a win for diversity?


Diversity Matters, because it stops children from thinking they can't do something because they've never seen someone of their race/sex/gender/ect in that role. (and this is something that happens all the time, children light up when they discover that they have something in common with a character, or a writer, or that there are people like them doing some thing, because suddenly it becomes more real that they could also do those things, or be seen as cool or powerful or whatever)

I think that the children that ''must'' see an orc or vulcan or troll doctor or they can't imagine themselves doing it are a lost cause anyway. When someone says ''I never saw a troll doctor, so i can't be one'' really, they are done.



If you don't care about diversity that's fine, but maybe there's a black girl out there who wants to read about something other than white boys, or a little boy who loves fashion and would like to work in fashion without having his humanity and masculinity questioned. Maybe someone is something other than hetero-sexual and would like to find works about characters who are like them.

Diversity is important because it is empowering to more people.

It's just downright amazing that all the other non white races are never, ever diverse.

And for that matter, why don't they just make their own Franchises?

I'm defintaly 100% on The Other Side here....in the way you think is the worst way possible....but my all time favorite Star Trek Captain is Sisko.

[digiman619]

I'm defintaly 100% on The Other Side here....in the way you think is the worst way possible....but my all time favorite Star Trek Captain is Sisko.

Well, that's because he punches out demigods. Has nothing to do with him being black.

[cobaltstarfire]

And for that matter, why don't they just make their own Franchises?



This comment really doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread.

People are asking for franchises that are diverse.

You say it's stupid.

You later then say, why don't they just make their own?

In a thread asking to find franchises that are diverse.


If you think children ect are a "lost cause" because they're practically invisible in media, that's a problem with you, not the children. If you think it's great that people are dehumanized for daring to want to do something outside of whatever little box they're supposed to be in, that's a problem with you, not the people who want to do what interests them rather than what their box says they must do.

[Sapphire Guard]

Harry Potter is actually not bad, good balances of age and gender at least. Dumbledore sure isn't a token character. Disability seldom an issue due to magical healing, but Neville's parents are handled sensitively.

Religion not a feature, ethnicities barely mentioned but in the 'nobody cares' sense, they are represented as pretty much completely integrated.

[Nerd-o-rama]

This is such a sad question, as if ''diversity'' was a real thing that mattered.

Would a Franchise be ''better'' if it was diverse? Well, lots of people would say ''yes'', but why? What makes it ''better''? Well, lots will answer ''um different things are better''. And by ''different'' what are they even talking about?

The worst thing about ''diversity'' in fiction is how hard it is to do. Say you have your Star Trek Space Station Show, and you want to have a Klingon. Well, unless your Klingon is a crazy battle hungry warrior...well, they won't feel like much of a ''Klingon'' to a lot of people. If you have a peace loving wimp that likes to read, they won't ''feel'' like a Klingon.

Or if you have a logical, but very dumb Vulcan, they won't feel right either.

And then you just get into stereotypes....all Vulcans must be shown as smart, all Klingons as warriors, and so on.

And worst of all, all this false ''diversity'' can take over and ruin everything. You can't just have a character act or react...everything they do must somehow be perfectly ''diverse'' at all times.

I'm not sure you're talking about anything consistently here. Fictional species and actual human ethnicities/sexualities/identities/mental and physical conditions are two different things, because one is fictional and the other isn't.

The premise of the thread is also not that "more diverse" = "better". Actually, the premise of the thread is asking a question. The tone of the thread taking diversity as a positive quality is because fiction that reflects reality - a world with many different uniquely individual people - is better than fiction that forces an artificial set of norms on its fictional world that don't reflect reality - all the heroes are white, all the heroes are straight, all the heroes are male being the most common ones. That fiction reflects a false reality, but tries to enforce its own norms on true reality - to make people think that all heroes are white, straight, male, able-bodied, etc. That's an agenda, and it's one I can't support and one where I will support things that subvert it.

Now of course, it does depend on context. If your film takes place entirely aboard a modern day or historical submarine, for example, I'm not going to rag on it for featuring an all-one-gender cast. But if your TV show takes place in, say, New York City and everyone is lily-white men with Midwestern accents in scenes outside a Wall Street Boardroom I'm going to give it a side-eye. I'm not going to mention either of these pieces of fiction as examples of the thread topic, obviously, because clearly neither is invested in representing diversity.

[WalkingTarget]

From the SotM discussion: we also have Word of God during a Q&A with Christopher that Argent Adept is asexual.

[tensai_oni]

This is such a sad question, as if ''diversity'' was a real thing that mattered.

Would a Franchise be ''better'' if it was diverse? Well, lots of people would say ''yes'', but why? What makes it ''better''? Well, lots will answer ''um different things are better''. And by ''different'' what are they even talking about?

Holy projection Batman!

[WalkingTarget]

Reading the bios, almost nobody's relationships are mentioned. Bunker's bio is exclusively about his military history, for example. Absolute Zero mentions a dead fiancee, and Wraith has a dead boyfriend, but beyond that there's not a lot.

We do have a bit more with the pre-Kickstarter ARG, though. During this week's twitch stream (https://www.twitch.tv/greaterthangames/v/53383021) and reddit AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/49oetg/ama_with_christopher_badell_cofounder_of_greater/d0tmjar) we got some confirmation that Wraith/Bunker (http://sotm.wdfiles.com/local--files/sotm-arg/201128190.jpg) are and Fanatic/Ra (https://greaterthangames.com/endofdays) were pairings going on in addition to Setback/Expat. Christopher has been a bit less tight-lipped with setting stuff as we get to the end of the SotM storyline.

[shadow_archmagi]

And for that matter, why don't they just make their own Franchises?

I feel like this bit was taken from a pre-made rant you had tucked away for when somebody complained about a specific franchise not being diverse enough. I mean, they do make their own franchises sometimes, and the OP is asking about them.


From the SotM discussion: we also have Word of God during a Q&A with Christopher that Argent Adept is asexual.

SUH WEEEEEEEEEEEET

I knew there was a reason he was one of my favs.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm not sure you're talking about anything consistently here. Fictional species and actual human ethnicities/sexualities/identities/mental and physical conditions are two different things, because one is fictional and the other isn't.

This is not a place where we can talk about real life.




The premise of the thread is also not that "more diverse" = "better". Actually, the premise of the thread is asking a question. The tone of the thread taking diversity as a positive quality

Right, you say diversity is not better, but in the very next line you say it's positive(aka better).

So the question is what franchise has the most diversity...because it does not matter?


The whole idea of diversity is offensive: to say something is..um..''different'' (but not better) just as it's made one way or another.

[Nerd-o-rama]

This is not a place where we can talk about real life.

We've been doing pretty well so far.


Right, you say diversity is not better, but in the very next line you say it's positive(aka better).

So the question is what franchise has the most diversity...because it does not matter?


The whole idea of diversity is offensive: to say something is..um..''different'' (but not better) just as it's made one way or another.

There's a difference between the things we call facts, like something being objectively better or worse, and the things we call opinions or perspectives, like personally finding something preferable. There's also a difference between the folks I'm agreeing with and myself and the OP of this thread, especially as far as statements of opinion are concerned - the OP was just asking a question, I'm giving my opinion.

I'm not getting the idea of diversity being offensive, unless it somehow offends you to see people of multiple different characteristics interacting with each other in the same place. Tokenism, I'll grant you, can be a real problem - throwing in characters of arbitrary phenotype or sexuality or whatnot just to say you did so without any further care, but there's a difference between that and simply trying to portray a realistically diverse setting or group of people, which is what I support personally.

[AGD]

So the question is what franchise has the most diversity...because it does not matter?

Maybe you would be okay with the following example. Let's say, I would have made a thread about which universe is the most powerful. I wouldn't imply that a work of fiction is necessarily better, because it has more powerful characters, but maybe it is more interesting to me personally to see more powerful characters duke their problems out.

I don't want to imply that a work of fiction is necessarily better because of diversity. Just that I am personally interested in fiction with higher diversity and because of that, I made this thread and asked this question.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't want to imply that a work of fiction is necessarily better because of diversity. Just that I am personally interested in fiction with higher diversity and because of that, I made this thread and asked this question.

Hummm...I wonder what fiction has the least diversity? Star Trek, would be a big front runner. As would Doctor Who. Maybe even Star Wars...though they are sure making a big push to change that (I heard Luke Skywalker might be gay in the next movie, as JJ wants a ''old character to be gay and ''diverse'').

[AGD]

I think that would be the Anime "Kaiji: Ultimate Survivor" It has almost only adult japanese men(their sexuality is unknown, since there are no women of note and they have never shown any romantic interest in each other). There were only two woman. A store clerc, that does nothing important and the daughter of another guy, which we see only in a photograph.

That Anime was actually kinda refreshing. No Fanservice, no Romance, no Damsel in Distress etc.

[jere7my]

Hummm...I wonder what fiction has the least diversity? Star Trek, would be a big front runner. As would Doctor Who. Maybe even Star Wars...though they are sure making a big push to change that (I heard Luke Skywalker might be gay in the next movie, as JJ wants a ''old character to be gay and ''diverse'').

That's an impressive game of telephone! Here's what is actually in the cards:

Abrams said, in response to a press question, that he would like to see LGBT characters in the Star Wars universe, which is eminently reasonable—we've seen a dozen or more straight characters express their sexuality just in the films (Luke, Han, Leia, Anakin, Padme, Owen, Beru, Jabba, Lando, Maz, Finn, occasional background couples) so it's beginning to seem odd that we haven't seen a single gay one. I don't know where you get "old" character from.

Mark Hamill was asked by an audience member if Luke could be gay. His response was basically that it doesn't matter; after things didn't work out (at all) with Leia, his sexuality was a blank slate, so whatever people would like to imagine is fine. The chances of them making Luke officially gay are very slim. (Poe, on the other hand...well, Oscar Isaac has already confirmed he was playing him with a crush on Finn. Google "Poe Dameron lip bite".) Me, I would be happy for Luke to come out as gay, though it might shoot my Rey's parentage theory in the foot a little...

And there is enough fiction out there featuring exclusively straight white men (plus optional love interests) that I find it hard to credit your belief that either Star Trek or Star Wars are the least diverse you can think of.

[Giggling Ghast]

There's not much point in playing "Point Out the Least Diverse Series" bingo since there are stories that literally have only one or two characters, or which have only one group represented by necessity.

GODDAMNIT THERE ARE TOO FEW WOMEN IN THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION WOULD A CO-ED PRISON HAVE BEEN TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, we are not talking about real life...

Is Daredevil ''diversity''? Really? I see it as cheating...the guy is a fake poser blind guy. Oh, he is ''really' blind with superhuman radar sense so he can detect everything....so not blind. But, as the fake he is, he pretends to be really blind to get sympathy or play some cruel joke on people. Guess that is a win for diversity?

Not any more than Batman is "fake inspiration" for boys.

[russdm]

Are we talking about diversity to make the characters more unique and recognizable when you see them? Or are we talking about diversity being important because it involves being Politically Correct here?

Are we going to have the Characters' Race/Sex/Gender play a part in how they work and relate like Hardison from Leverage being a black male hacker does in his backstory? Or are these characters going to be designed solely to get people to watch the particular franchise?

Do we want diversity because it reflects how we want it to be whether it violates the reality of the setting that might take place in ancient Egypt and yet we insist on there being Chinese people?

Is diversity a requirement for all media now? Must every piece of media have a diverse cast even though it breaks reality because there were no Chinese people in ancient Egypt?

There is such a thing as taking Political Correctness too far. Are all writers or storytellers going to be unable to tell their stories if they refuse to have a diverse cast? Does creativity get suppressed to appeal to the Politically Correct masses and their "Diversity"?

Why don't we just stop telling stories about humans, any kind of humans, and just use different kinds of cats, then you won't have people claiming that "They aren't getting represented".

I do agree we need more black characters, and probably Asian and Native American. Their experiences aren't heard enough.

[jere7my]

Or are we talking about diversity being important because it involves being Politically Correct here?

<snip>

I do agree we need more black characters, and probably Asian and Native American. Their experiences aren't heard enough.

These are literally the exact same thing. Saying we should see more underrepresented ethnicities because we don't hear enough about their experiences is the essence of "political correctness."

The bits I snipped out were straw man arguments. I don't actually encounter anyone trying to implement the changes you describe there, though I hear people complaining about those mysterious people all the time.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, it's probably going to be some fighting game or something where each of the characters are designed to be wildly different from each other so that their style can be identified pretty easily.

To take one that I know a bit about, there's League of Legends, which has 130 characters, which has characters of various religions, colors, genders, ages, and while they don't go to anybody's sexuality in depth (I think 1 character has been confirmed to have a crush on another character, and two are married) there have been hints that a few characters may be gay. If you want to go outside of the standard human diversity there's also characters who are god-dragons, demons, some sort of body snatching space parasite, not-angels, talking goffer-things, yetis, even playable animals, you get the idea.

It does depend on if you want to count these type of games though, since by their nature they don't really go into depth to really analyze these differences in any noteworthy way.

[Reddish Mage]

Well, we are not talking about real life...

Is Daredevil ''diversity''? Really? I see it as cheating...the guy is a fake poser blind guy. Oh, he is ''really' blind with superhuman radar sense so he can detect everything....so not blind. But, as the fake he is, he pretends to be really blind to get sympathy or play some cruel joke on people. Guess that is a win for diversity?

What Daredevil is doing with his blindness is what both makes him really blind and makes him an inspiration to blind people. Daredevil is perfectly capable without the world of sight, he is a capable lawyer as well as fighter. However, he "fakes" his disability not to get sympathy or play a joke but to fit in.

His world cannot, and will not accept Daredevil for who he really is and what he really can do, so he pretends so he can live and work in [something resembling] civilized society.

[Kitten Champion]

Do we want diversity because it reflects how we want it to be whether it violates the reality of the setting that might take place in ancient Egypt and yet we insist on there being Chinese people?

Is diversity a requirement for all media now? Must every piece of media have a diverse cast even though it breaks reality because there were no Chinese people in ancient Egypt?.

Honestly, how am I supposed to suspend my disbelief unless there are a bunch of White European actors in those roles? It's madness, truly.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Hummm...I wonder what fiction has the least diversity? Star Trek, would be a big front runner. As would Doctor Who. Maybe even Star Wars...though they are sure making a big push to change that (I heard Luke Skywalker might be gay in the next movie, as JJ wants a ''old character to be gay and ''diverse'').

You're really going with Star Trek, whose original 1966 incarnation featured a black woman in an ensemble role as an intelligent, capable technical officer? Nichelle Nichols couldn't vote in about half the United States a year before the show started, but she was still part of the main cast (not as prominent as Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but still). Don't forget the Japanese-American actor who spent part of his childhood in an internment camp because of his ethnicity, again playing a vital role on the bridge crew (and who happens to be gay, but that didn't come up on the show). Hell, from the second season onward an (admittedly comedically stereotyped) Russian-American in the middle of the Cold War. In general, I don't think there were two major characters besides Kirk and McCoy who shared a nationality/ethnicity, gender, and species on the original show.

It had its problems (everything Kirk did regarding a woman, for starters) but for its time, Star Trek was incredibly progressive and diverse television show, and that tradition of showing the Federation as a blending of ethnicity, gender, and culture into a Utopian whole has largely held up. Even if the problems have sometimes too. Ferengi, for example.


Is diversity a requirement for all media now? Must every piece of media have a diverse cast even though it breaks reality because there were no Chinese people in ancient Egypt?

Well there weren't any white people in ancient Egypt either, and that hasn't stopped anyone yet.

[tomandtish]

You're really going with Star Trek, whose original 1966 incarnation featured a black woman in an ensemble role as an intelligent, capable technical officer? Nichelle Nichols couldn't vote in about half the United States a year before the show started, but she was still part of the main cast (not as prominent as Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but still). Don't forget the Japanese-American actor who spent part of his childhood in an internment camp because of his ethnicity, again playing a vital role on the bridge crew (and who happens to be gay, but that didn't come up on the show). Hell, from the second season onward an (admittedly comedically stereotyped) Russian-American in the middle of the Cold War. In general, I don't think there were two major characters besides Kirk and McCoy who shared a nationality/ethnicity, gender, and species on the original show.

It had its problems (everything Kirk did regarding a woman, for starters) but for its time, Star Trek was incredibly progressive and diverse television show, and that tradition of showing the Federation as a blending of ethnicity, gender, and culture into a Utopian whole has largely held up. Even if the problems have sometimes too. Ferengi, for example.


Don't forget it is widely cited (incorrectly) as the first interracial kiss on American television, which was a huge deal at the time. Probably because it got a lot of attention as opposed to the others.

[shadow_archmagi]

Are we talking about diversity to make the characters more unique and recognizable when you see them?


Not really




Or are we talking about diversity being important because it involves being Politically Correct here?


No



Are we going to have the Characters' Race/Sex/Gender play a part in how they work and relate like Hardison from Leverage being a black male hacker does in his backstory?


Maybe? I don't think there's really a unified plan here.



Or are these characters going to be designed solely to get people to watch the particular franchise?


Please no.



Do we want diversity because it reflects how we want it to be whether it violates the reality of the setting that might take place in ancient Egypt and yet we insist on there being Chinese people?


I don't think anyone wants Chinese people in Ancient Eygpt.



Is diversity a requirement for all media now?


No.



Must every piece of media have a diverse cast even though it breaks reality because there were no Chinese people in ancient Egypt?


I mean, Gods of Eygpt decided to break reality for the sake of lowering diversity, so there's that.




Are all writers or storytellers going to be unable to tell their stories if they refuse to have a diverse cast? Does creativity get suppressed to appeal to the Politically Correct masses and their "Diversity"?


Well, the current status quo is that often stories with diversity get edited down to try to appeal to the majority more, so, I guess?



Why don't we just stop telling stories about humans


Lots of reasons. This isn't a very good question.



I do agree we need more black characters, and probably Asian and Native American. Their experiences aren't heard enough.

wait what then why did you write this post? What are you even referring to in all of your above stuff?


Honestly, how am I supposed to suspend my disbelief unless there are a bunch of White European actors in those roles? It's madness, truly.

Yeah the whole "WHAT IF DIVERSITY IS UNREALISTIC?" sorta goes out the window given that we regularly get Gods of Eygpt and other stuff where the entire cast is the same race except for maybe the villains regardless of whether that makes sense.

[Flickerdart]

Well there weren't any white people in ancient Egypt either, and that hasn't stopped anyone yet.
We can't really say that for sure - Ancient Egyptians had seafaring vessels and geographic knowledge of Greece and Italy. They practiced both international trade and slavery. We can't say there were no white people at all in Ancient Egypt during the three thousand years of its history. :smallwink:

[shadow_archmagi]

We can't really say that for sure - Ancient Egyptians had seafaring vessels and geographic knowledge of Greece and Italy. They practiced both international trade and slavery. We can't say there were no white people at all in Ancient Egypt during the three thousand years of its history. :smallwink:

probably not their gods tho

[jere7my]

We can't really say that for sure - Ancient Egyptians had seafaring vessels and geographic knowledge of Greece and Italy. They practiced both international trade and slavery. We can't say there were no white people at all in Ancient Egypt during the three thousand years of its history. :smallwink:

Ancient Egypt was pretty diverse: full of Greeks, Persians, southern Africans, western Africans, Romans, and what-have-you, as traders, mercenaries, emissaries, slaves, etc. It's certainly possible to have stories that include any of them set in ancient Egypt, though of course the bulk of Egyptians were, well, Egyptian. Plenty of room for creativity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_contacts_of_ancient_Egypt

No Chinese people, as far as I know.

[Dienekes]

Ancient Egypt was pretty diverse: full of Greeks, Persians, southern Africans, western Africans, Romans, and what-have-you, as traders, mercenaries, emissaries, slaves, etc. It's certainly possible to have stories that include any of them set in ancient Egypt, though of course the bulk of Egyptians were, well, Egyptian. Plenty of room for creativity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_contacts_of_ancient_Egypt

No Chinese people, as far as I know.

How ancient we talking here? Because the Ptolemy family were Macedonians and their court was filled with Macedonians and Greeks. It'd make perfect sense to have a European filled court if you ever want to do a story about Cleopatra.

Sorry, I know this isn't really relevant. I just remember someone whining when in the tv show Rome the actress portraying Cleopatra wasn't African. Still makes me chuckle.

[Nerd-o-rama]

How ancient we talking here? Because the Ptolemy family were Macedonians and their court was filled with Macedonians and Greeks. It'd make perfect sense to have a European filled court if you ever want to do a story about Cleopatra.

Sorry, I know this isn't really relevant. I just remember someone whining when in the tv show Rome the actress portraying Cleopatra wasn't African. Still makes me chuckle.

Ancient Egypt and Hellenized Classical Egypt were two very different places, I'll agree with that. Post-Arabic Egypt even more so.

[Liquor Box]

GTA5 is very diverse - multiple ethnicities, plenty of females and some non-hetero characters.

[Serpentine]

Looking on my shelves for good ones, and getting a bit distressed by how little diversity there is even there other than Tamora Pierce. Hunger Games is okay, I think? I think Anne McCaffrey is reasonably good? At least she has a very strong mix of male and female characters. I know there was at least one prominent character in Dragon's Dawn who was explicitly of a Chinese background. By the time of the "present day" turns up, I'm not sure that there are any distinct ethnicities on Pern - I think the original colony was too small to maintain discrete populations. Could be wrong, though, anyone remember? I feel like there might've been a couple of gay and/or possibly asexual characters (and one explicitly asexual dragon).
Oh! John Marsden. He's pretty decent. At least as many female characters as male, and diversity within what sort of female characters. For example, the Tomorrow series has a kick-arse ****-kicking country girl; a conservative, moral, resolute religious girl; and a prissy girly-girl, all of whom contribute in their own ways. I'm pretty sure at least one character is Aboriginal, too, which is unusual, and I think one was Japanese and another possibly Lebanese or something like that, but I'm not sure. I can't remember whether he has any non-straight characters, but I'd actually be pretty surprised if he didn't. He does also have quite a lot of diversity in social class and wealth, though.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I don't know most of those, but Hunger Games is pretty well known for having an ethnically diverse cast which people then freaked out over being presented even partially accurately in the film versions (specifically the character of Rue).


GTA5 is very diverse - multiple ethnicities, plenty of females and some non-hetero characters.

I am wishing I had played GTA5 because I would like to know whether this is accurate or, like most earlier GTA games, it's a game filled with a rainbow cornucopia of ethnic and sexual stereotypes.

[Cristo Meyers]

I am wishing I had played GTA5 because I would like to know whether this is accurate or, like most earlier GTA games, it's a game filled with a rainbow cornucopia of ethnic and sexual stereotypes.

Little bit of both. Well, okay, one or two full characters and then the cornucopia comes in.

The black member of the PC Triad (CJ? Name escapes me...) is a pretty interesting character on his own, and some of the supporting cast in his personal arc are too, but then you start seeing the usual GTA over-the-top stereotypes.

Though I did stop playing when the game turned into a full-on torture sim, so maybe that changed further into the game.

[Psyren]

I'd have to say Sense8 as that is the whole point.

I'd really be interested in the answer to this question focused on anime myself. Bleach is pretty up there (ethnicity, gender, age, and sexuality even if it's only lesbians) and I can't think of too many other examples that come close, especially not mainstream ones.


Really why should we care?

You cared enough to post :smalltongue:

[Nerd-o-rama]

I'd really be interested in the answer to this question focused on anime myself. Bleach is pretty up there (ethnicity, gender, age, and sexuality even if it's only lesbians) and I can't think of too many other examples that come close, especially not mainstream ones.

Black Lagoon's pretty good, I think?

A lot of sci fi anime also makes sure to grab people from a variety of ethnic and national backgrounds and then proceeds to draw all of them basically the same way. Gundam 00 was on point in some regards with its multinational protagonist team of Kurdish Guy, Asiatic Russian Guy, White Irish Guy (who dies), and Artificial Human...identifies as a Guy. The show also featured two great female commanders and one female enemy ace whose character didn't get ruined until the rest of the show did. Sexualities are largely up in the air whenever they're implied not to be straight, as is par for the course with anime. Main negative points here come from a lack of female protagonist pilots - especially since you could have told almost the same story with Feldt stepping up as Lockon's replacement rather than Suddenly Twin, and Somarie does all of nothing once she joins the good guys - and the overemphasis on the Season 2 bad guys' sexual ambiguity as a point of "alienness". EDIT: oh right, and dissociative identity disorder still doesn't work that way, fiction.

Also introducing a female character 3/4 of the way through the show just to have a tragic love story that gets wrapped up in one episode. I love you, Anew, but you're everything that's wrong with Gundam's treatment of women.

tl;dr you're more likely to get ethnic diversity in anime than non-exploitative treatment of women or minority sexualities.

[ben-zayb]

I'd really be interested in the answer to this question focused on anime myself. Bleach is pretty up there (ethnicity, gender, age, and sexuality even if it's only lesbians) and I can't think of too many other examples that come close, especially not mainstream ones.Weren't Yumichika's and Charlotte's explictly stated? At least "Reina de Rosa" looks clear to me.

In terms of anime diversity but also relative to character depth, I'd give it to One Piece. While RL racial diversity isn't too much (but it's still more diverse compared to many mainstream anime), the fictional racial diversity and socio-economic caste are massive and even takes center-stage in issues of various plots, which is expected since the World Government with the status quo that it upholds is the antagonist for the most part. Age and body types are pretty diverse, too, even within just the main characters. Downsides were cases where homosexuality gets inserted to be played for laughs, although earlier in the story one of the most beloved "honorary" crewmate is an Okama.

[Gnoman]

Though I did stop playing when the game turned into a full-on torture sim, so maybe that changed further into the game.

It's important to note that this happened exactly once, while you're being forced to cooperate by a corrupt and villainous government agent, and the sequence can be mostly skipped if you just Google who you're supposed to shoot. It's a typical GTA ham-fisted political statement, but it is not a recurring element or played in any way as a good thing.

[TheThan]

Diversity is important because it is empowering to more people.
Soooo We’re supposed to be color blind, ethnicity blind, gender identity blind, sexual preference blind unless it has to do with making people feel better about themselves? That sounds hypocritical to me. I mean if we aren’t color/ethnic/gender identity/sexual preference blind any other time then we’re a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes right?

Anyway I still think X-men wins. Off the top of my head we have

Americans from all over the USA, including but not limited to Hawaii, Alaska, New York, New jersey, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, California, Louisiana, Arizona and Massachusetts.
multiple American Ethnicities including but not limited to Cajun, African American, Jewish, Native American (Navajo, Cheyenne), Chinese American
numerous races including but not limited to: African, Asian, Caucasian, Latino
numerous nationalities including but not limited to: United States of America, Japan, Russia, Canadian, Germany, England, Ireland, Scotland, Vietnam, Brazil, Australia, Afghanistan
various religious groups including but not limited to: Muslim, catholic, Jewish, vague mystics, straight up occult practitioners (magic users) and Christians (I assume, I don’t recall anyone being defined as such but it’s an easy default)
LGBT characters including gay men and women, and even several gender fluid shapeshifters
Aliens (from space)
A dragon
A clone
at least one cyborg
a robot (artificial intelligence)
time travelers of all sorts
dimension hoppers of all sorts
disabled people

[digiman619]

Anyway I still think X-men wins. Off the top of my head we have

Americans from all over the USA, including but not limited to Hawaii, Alaska, New York, New jersey, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, California, Louisiana, Arizona and Massachusetts.
multiple American Ethnicities including but not limited to Cajun, African American, Jewish, Native American (Navajo, Cheyenne), Chinese American
numerous races including but not limited to: African, Asian, Caucasian, Latino
numerous nationalities including but not limited to: United States of America, Japan, Russia, Canadian, Germany, England, Ireland, Scotland, Vietnam, Brazil, Australia, Afghanistan
various religious groups including but not limited to: Muslim, catholic, Jewish, vague mystics, straight up occult practitioners (magic users) and Christians (I assume, I don’t recall anyone being defined as such but it’s an easy default)
LGBT characters including gay men and women, and even several gender fluid shapeshifters
Aliens (from space)
A dragon
A clone
at least one cyborg
a robot (artificial intelligence)
time travelers of all sorts
dimension hoppers of all sorts
disabled people


I think I know who most of those are based on those descriptions. Though if they're from after 2000 or so, I might not recognize them.

[ufo]

But did you think about that actually diversity is bad?!

Haha, I love the internet.

Sorry, I'm drunk.

[Kitten Champion]

Christians (I assume, I don’t recall anyone being defined as such but it’s an easy default)

Nightcrawler. Actually one of the better devoutly Christian characters in pop culture. I mean outside of the obvious irony of looking devilish but adhering to a strong Christian faith, he was often used pretty capably to express how his faith gave him strength in the face of monstrous hate without succumbing to hatred in return all without turning him into someone who's completely defined as the Christian character.

Of course, then the Ultimate universe reduced him to a myopic homophobe, because why not?

[digiman619]

Nightcrawler. Actually one of the better devoutly Christian characters in pop culture. I mean outside of the obvious irony of looking devilish but adhering to a strong Christian faith, he was often used pretty capably to express how his faith gave him strength in the face of monstrous hate without succumbing to hatred in return all without turning him into someone who's completely defined as the Christian character.

I mean, he's obviously a Christian character. That's why a supervillian had a plan to make him the Pope.

Yes, really. Uncanny X-Men #432-424, Look it up if you don't believe me.

[Kitten Champion]

I mean, he's obviously a Christian character. That's why a supervillian had a plan to make him the Pope.

Yes, really. Uncanny X-Men #432-424, Look it up if you don't believe me.

I don't believe you. Believing you would mean admitting Austen's run exists, and I'm not in a stage of my life where I'm ready to do that.

[TheThan]

I actually separated catholic and Christian faiths because, well, they are different. It doesn’t take a whole lot of research to figure that out. Anyway that’s a religious topic so it’s best suited elsewhere.

As for whether diversity is good or bad, really it doesn’t matter as long as that franchise makes money and continues and its audience is happy.

As for me, I prefer diversity to be a natural occurrence. I’d rather an interesting character that happens to be X,Y and Z than one that’s created just to appeal or pander to a specific audience. Those sorts of characters are usually one note characters that don’t last long because there’s not much substance to them to begin with.

[jere7my]

I actually separated catholic and Christian faiths because, well, they are different. It doesn’t take a whole lot of research to figure that out. Anyway that’s a religious topic so it’s best suited elsewhere.

The word you want is Protestant.


As for me, I prefer diversity to be a natural occurrence. I’d rather an interesting character that happens to be X,Y and Z than one that’s created just to appeal or pander to a specific audience.

That's great. Unfortunately, when creators put in characters who just happen to be gay, or black, or female, the internet erupts in full surround sound bigot-o-rama. The press asked J.J. Abrams at a party whether Star Wars would ever have any gay characters; he said "That'd be cool, sure"; thousands of Facebook comments erupted with "Why can't we keep sexuality out of Star Wars?" and "Why can't we keep Star Wars kid-friendly?" and "I'm boycotting future movies bargle glargle." Creating characters who just happen to not be straight white men is the ideal, but the world is full of people who are willing to fight tooth and nail against them.

[Serpentine]

Nightcrawler.
...
Of course, then the Ultimate universe reduced him to a myopic homophobe, because why not?
Oh no. Say it isn't so :smallfrown:

P.S. The fact that straight cis white male characters get to have the luxury of feeling "natural", even when their presence is downright unnatural, without ever having to justify themselves, whereas every single freaking time someone wants to include a significant character that is literally anything other than a straight cis white man that decision has to be constantly defended and justified even though "those people exist" should be ample justification, is the whole problem. And the fact that you can't even have a simple thread asking about media that features characters other than straight cis white male characters without a bunch of people (who I assume, but admit I don't actually know, are straight cis white men) coming in and complaining about the very concept of media that features characters other than straight cis white men as a matter of principle, because any media that features characters other than straight cis white men is CLEARLY "created just to appeal or pander to a specific audience" (as opposed to straight cis white male characters created to appeal or pander to straight cis white male audiences) and "unnatural" and merely about "making people feel better about themselves" (because that's a terrible thing, unless it's making straight cis white men feel better about themselves, obviously) or that it "doesn't matter" (which is easy to say when things are in your favour) serves amply to demonstrate exactly why it's so important to push for more characters that aren't straight cis white men.
People who are not straight cis white men exist. That is literally the only justification ever needed for any media to include more characters that are not straight cis white men (more justification than is needed, really, considering everyone's cool with elves and half-dragons and other things that don't even have the advantage of existing). If you think that a story's hero being a black lesbian requires more justification or explanation or whatever in order to be "more natural" than the hero being a straight white guy, then congratulations, you've just demonstrated exactly why we need more stories featuring black lesbians. And you should be on board with that, too - the more diversity we have, the more "natural" that diversity will seem, and be.


Anyway, regarding the actual topic of the thread, how about fantasy novels? Aside from Tamora Pierce, are there any authors out there who don't just write pseudo-medieval Europe stuff (or who do, but incorporate the rest of the world as well)? I suppose there's the Percheron series by Fiona McIntosh. I've only read the first one, Odalisque, and it's set in what seems to be a Middle East-analogue culture, one of the main characters is a woman and another is a dwarf/little person.

[Kitten Champion]

Oh no. Say it isn't so :smallfrown:

Well, kind of. Thing is, all I can remember about the Ultimate Nightcrawler character was Ultimate Colossus is gay but closeted for the most part and Nightcrawler - after being depicted as a kind of naive character before this - expressed his... disgust at how unnatural that is several time, much to Colossus' anxiety.

The intended irony was clear, with Nightcrawler being the poster-child for the Scary Unnatural Mutant Menace and subject to horrendous bigotry (which was waaaaay worse in the Ultimate Universe as you might imagine) is himself a bigot over something as banal as sexual preference. It upended what was essential and likeable about the character, just for that unsubtle bit of commentary.

Though, I'm not sure if that bit of his character was ever redeemed before they killed him off in Ultimatum, so perhaps he got better.

[Razade]

I actually separated catholic and Christian faiths because, well, they are different. It doesn’t take a whole lot of research to figure that out. Anyway that’s a religious topic so it’s best suited elsewhere.

I'd frankly love to have that conversation with you because this was the funniest thing I've read all day, and the day was a real pit of despair so even if you don't want to have that conversation I suppose feel good you said something that banished those dark clouds. Just laugh out loud hilarious man. 10/10, I'll be riding this high for at least another day or two.


As for whether diversity is good or bad, really it doesn’t matter as long as that franchise makes money and continues and its audience is happy.

Maybe from a market perspective but don't you think it's rather cynical to look at things just on how much money they make and how many focus groups are pleased? As an openly gay man I like seeing other gay people in media portrayed well and realistically. I prefer for them not to be token however, meaning if a character is gay I don't want that to be the only reason their character exists.


As for me, I prefer diversity to be a natural occurrence. I’d rather an interesting character that happens to be X,Y and Z than one that’s created just to appeal or pander to a specific audience. Those sorts of characters are usually one note characters that don’t last long because there’s not much substance to them to begin with.

Well, we agree on this at least. Maybe there's some hope after all.



That's great. Unfortunately, when creators put in characters who just happen to be gay, or black, or female, the internet erupts in full surround sound bigot-o-rama. The press asked J.J. Abrams at a party whether Star Wars would ever have any gay characters; he said "That'd be cool, sure"; thousands of Facebook comments erupted with "Why can't we keep sexuality out of Star Wars?" and "Why can't we keep Star Wars kid-friendly?" and "I'm boycotting future movies bargle glargle." Creating characters who just happen to not be straight white men is the ideal, but the world is full of people who are willing to fight tooth and nail against them.

Than is actually in the right mindset here honestly. If all you want a character to be is "The Gay One" or "The Black One" you're not making the medium better and you're not really giving equal and fair treatment to the minority in question. You're actually making the medium worse because painting by numbers for the sake of diversity is transparent and no one appreciates it. A black woman isn't a character, a trans-woman isn't a character. They're people and they're more than their skin color or sexual preference and all you do by presenting them as such by making them narrow check boxes so you're "being diverse" is further marginalizing them. Which obviously isn't the intent but it is what you're doing.



P.S. The fact that straight cis white male characters get to have the luxury of feeling "natural", even when their presence is downright unnatural, without ever having to justify themselves, whereas every single freaking time someone wants to include a significant character that is literally anything other than a straight cis white man that decision has to be constantly defended and justified even though "those people exist" should be ample justification, is the whole problem. And the fact that you can't even have a simple thread asking about media that features characters other than straight cis white male characters without a bunch of people (who I assume, but admit I don't actually know, are straight cis white men) coming in and complaining about the very concept of media that features characters other than straight cis white men as a matter of principle, because any media that features characters other than straight cis white men is CLEARLY "created just to appeal or pander to a specific audience" (as opposed to straight cis white male characters created to appeal or pander to straight cis white male audiences) and "unnatural" and merely about "making people feel better about themselves" (because that's a terrible thing, unless it's making straight cis white men feel better about themselves, obviously) or that it "doesn't matter" (which is easy to say when things are in your favour) serves amply to demonstrate exactly why it's so important to push for more characters that aren't straight cis white men.
People who are not straight cis white men exist. That is literally the only justification ever needed for any media to include more characters that are not straight cis white men (more justification than is needed, really, considering everyone's cool with elves and half-dragons and other things that don't even have the advantage of existing). If you think that a story's hero being a black lesbian requires more justification or explanation or whatever in order to be "more natural" than the hero being a straight white guy, then congratulations, you've just demonstrated exactly why we need more stories featuring black lesbians. And you should be on board with that, too - the more diversity we have, the more "natural" that diversity will seem, and be.


Anyway, regarding the actual topic of the thread, how about fantasy novels? Aside from Tamora Pierce, are there any authors out there who don't just write pseudo-medieval Europe stuff (or who do, but incorporate the rest of the world as well)? I suppose there's the Percheron series by Fiona McIntosh. I've only read the first one, Odalisque, and it's set in what seems to be a Middle East-analogue culture, one of the main characters is a woman and another is a dwarf/little person.

As a non-cis male I really wish people on both sides of the divide would stop using Cis-Gender in such a casual manner. It's become a slur just as nasty as the ones levied at "Non-Cis" people and every time I see it used by someone who otherwise has a perfectly valid point (like the quote above) makes me understand why straight men of any color resents the implication that they are somehow the root of the problem and need to just shut up and sit down because their turn to talk is over. Which is exactly the opposite of what the dialogue needs and is exactly the opposite of what (again the quoted) is actually saying. But each time the term Cis is thrown around...just another shovel of dirt thrown on the grave of multilateral discussion. The day we as a species move beyond the titles of gay, cis, trans etc and just look at each other as humans who are beautiful in their own way can't come soon enough, but no one trying to put others in boxes on either side is going to get us there faster.

[Serpentine]

Though, I'm not sure if that bit of his character was ever redeemed before they killed him off in Ultimatum, so perhaps he got better.
I hope so. Nightcrawler is my favourite :smallfrown:


I prefer for them not to be token however, meaning if a character is gay I don't want that to be the only reason their character exists.

...

Than is actually in the right mindset here honestly. If all you want a character to be is "The Gay One" or "The Black One" you're not making the medium better and you're not really giving equal and fair treatment to the minority in question. You're actually making the medium worse because painting by numbers for the sake of diversity is transparent and no one appreciates it. A black woman isn't a character, a trans-woman isn't a character. They're people and they're more than their skin color or sexual preference and all you do by presenting them as such by making them narrow check boxes so you're "being diverse" is further marginalizing them. Which obviously isn't the intent but it is what you're doing.
And that's exactly why having lots of diversity, and diversity within that diversity, is so important. To take Tamora Pierce as the go-to example of gender diversity, having at least as many female characters as male characters means that no one of them is "the chick", the representative of all womankind. It means there's room for nuance and for all sorts of women to find someone to identify. There are tough, physical, angry, masculine women, and there are soft, gentle, domestic, feminine women, and then there are tough, masculine women who go out of their way to remind everyone that they are also feminine and that's not a bad thing, and they all have the room to demonstrate their own strengths and weaknesses, flaws and virtues, and be their own complete character - rather than "the woman". When you have "anyone can be any gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc", then you have more room for them all to be their own characters beyond those traits.

edit: Cis is descriptive, that's all. Literally all it means is "not trans", just like trans means "not cis". I'm a straight(ish) cis (mostly) white (probably completely) woman. Cis is meant to be no more pejorative in what I said than any other the descriptors I used. The only problem with any of those things is that they're the only things we're allowed to see (without it having to be justified, analysed and criticised right up the wazoo).

And here we are again, having to justify getting to see a bit of diversity in the media, literally anything but a monotonous sweep of cis straight white men, instead of just being allowed to talk about what media even has any presence of anything other than cis straight white men... Sure, there's lots of cis straight white male characters I absolutely adore, but even express an interest in characters who don't fit into that category and people start losing their minds.

[Razade]

And that's exactly why having lots of diversity, and diversity within that diversity, is so important. To take Tamora Pierce as the go-to example of gender diversity, having at least as many female characters as male characters means that no one of them is "the chick", the representative of all womankind. It means there's room for nuance and for all sorts of women to find someone to identify. There are tough, physical, angry, masculine women, and there are soft, gentle, domestic, feminine women, and then there are tough, masculine women who go out of their way to remind everyone that they are also feminine and that's not a bad thing, and they all have the room to demonstrate their own strengths and weaknesses, flaws and virtues, and be their own complete character - rather than "the woman". When you have "anyone can be any gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc", then you have more room for them all to be their own characters beyond those traits.

You can do that without them being the token minority however. In fact you have to. If you make a character whose only characterization is that they're a minority isn't just bad writing it strips any form of nuance away from the entire affair. I'm not actually sure what you're arguing against, we agree that there should be more diversity and that diversity should be done well. My issue wasn't with what you wrote about diversity, it was with the use of the term Cis because it's poison and otherwise turns people off from what were generally good points.

[Serpentine]

You can do that without them being the token minority however. In fact you have to. If you make a character whose only characterization is that they're a minority isn't just bad writing it strips any form of nuance away from the entire affair. I'm not actually sure what you're arguing against, we agree that there should be more diversity and that diversity should be done well.Yes, that's the point. I was continuing on from your point, that what you said is exactly why MORE diversity is so important - more diversity = less tokenism.


My issue wasn't with what you wrote about diversity, it was with the use of the term Cis because it's poison and otherwise turns people off from what were generally good points.Except it really, really isn't, no more than "trans" is - no more than calling someone heterosexual as opposed to homosexual or bisexual is "poison". It is literally just a handy descriptor for "person who do not fall under the trans umbrella". And since decent trans characters are even harder to come by than decent female, gay or non-white characters, it is definitely relevant to this discussion as much as those.

[Razade]

Except it really, really isn't, no more than "trans" is - no more than calling someone heterosexual as opposed to homosexual or bisexual is "poison". It is literally just a handy descriptor for "person who do not fall under the trans umbrella".

I understand you feel that way and I won't condescend to you that it's your right to feel it, you don't need me to tell you what you can or can't feel. If you think, however, that you're the one that gets to tell straight people what terms they're allowed to use however...don't know what more to tell you. I think you see the fault in it.

[Serpentine]

I understand you feel that way and I won't condescend to you that it's your right to feel it, you don't need me to tell you what you can or can't feel. If you think, however, that you're the one that gets to tell straight people what terms they're allowed to use however...don't know what more to tell you. I think you see the fault in it.
I don't know what you mean by "straight people" there, since if you're talking about straight as in heterosexual then I can't make sense of your post, and if you mean straight as in cis (or "not-trans") then you're using the word incorrectly, or at least non-standardly.
As I said, I am a heterosexual (or straight, if you had a problem with that term?) cis person. I'm not the one telling anyone what they are or are not allowed to call themselves. And in this context, the overwhelming majority of characters being cis (or, if you prefer, "non-trans") straight white men is as relevant as them being straight white men.

edit: For your reference, an example of general cis/trans usage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism), and another (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallia_Narbonensis) pairing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisalpine_Gaul). Literally all it means.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Soooo We’re supposed to be color blind, ethnicity blind, gender identity blind, sexual preference blind unless it has to do with making people feel better about themselves? That sounds hypocritical to me. I mean if we aren’t color/ethnic/gender identity/sexual preference blind any other time then we’re a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes right?

Nobody in this thread has said that, and speaking only for myself here I don't appreciate other people putting words in my mouth. Especially insults.

I just...don't understand the idea that people want fiction to be less representative of the fullness and richness of reality than it could be. Why Fictional New York City - with all else being equal - should be a different color and sound and feeling from the real New York (smell's another matter, but that's not related to any particular people other than the sanitation union). Why Fictional Ancient Egypt should be populated by and ruled over by no one but received-pronunciation-affecting Anglo-Saxon men and one black guy. Why, in space, no one can hear you express your love unless it's for the opposite gender. I don't understand why.

Or I do, rather, but it's not an accusation I level lightly, or on this board.


That said, I do agree with you about X-Men. While the writing quality is as inconsistent as any other long-running comic, it's an ensemble work that goes out of its way to make it clear that anyone and everyone can be a hero, regardless of any qualifiers about race, sex, gender, sexuality, religion etc. Moreover, since almost the beginning, it's been a story about how marginalized groups have to fight constantly for their right to even exist, let alone do things like contribute to society or be represented in media. Fantastic series.


I actually separated catholic and Christian faiths because, well, they are different. It doesn’t take a whole lot of research to figure that out. Anyway that’s a religious topic so it’s best suited elsewhere.

On the other hand, yikes. I uh, really suggest for your safety you don't actually bring that up anywhere it can be argued. Literal wars have started over that sentiment, which also doesn't take a whole lot of research to figure out.

[OldTrees1]

Except it really, really isn't, no more than "trans" is - no more than calling someone heterosexual as opposed to homosexual or bisexual is "poison". It is literally just a handy descriptor for "person who do not fall under the trans umbrella". And since decent trans characters are even harder to come by than decent female, gay or non-white characters, it is definitely relevant to this discussion as much as those.

"Cis" is descriptive, but just like "Gay" was descriptive, it is used in multiple ways. One of those ways is as a slur (partly playing off the similarly to Cyst). Depending on which usage the person you are talking to is most familiar with, they might take it as an identity trait, mere description, or a slur.

Most of the time "Cis" is a very useful descriptive term since it places both labels ("Trans" and "Cis") on equal footing (sort of like the term "Heterosexual") which is productive for shaping the dialogue. However I would not advice using the word "Cis" to talk about "Trans" if the majority of the exposure to the word was of the form "Cis White Scum".

Now, as someone that is Cis, I don't think this thread is a place where you would need to worry about this. This thread seems to be filled with people that are already welcoming of diversity. Where you might want to be careful about using the term is when trying to get someone to be more welcoming (because those are the people most likely to have been overexposed to the slur usage and thus will become defensive and deaf if you use the word despite using the descriptive usage).

[Serpentine]

All of which is true, but not really relevant here, since I was using it appropriately, accurately and not as a slur (and if I was, it'd be against myself, along with "white" and "straight").

And all of which especially isn't relevant to the actual thread anyway. And here's me with an example sitting right in front of me! Avernum has a fair bit of diversity in it, although due to the nature of the game not much is explicit. Currently my party consists of four women, but it could have as easily have been four men or three women and one man or whatever. Two appear to be white, one is black, and the fourth is of fairly ambiguous ethnicity. I could headcannon it that one of them's trans and two are in a relationship with each other, but that'll never actually come up anywhere. Can't find a complete collection of all the portrait options anywhere, but there's a bonus bit of diversity in that there's a variety of levels of clothedness for both the male and female characters.
And Dragon Age is even better, since it has just about any combination of sexualities you can think of (I wonder what would happen if you played it as an asexual character...), as well as, I think, a decent mix of ethnicities, and your own character can be whatever.

[TheThan]

Nobody in this thread has said that, and speaking only for myself here I don't appreciate other people putting words in my mouth. Especially insults.


I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left wing liberal argument about diversity . I’ve heard the sentiment I posted muttered numerous times in my life and have been personally been accused of those things simply because I acknowledged that a person I knew happened to belong to demographic X and that he exists. You’d think that person would be happy that I acknowledged him/her whatever. But instead I get blasted as a bigot, sexist, homophobe etc for it. (And no I didn’t say anything offensive about that person.) Why do I have to acknowledge people for what they are some of the time but not others?

If you choose to feel like I placed words in your mouth (which I don’t feel I did) or If you feel insulted or threatened by my statements that’s your prerogative. I doubt I can change your mind about it.


I'd frankly love to have that conversation with you because this was the funniest thing I've read all day, and the day was a real pit of despair so even if you don't want to have that conversation I suppose feel good you said something that banished those dark clouds. Just laugh out loud hilarious man. 10/10, I'll be riding this high for at least another day or two.


Well I’m glad I at least brightened someone’s day. It’s not that I can’t back up my statement; but unfortunately continuing that discussion is in clear violation of forum rules and I don’t think either of us want to risk getting kicked off so we’ll have to agree to disagree.


Maybe from a market perspective but don't you think it's rather cynical to look at things just on how much money they make and how many focus groups are pleased?

I don’t think it’s cynical at all. The company turns a profit which makes them happy. The people absorbing that media are enjoying it so they’re happy. Everyone walks away a winner, that’s hardly cynical. I really don’t get why some people think making money is a bad thing.


On the other hand, yikes. I uh, really suggest for your safety you don't actually bring that up anywhere it can be argued. Literal wars have started over that sentiment, which also doesn't take a whole lot of research to figure out.

I’ve argued that point (successfully too) before peaceably but I totally get where your coming from and it's not a topic I typically bring up (others bring it up and i usually end up defending my beliefs).

[Nerd-o-rama]

I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left wing liberal argument about diversity . I’ve heard the sentiment I posted muttered numerous times in my life and have been personally been accused of those things simply because I acknowledged that a person I knew happened to belong to demographic X and that he exists. You’d think that person would be happy that I acknowledged him/her whatever. But instead I get blasted as a bigot, sexist, homophobe etc for it. (And no I didn’t say anything offensive about that person.) Why do I have to acknowledge people for what they are some of the time but not others?

I'm very sorry you've had that experience. If the internet has taught me anything, it's that there are judgmental whiners on every side of every argument. Most of my energy in communication is spent in a probably-vain effort not to be one. However, I didn't see that happening in this thread, so I thought it was a bit odd that you're bring it up in specific response to this thread, as if everyone who's on "the diversity side" formed a monolithic bloc of judgmental opinions about you, specifically, regardless of what specific individuals have been saying.

I don't know the contexts of all your experiences, and I'm not going to ask you to describe them. Just know that, even if you have been unfairly judged as bigoted, the goal of diversity in media is not to shame people who are members of majorities (that is, majorities in America, where most of the pop culture we're talking about is produced, since America is culturally dominant over pretty much the entire English-speaking planet and a lot of places that aren't English-speaking). It's simply to make it so that fiction reflects all facets of the human experience, and not just the experience of said majorities.

[Yora]

It's the internet. It's impossible to mention anything related to gender without getting accused of being prejudiced against marginalized groups. If you say the opposite, you get accused of the same thing. That's just how it works in an all out screaming contest. The only way not to be called homophopic and woman hating is not to participate.
But out of genuine curiosity: What is the left wing liberal argument about diversity?

[TheThan]

the goal of diversity in media is not to shame people who are members of majorities

I agree, however shaming is often times used as a weapon to force people that don’t necessarily agree with an opinion (particularly a popular opinion) to shut up; which ironically goes against some of the principles the United States of America was founded upon.


It's the internet. It's impossible to mention anything related to gender without getting accused of being prejudiced against marginalized groups. If you say the opposite, you get accused of the same thing. That's just how it works in an all out screaming contest. The only way not to be called homophopic and woman hating is not to participate.
But out of genuine curiosity: What is the left wing liberal argument about diversity?

Actually I meant accused of being those things to my face as in real life. But yeah trying to argue these things is like banging your head against a brick wall; all it does is give you a headache. Demonizing people is the easiest way to win a shouting match; trying to argue in a meaningful manner just doesn't work anymore. Even then, it's not really wining, just forcing someone to shut up and go away.

Anyway the argument is that we as a people should look past things like gender, race, sexual preference en alt. They say that people are just people and that the color of someone’s skin, gender, sexual preference and so on doesn’t really matter. Yet at the same time they expect those things to be acknowledged when it’s convent and beneficial for them.

This speaks of hypocrisy. When someone points out those aspects of a person’s, well person, they can and have been attacked for it (personal experience) even when meant in a well meaning or innocent manner. Yet at the same time; these same people want to be called out for those same aspects when it benefits them or makes them feel good about themselves.

In the context of this thread; it was stated that diversity (so paying attention to those aspects that make up a person) can encourage people to basically shoot for the stars and accomplish lofty goals; which is something I don’t necessarily disagree with. However we are also supposed to look past those aspects and treat everyone as individuals instead of demographics even though the very nature of creating diversity is to call out those aspects that make up people.

[Yora]

True, and that gets full support from an outspoken leftist androgynous bisexual. Which is why I rarely add anything to such discussions or make it a point in my fiction writing. The only thing you can do is acting by example in the way you consider propper and hoping people get accustomed to it over time. But it doesn't seem like there are any points to argue.
Asking someone about their opinion in gender related questions is a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Either reply will be taken as bad.

[Serpentine]

I forget, has Questionable Content been mentioned? Good mix of genders and sexualities, significant trans representation, range of body shapes, some presence of physical disabilities, lots of coverage of mental health issues, range of personalities within character type (stereotyping is rare, and generally shortlived)... And Jeph's always working on doing it more, and doing it better.

[jere7my]

It's the internet. It's impossible to mention anything related to gender without getting accused of being prejudiced against marginalized groups. If you say the opposite, you get accused of the same thing. That's just how it works in an all out screaming contest. The only way not to be called homophopic and woman hating is not to participate.
But out of genuine curiosity: What is the left wing liberal argument about diversity?

Somehow I've made it through 25 years of serious discussions about gender and representation on the internet without being called homophobic and woman-hating, as far as I can remember. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe it's possible to discuss these things thoughtfully and with sensitivity toward people with less social privilege than myself. Who can say?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Anyway the argument is that we as a people should look past things like gender, race, sexual preference en alt. They say that people are just people and that the color of someone’s skin, gender, sexual preference and so on doesn’t really matter. Yet at the same time they expect those things to be acknowledged when it’s convent and beneficial for them.

This speaks of hypocrisy. When someone points out those aspects of a person’s, well person, they can and have been attacked for it (personal experience) even when meant in a well meaning or innocent manner. Yet at the same time; these same people want to be called out for those same aspects when it benefits them or makes them feel good about themselves.

In the context of this thread; it was stated that diversity (so paying attention to those aspects that make up a person) can encourage people to basically shoot for the stars and accomplish lofty goals; which is something I don’t necessarily disagree with. However we are also supposed to look past those aspects and treat everyone as individuals instead of demographics even though the very nature of creating diversity is to call out those aspects that make up people.

See, in a perfect world, I'd agree with this principle. Don't see color, see people, etc. But it's a naive principle to have in a world that is structurally still very bigoted and divided, especially with regards to the elite corporations responsible for producing mass entertainment. Diversity in media doesn't happen naturally because (speaking specifically of American mass media because that's what I'm familiar with) we've got a hundred years of inertia that says only one specific race, class, sex, and kind of people are worth watching.

It's important to encourage diversity in media, in my opinion, not to give people a pat on the back and say "good job being gay/black/female", but to fight back against the inertia that says "only straight white men matter in fiction."

[TheThan]

See, in a perfect world, I'd agree with this principle. Don't see color, see people, etc. But it's a naive principle to have in a world that is structurally still very bigoted and divided, especially with regards to the elite corporations responsible for producing mass entertainment. Diversity in media doesn't happen naturally because (speaking specifically of American mass media because that's what I'm familiar with) we've got a hundred years of inertia that says only one specific race, class, sex, and kind of people are worth watching.

It's important to encourage diversity in media, in my opinion, not to give people a pat on the back and say "good job being gay/black/female", but to fight back against the inertia that says "only straight white men matter in fiction."

Exactly. While a person might be able to do it at an individual level, it’s very naive to try to do it large scale. Stereotypes exist for a reason after all. Diversity has been done well in media before; just as it’s been done really badly. But then again we always have to revert back to the lowest common denominator and assume everything is crap.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Or we can encourage and monetarily reward positive change while discouraging the status quo BECAUSE it's crap, but maybe that's just me being a brainless Millennial.

And again, that's not even the original purpose of this thread, as written, just the opinion of a number of replies.

[Serpentine]

So yeah. How about that media that happens to have lots of diversity, huh? Any other fantasy novels aside from Tamora Pierce? It is something I'd like to get into more.

[OldTrees1]

Exactly. While a person might be able to do it at an individual level, it’s very naive to try to do it large scale. Stereotypes exist for a reason after all. Diversity has been done well in media before; just as it’s been done really badly. But then again we always have to revert back to the lowest common denominator and assume everything is crap.

(Personal opinion not included)
There is some logic behind the hypocrisy.
1) The world should be like X
2) The world is not like X because people deviate in the -Y direction
3) So until people stop deviating in the -Y direction, we will deviate in the +Y direction to attempt to counteract their influence
4) Likewise we need to get the people deviating in the -Y direction to stop deviating
Result: "That group should stop -Y deviating and we should +Y deviate until they do."


While not strictly the diversity you are looking for, I find any series focused on aliens tends to actively seek diversity. While this does not create the "see someone like me doing stuff" benefit of diversity, they do have more freedom to talk about diversity.
Babylon 5 for example.

[Liquor Box]

I am wishing I had played GTA5 because I would like to know whether this is accurate or, like most earlier GTA games, it's a game filled with a rainbow cornucopia of ethnic and sexual stereotypes.

It is true, at least from an ethnic and gender perspective - multiple races and both genders are well represented (although none of the three protagonists are female). Quite likely in reasonable proportion to the real Los Angeles. The racial minorities and women act in a variety of ways so while some concur with stereotypes others do not.

One of the protagonists is a homosexual though, so there is a degree of diversity as to sexuality - he is not in anyway stereotypical.

Anyway, a positive (or non-stereotypical) portrayal of diversity is not what this thread is about - it is only about diversity.

[Liquor Box]

Little bit of both. Well, okay, one or two full characters and then the cornucopia comes in.

The black member of the PC Triad (CJ? Name escapes me...) is a pretty interesting character on his own, and some of the supporting cast in his personal arc are too, but then you start seeing the usual GTA over-the-top stereotypes.

Though I did stop playing when the game turned into a full-on torture sim, so maybe that changed further into the game.

There was only one scene (of hundreds or perhaps thousands) which involved torture.

[Liquor Box]

I'd have to say Sense8 as that is the whole point.

I'd really be interested in the answer to this question focused on anime myself. Bleach is pretty up there (ethnicity, gender, age, and sexuality even if it's only lesbians) and I can't think of too many other examples that come close, especially not mainstream ones.



You cared enough to post :smalltongue:

Does the Simpsons count or is "anime" something different from "animated"? Simpsons is probably as diverse as its setting (an average small American city) which an equalish gender split, more whites than non-whites but still a significant number of non-whites etc etc.

[Marlowe]

We can't really say that for sure - Ancient Egyptians had seafaring vessels and geographic knowledge of Greece and Italy. They practiced both international trade and slavery. We can't say there were no white people at all in Ancient Egypt during the three thousand years of its history. :smallwink:

I really don't know where the "Ancient Egyptians were black" thing comes from. It's not as though that civilisation didn't leave a lot of artwork. I just went to the shelf behind me, picked up a book, and found three colour frescos. Two depicting all-whitish people and one from the middle kingdom of a dark-skinned couple being attended on by two whiter-skinned servants.

As far as we can tell from the evidence, most of the population of Egypt has always been semitic caucasoids. Just like its neighbours in North Africa and the Middle East. Darker-skinned people were a large minority. There is no evidence that the Egyptians cared a lot about what colour skin a person was born with.

The funny thing is why we do.

[Eldan]

Political/racial reasons. THere was a certain undercurrent that all "high" civilization in (Subsaharan) Africa must have been white. You know it from adventure novels and movies. All those "lost ancient cities". So there's a counter movement that all "high" civilization in Africa must have been black, including Egypt. I've seen some go as far as saying that Caucasian Archaeologists deliberately defaced Egyptian artwork to make black Egyptians look more white on frescoes and statues.

[jere7my]

I really don't know where the "Ancient Egyptians were black" thing comes from. It's not as though that civilisation didn't leave a lot of artwork. I just went to the shelf behind me, picked up a book, and found three colour frescos. Two depicting all-whitish people and one from the middle kingdom of a dark-skinned couple being attended on by two whiter-skinned servants.

As far as we can tell from the evidence, most of the population of Egypt has always been semitic caucasoids. Just like its neighbours in North Africa and the Middle East. Darker-skinned people were a large minority. There is no evidence that the Egyptians cared a lot about what colour skin a person was born with.

The funny thing is why we do.

You've got a false dichotomy going here. They were not black (mostly), but they were also not northern European generic Hollywood white people. Ancient Egyptians probably looked a lot like the modern Egyptian football team: neither black nor white, but with skin coloration more like Palestinians', with some darker-skinned folks and some lighter-skinned folks. Nearly all of them had black hair.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/Media/News/2012/4/11/2012-634697570948344936-834.jpg

Brenton Thwaites with the tousled brownish hair? Not so much. Abbey Lee Kershaw? Er, no.

http://media3.popsugar-assets.com/files/2012/03/12/1/498/4981324/076effcf9e8ca36b_abbey-lee-kershaw-gucci-flo.xxxlarge_1/i/Abbey-Lee-Kershaw-Talks-Flora-Gucci-Flower-Garden-Collection.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Abbey_Lee_2015.jpg/440px-Abbey_Lee_2015.jpg

[Marlowe]

You've got a false dichotomy going here. They were not black (mostly), but they were also not northern European generic Hollywood white people. Ancient Egyptians probably looked a lot like the modern Egyptian football team: neither black nor white, but with skin coloration more like Palestinians', with some darker-skinned folks and some lighter-skinned folks. Nearly all of them had black hair.

That's not a false dicotomy. That's you defining "white" as "northern european" types, something no anthropologist would accept for a moment. Palestinians are white. Egyptians are white. Turks are white. Berbers are white.

The word you're looking for is not "white" but "nordic".

Hell, I had Uighur students in the depths of central asia who could pass for Little Orphan Annie.

[t209]

That's not a false dicotomy. That's you defining "white" as "northern european" types, something no anthropologist would accept for a moment. Palestinians are white. Egyptians are white. Turks are white. Berbers are white.

The word you're looking for is not "white" but "nordic".

Hell, I had Uighur students in the depths of central asia who could pass for Little Orphan Annie.
Well, even my Grandmother passed as Half Asian due to her ginger hair and light skins. Got her from possibly-Mongolian grandfather but he was sold as a kid.

[Psyren]

Does the Simpsons count or is "anime" something different from "animated"? Simpsons is probably as diverse as its setting (an average small American city) which an equalish gender split, more whites than non-whites but still a significant number of non-whites etc etc.

I meant the "outside Japan" definition (i.e. not referring to all animation.) In particular because eastern animation strongholds (Japan, Korea, China) are far less diverse than the U.S., and much of it (not all) tends to feature characters that emulate and can easily be emulated by a caucasian audience.

[ThinkMinty]

I mean, he's obviously a Christian character. That's why a supervillian had a plan to make him the Pope.

Yes, really. Uncanny X-Men #432-424, Look it up if you don't believe me.

Nightcrawler would be a dope pope tho. I mean, who doesn't want a kickass teleporting mutant pope? Plus we know he's a good dude because of all the superhero-in'.


Do we want diversity because it reflects how we want it to be whether it violates the reality of the setting that might take place in ancient Egypt and yet we insist on there being Chinese people?

What do the Chinese have to do with this? If it's a movie about Ancient Egypt, shouldn't there be Egyptian people there? And how do Egyptians look? Well, Egyptian. You can see it on the old-timey wall art. Or if the wall-art is insufficient, look at present-day Egyptians n' go with that. Off the top of my head, Bassem Youssef (the first Egyptian I could think of) would be what an Egyptian man looks like.


You've got a false dichotomy going here. They were not black (mostly), but they were also not northern European generic Hollywood white people. Ancient Egyptians probably looked a lot like the modern Egyptian football team: neither black nor white, but with skin coloration more like Palestinians', with some darker-skinned folks and some lighter-skinned folks. Nearly all of them had black hair.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/Media/News/2012/4/11/2012-634697570948344936-834.jpg

Brenton Thwaites with the tousled brownish hair? Not so much. Abbey Lee Kershaw? Er, no.

http://media3.popsugar-assets.com/files/2012/03/12/1/498/4981324/076effcf9e8ca36b_abbey-lee-kershaw-gucci-flo.xxxlarge_1/i/Abbey-Lee-Kershaw-Talks-Flora-Gucci-Flower-Garden-Collection.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Abbey_Lee_2015.jpg/440px-Abbey_Lee_2015.jpg

See, this is what I was talkin' about.

Sidebar: Abbey Lee is a cute patoot.


Is diversity a requirement for all media now?

Accuracy would be nice, but people complain about it when anyone points out unrealistically high levels of Wonderbread in a cast.


Must every piece of media have a diverse cast even though it breaks reality because there were no Chinese people in ancient Egypt?

You're mistaking diversity for some other thing.


There is such a thing as taking Political Correctness too far. Are all writers or storytellers going to be unable to tell their stories if they refuse to have a diverse cast?

Criticism by itself is-not-and-never-will-be censorship.


Does creativity get suppressed to appeal to the Politically Correct masses and their "Diversity"?

...no?


Why don't we just stop telling stories about humans, any kind of humans, and just use different kinds of cats, then you won't have people claiming that "They aren't getting represented".

Wouldn't that be shameful pandering to the furries or some other snarly outrage thing, though?


I do agree we need more black characters, and probably Asian and Native American. Their experiences aren't heard enough.

Especially in stories where they would logically exist. Like a story about samurai being centered around...not Tom Cruise.


That's not a false dicotomy. That's you defining "white" as "northern european" types, something no anthropologist would accept for a moment. Palestinians are white. Egyptians are white. Turks are white. Berbers are white.

The word you're looking for is not "white" but "nordic".

Hell, I had Uighur students in the depths of central asia who could pass for Little Orphan Annie.

Not all white people look Northern European/Nordic, then? If it's set in Turkey, would be most realistic that the Turks look like Turks.


I don’t think it’s cynical at all. The company turns a profit which makes them happy. The people absorbing that media are enjoying it so they’re happy. Everyone walks away a winner, that’s hardly cynical. I really don’t get why some people think making money is a bad thing.

To point out films you might like that do the diversity thing: Fast & Furious franchise. All the balls-to-the-wall car explosions and punch-facery a red-blooded American guy can really get behind, and with a cast of people from various backgrounds and experiences.

Also, the recent success of the musical Hamilton. Hamilton did so well that Hamilton gets to stay on money, and Andrew Jackson loses out his spot on the $20 to American Heroine Harriet Tubman.

The point is that casts with ethnic people in them aren't financial risks. Racist *******s are still going to watch the movie even if it's got ethnics in it, because racists don't have principles. They might be annoyed, but they're not going to not watch Thor just because Thor's played by an Australian. People who complain about the idea of a gay character in Star Wars are still going to watch Star Wars even if Poe and Finn admit their feels to eachother. Some of 'em will probably even like it despite their protestations.

[BlueHerring]

What do the Chinese have to do with this? If it's a movie about Ancient Egypt, shouldn't there be Egyptian people there? And how do Egyptians look? Well, Egyptian. You can see it on the old-timey wall art. Or if the wall-art is insufficient, look at present-day Egyptians n' go with that. Off the top of my head, Bassem Youssef (the first Egyptian I could think of) would be what an Egyptian man looks like.

Man, if any of those recent Egypt movies had Bassem Youssef in them, I would have watched the hell out of them.

But yeah, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's kinda hard to pull off, though, and Hollywood sure loves its inertia.

[jere7my]

That's not a false dicotomy. That's you defining "white" as "northern european" types, something no anthropologist would accept for a moment. Palestinians are white. Egyptians are white. Turks are white. Berbers are white.

The word you're looking for is not "white" but "nordic".

Hell, I had Uighur students in the depths of central asia who could pass for Little Orphan Annie.

Yeah, no. In the modern world, dividing everybody into two groups, "white" and "black," is a false dichotomy. Sociologically, Palestinians and Egyptians are not white—by which I mean they are treated differently because of their perceived race, unless they "pass". When we're talking about whitewashed casting, we're talking about sociological perceptions of race, or the concept of "visible minority."

You don't mean "white", you mean "Caucasian," and you don't mean "Caucasian," you mean "people who originate from the Caucasus region." From an anthropological standpoint, sure, there's no difference, but try telling a slightly darker-skinned Arab-American actor that they're treated just like a white actor.

To put it another way, it would be weird and noticeable if the casting call for "Braveheart" were done in Cairo. Yes, a few people might pass, but if the entire main cast was Egyptian people would scratch their heads at the decision.

[Marlowe]

Apparently, the "modern times" you're speaking of would be the 19th century, if not earlier. By your definition, Irish, Swedes, Askenazi and a whole lot of others wouldn't count as "white" since they've been treated "differently" at various times and places in the modern era. Hey, I'm from a Catholic family. Guess I'm not "White" either.

I don't know where you're going with the "Caucasian" thing. Looks like you mangled that sentence. I'm not going to agree in any way that "Caucasian" is not the accepted (if somewhat question-begging) alternative for the loaded term "white".

I really, really, don't care if you have a definition of "white" that has more to do with politics than anthropology and excludes the majority of people that fit the term.

The "Braveheart" comparison is yet another hilariously bad one, since a version of the movie with Semitic actors wouldn't be much more inaccurate than what we got. Hells, 13th century southern scots wearing kilts and woad?:smallconfused:

However, getting back to ancient Egypt; since there's no evidence that Egyptians cared a lot for skin colour and did not appear to treat each other differently on such basis, then we have to conclude BY YOUR DEFINITION that ALL ancient Egyptians were, regardless of skin colour, "White People".

[jere7my]

Apparently, the "modern times" you're speaking of would be the 19th century, if not earlier. By your definition, Irish, Swedes, Askenazi and a whole lot of others wouldn't count as "white" since they've been treated "differently" at various times and places in the modern era. Hey, I'm from a Catholic family. Guess I'm not "White" either.

Indeed, Irish, Italians, and Jews were all considered "non-white" in the US prior to the mid-20th century. There are plenty of reference books that describe the historical process of "becoming white" if you'd like to check them out. See Ignatiev's How the Irish Became White, e.g.


I don't know where you're going with the "Caucasian" thing. Looks like you mangled that sentence. I'm not going to agree in any way that "Caucasian" is not the accepted (if somewhat question-begging) alternative for the loaded term "white".

"Caucasian" has two meanings: a synonym for "white," and "descended from people from the Caucasus region of Asia". The first definition is narrower and more common than the second. You're using the second.


I really, really, don't care if you have a definition of "white" that has more to do with politics than anthropology and excludes the majority of people that fit the term.

Cool. Mine is the definition that has the widest currency in the US today, though. When people talk about non-whites or non-Caucasians in the US, they are not exclusively talking about African Americans. The census asked Latinos whether they thought of themselves as white, and got complicated responses:


The Census did this really big, comprehensive project where they sent out 17 different alternative questionnaires of the 2010 Census. And some of those were a combined question, where they actually put Hispanic or Latino in there, alongside racial groups. So they had more than 750 households involved in this, and they went back and they interviewed about one in six of those individuals who filled out that form. They got a telephone re-interview, where they got called back.

"You checked white for your race. Is that how you identify in your daily life? Is that how other people see you?"

They found that for Latinos, those who checked white did not identify with the term. So about half of Latinos who checked white on the Census, when they called them back, a very nominal amount of them thought of themselves as white. [The interviewers] asked them, "So why did you check this?" And they said, "Because there was nothing else. I don't fit anywhere else. There's nothing else to put. "

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/16/321819185/on-the-census-who-checks-hispanic-who-checks-white-and-why


The "Braveheart" comparison is yet another hilariously bad one, since a version of the movie with Semitic actors wouldn't be much more inaccurate than what we got. Hells, 13th century southern scots wearing kilts and woad?:smallconfused:

And you noticed the inaccuracies, and thought them worth criticizing. If Wallace et al. had all been dark-skinned Egyptians, it likewise would have drawn comment.


However, getting back to ancient Egypt; since there's no evidence that Egyptians cared a lot for skin colour and did not appear to treat each other differently on such basis, then we have to conclude BY YOUR DEFINITION that ALL ancient Egyptians were, regardless of skin colour, "White People".

If the movie had been made in ancient Egypt, you might have a point. But this is a movie made in the modern west, for modern western audiences. It operates within the social constructs of modern western society. Since modern western society considers dark-skinned middle easterners to be "non-white", it is worthy of comment that a movie about ancient Egyptians includes a pale blonde chick as the heroine and pretty much zero people who look middle eastern in the main cast. If we sent a camera back through time to ancient Memphis, modern Americans would not look at the result and say "Holy cow, look at all those white people."

Here's the thing: the filmmakers know that the people in the movie should not look like generic Hollywood white people. We know this because all of the background extras have black hair and more or less dark skin. Take a look at this still:

http://photos.laineygossip.com/articles/gods-of-egypt-16dec15-03.JPG

This is a world full of Middle Easterners (well, a wide swath of dark-skinned people, it looks like, which the filmmakers thought would read as Middle Eastern), in which mostly-white heroes and gods in hair dye and bronzer run around and have adventures. That is certainly worthy of notice.

What it boils down to is this: whether someone is genetically Caucasian doesn't matter in any meaningful way, except to scientists and people with unfortunate theories about evolution. What matters is whether someone is treated differently because of what their race is perceived to be. A Palestinian dude on an airplane, if asked, will almost certainly tell you he's treated differently than the white dude next to him (unless he can pass as white); if you try to tell him "Actually, you're both white, technically," he is not likely to care, because it doesn't make him any less likely to be discriminated against based on his appearance. That distinction is what matters to people, both non-white Americans and the sort of people who don't like non-white Americans. As long as that holds true, whitewashing like that we see in Gods of Egypt is worth pointing out, because that is the distinction that impacts casting and representation.

EDIT: I'm not sure whether you're arguing that people from the Middle East and North Africa and Turkey are considered white, or that there are exactly two races and everybody in the world is either white or black (or a combination, presumably). The latter I can't understand, but in the interest of harmony I'll agree that it is not unheard of in the US to group people from the Middle East under the header "white". The 2010 census form offers fourteen distinctions, but does not distinguish between Middle Eastern and white; that will change with the next census, as Middle Eastern (and other) groups have successfully argued that the post-9/11 world has heightened the distinctions between Northern European and Middle Eastern. Changes are also coming for the complicated "Hispanic/Latino" question. The presence or absence of a racial tickbox on the census form is more the result of lobbying than systemic thought, though.

In short, race is extremely complicated and interesting, the categories change over time, and there are ethnicities that can be classified white or not depending on how an individual looks or identifies. I leave it up to people to identify themselves, as does the government; by that argument, some Egyptians are white, and some are not...but a) it would probably be offensive to insist someone is "really" white if they don't identify that way, and b) it would be a heck of a long stretch for Abby Lee Kershaw to pass as any kind of Egyptian. Whether any particular Egyptian calls themselves white or not, whether Egyptians are a different race or not, that cast is phenotypically inappropriate for the era and region.

[Marlowe]

I'll let you in on a little secret.

The unfortunate racial history of the United States of America is of vanishingly little relevance to most of humanity.

It is completely irrelevant to Ancient Egypt.

I am aware that once upon a time, one of the USAs founding fathers objected to Scandinavian immigration, on the grounds that they weren't "white people". This, like the rest of the silliness on which your argument depends, is nothing but ignorance. It's a piece of ignorance that one might wish differently of a great intellect, but it is ignorance all the same.

You are claiming this ignorance should overrule the science on the issue, which is unfashionable and a mess of politics, but is fairly clear. There are multiple types of White/Caucasoid people, of which the Nordic branch you call "generic" is by no means the most numerous nor through most of history has it been the most cultural significant.

You are also using discrimination as a basis for deciding "Non-White-ness". As previously stated, this is irrelevant or an absurdity when dealing with Ancient Egypt. When applied to more general history it becomes a joke. By the standards you use, Ethiopians are clearly "White" (I'm not arguing that they're not), Estonians clearly "Not". The former have always been the top dogs in their area, the latter have had a history of foreign conquest and serfdom.

What really bothers me is that you are casually perpetuating the idea the "white" and-well, you haven't actually said what the other option is, for some reason-is a shorthand for "haves" as opposed to "Have-nots" rather than a simple alternative to "caucasian", and then dismissing more correct usage as "unfortunate". I'm presuming you're using the word "unfortunate" as an alternative to "racist".

And yet your, in your own mind, at least; Non-unfortunate definition appears to simply define "White" as "Those of an Ethnicity favoured by custom and practice in a certain country". Completely destroying any objective meaning the word has and tacking on a wealth of racist baggage it does not need.

All this, of course, changes none of the facts about Ancient Egypt. Which it appears to have been that is was a hot country occupied primarily by heavily-tanned Caucasoid (That means "White" no matter how much you wish it didn't) people with a strong minority of darker-skinned people who appear to have been treated the same as everybody else, and who all had better things to do than argue that their own local and current bigotries should have the force of natural law upon all humanity and for all time.

[Psyren]

I'll let you in on a little secret.

The unfortunate racial history of the United States of America is of vanishingly little relevance to most of humanity.

Even if this statement is true, for the most part Hollywood doesn't write for a "most of humanity" audience - blockbuster films and franchises are aimed at Western (and especially USA) sensibilities, and these days China is entering the picture a bit more strongly as their burgeoning economy makes them a larger market. That's two countries out of hundreds. So when we're talking about big-budget movies like Gods of Egypt - no, they didn't actually care at all what Egyptians (ancient or otherwise) would have thought about it, that's not their market. They didn't even care about African-American audiences at home either. They wrote that movie for a United States whose disposable-income-having, theater-going audiences are still (at least for the moment) majority white.

[jere7my]

I'll let you in on a little secret.

The unfortunate racial history of the United States of America is of vanishingly little relevance to most of humanity.

It is completely irrelevant to Ancient Egypt.

I am aware that once upon a time, one of the USAs founding fathers objected to Scandinavian immigration, on the grounds that they weren't "white people". This, like the rest of the silliness on which your argument depends, is nothing but ignorance. It's a piece of ignorance that one might wish differently of a great intellect, but it is ignorance all the same.

You are claiming this ignorance should overrule the science on the issue, which is unfashionable and a mess of politics, but is fairly clear. There are multiple types of White/Caucasoid people, of which the Nordic branch you call "generic" is by no means the most numerous nor through most of history has it been the most cultural significant.

You are also using discrimination as a basis for deciding "Non-White-ness". As previously stated, this is irrelevant or an absurdity when dealing with Ancient Egypt. When applied to more general history it becomes a joke. By the standards you use, Ethiopians are clearly "White" (I'm not arguing that they're not), Estonians clearly "Not". The former have always been the top dogs in their area, the latter have had a history of foreign conquest and serfdom.

What really bothers me is that you are casually perpetuating the idea the "white" and-well, you haven't actually said what the other option is, for some reason-is a shorthand for "haves" as opposed to "Have-nots" rather than a simple alternative to "caucasian", and then dismissing more correct usage as "unfortunate". I'm presuming you're using the word "unfortunate" as an alternative to "racist".

And yet your, in your own mind, at least; Non-unfortunate definition appears to simply define "White" as "Those of an Ethnicity favoured by custom and practice in a certain country". Completely destroying any objective meaning the word has and tacking on a wealth of racist baggage it does not need.

All this, of course, changes none of the facts about Ancient Egypt. Which it appears to have been that is was a hot country occupied primarily by heavily-tanned Caucasoid (That means "White" no matter how much you wish it didn't) people with a strong minority of darker-skinned people who appear to have been treated the same as everybody else, and who all had better things to do than argue that their own local and current bigotries should have the force of natural law upon all humanity and for all time.

Trust me, "whiteness" does not need me to add racist baggage to it. :smallwink: The term "Caucasian" was coined by an extremely racist German named Christoph Meiners, who wanted to divide humanity into "civilized" and "uncivilized". It has zero scientific basis, unless you're into craniometry:


Meiners' treatise was widely read in the German intellectual circles of its day, despite muted criticism of its scholarship. Meiners proposed a taxonomy of human beings which involved only two races (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. He considered Caucasians to be more physically attractive than Mongolians, notably because they had paler skin; he claimed Caucasians were also more sensitive and more morally virtuous than Mongolians. Later he would make similar distinctions within the Caucasian group, concluding that the Germans were the most attractive and virtuous people on earth. The name "Caucasian" derived from the Southern Caucasus/Transcaucasia region (or what are now the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) because he considered the people of this region to be the archetype (cf. taxonomical "neotype") for the grouping.

Meiners' classification was not grounded on any scientific criteria. It was Blumenbach who gave it scientific credibility and a wider audience, by grounding it in the new quantitative method of craniometry.

Insofar as it still has a scientific basis, "Caucasian" does not mean "white", which is a purely socially defined term:


Skin color amongst Caucasoids ranges greatly, from pale, reddish-white, olive, through to dark brown tones.


Besides its use in anthropology and related fields, the term "Caucasian" has often been used in the United States in a different, social context to describe a group commonly called "White people". "White" also appears as a self-reporting entry in the U.S. Census. ... The Supreme Court in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) decided that Asian Indians were ineligible for citizenship because, though deemed "Caucasian" anthropologically, they were not white like European descendants since most laypeople did not consider them to be "white" people.

So, in short, "Caucasian" is a vestige of a racist classification system that is only useful today to anthropologists and forensic scientists, and many Caucasians do not look white, do not consider themselves white, and are not considered white by law or custom. "White" is entirely a social construct with equally racist roots, with no objective scientific definition, which nevertheless has a huge impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the western world, depending on whether they self-identify as white and/or are considered white by others. Dismissing something that affects so many people just because it has no rational reason to exist seems short-sighted.

In the case of ancient Egypt, no doubt their racial classifications would be different from ours. That does not change the fact that pale-skinned blondes running around ancient Egypt would have been wildly improbable. It also does not change the fact that the people who today look like the ancient Egyptians suffer discrimination based on their appearance in the western world, which makes casting a pale-skinned blonde instead of one of them in a western cultural product a decision worth discussing.

I am certainly not going to insist that people from India are white if they don't self-identify that way, based only on some shared skull features. That would be presumptuous in the extreme. And the fact that Swedes and Indians are both technically "Caucasian" would not make a version of Ghandi cast entirely with blond rosy-cheeked Swedes any less bizarre. (Bad enough that they used Ben Kingsley in brownface.)

=====

EDIT: All of this is getting pretty deep into the weeds. To boil it down, leaving "whiteness" out of it, I think you're saying "All people classified as Caucasians, from Swedes to Egyptians to South Asian Indians, can be cast interchangeably for one another in movies because 'Caucasian' is a sufficient commonality." I'm saying that Caucasians from different regions look different enough that this can lead to ridiculous results (unless you're deliberately doing race-blind casting), to say nothing of erasing thousands of years of ethnic differences that are very significant to the people who share them. Caucasians from different regions may not look anything alike, which makes it a useless predictor of appearance—and in fact a given Caucasian may look more like someone from an entirely different racial supergroup (see: Iron Eyes Cody, one of the most famous American Indian actors of the 20th century, who happened to actually be Italian).

[Liquor Box]

I meant the "outside Japan" definition (i.e. not referring to all animation.) In particular because eastern animation strongholds (Japan, Korea, China) are far less diverse than the U.S., and much of it (not all) tends to feature characters that emulate and can easily be emulated by a caucasian audience.

In that case I really have very little idea. Although to be fair Japan and Korea do not themselves have diverse populations, so one miht not expect their movies to be ethnically diverse.

[ThinkMinty]

In that case I really have very little idea. Although to be fair Japan and Korea do not themselves have diverse populations, so one miht not expect their movies to be ethnically diverse.

Mukokuseki (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mukokuseki) is a thing, as far as drawn-media goes.

[Avilan the Grey]

I don't mind diversity.
But I have a few problems with common issues. The top one is of course the judging of other people's culture by American standards. For example, say a Polish or Czech or Finnish writer writes a fantasy epic tale based on their culture and heritage. I would bet my left leg that at least when that series is made into a game or a movie (or even when the book gets translated into English), "activists" online that has no connection to that culture will complain until they're blue because there aren't enough (insert American minority here) people in the character list. Which I find both extremely insulting, insensitive and yes, culturally insensitive.

[WalkingTarget]

(Bad enough that they used Ben Kingsley in brownface.)

Apparently there are a lot of people out there that don't know that Ben Kingsley is half Indian. He was born Krishna Bhanji and his father was from the same Gujarati ethnic background as Ghandi.

[Liquor Box]

I don't mind diversity.
But I have a few problems with common issues. The top one is of course the judging of other people's culture by American standards. For example, say a Polish or Czech or Finnish writer writes a fantasy epic tale based on their culture and heritage. I would bet my left leg that at least when that series is made into a game or a movie (or even when the book gets translated into English), "activists" online that has no connection to that culture will complain until they're blue because there aren't enough (insert American minority here) people in the character list. Which I find both extremely insulting, insensitive and yes, culturally insensitive.
Yeah, I think most people are assuming that we are talking about hollywood films. Presumably films in countries such as India feature far more brown faces than white.

From an artisitic perspective, one might hope for a film that has a similar ethnic mix to it setting.

[Psyren]

I don't mind diversity.
But I have a few problems with common issues. The top one is of course the judging of other people's culture by American standards. For example, say a Polish or Czech or Finnish writer writes a fantasy epic tale based on their culture and heritage. I would bet my left leg that at least when that series is made into a game or a movie (or even when the book gets translated into English), "activists" online that has no connection to that culture will complain until they're blue because there aren't enough (insert American minority here) people in the character list. Which I find both extremely insulting, insensitive and yes, culturally insensitive.

I can't speak for all the other rabblerousing SJWs, but for myself, I'm sticking primarily to Hollywood, which does not tend to greenlight many Polish/Finnish/Czech cultural projects.

[jere7my]

Apparently there are a lot of people out there that don't know that Ben Kingsley is half Indian. He was born Krishna Bhanji and his father was from the same Gujarati ethnic background as Ghandi.

Indeed, I did not. I retract that complaint.

[Avilan the Grey]

I can't speak for all the other rabblerousing SJWs, but for myself, I'm sticking primarily to Hollywood, which does not tend to greenlight many Polish/Finnish/Czech cultural projects.

Well there's LOTR...

[ThinkMinty]

Well there's LOTR...

Written by an English professor of English Lit, influenced by many things, of which Finnish mythology is a present-but-not-primary factor. I don't know if that somehow makes it a primarily Finnish and therefore somehow above reproach product.

[ben-zayb]

Apparently there are a lot of people out there that don't know that Ben Kingsley is half Indian. He was born Krishna Bhanji and his father was from the same Gujarati ethnic background as Ghandi.

You'd think criticizing the casting for a role with a specific *and* relevant ethnicity requires checking the (not exactly obscure) actor's ethnic background. :smalltongue:

[Avilan the Grey]

Written by an English professor of English Lit, influenced by many things, of which Finnish mythology is a present-but-not-primary factor. I don't know if that somehow makes it a primarily Finnish and therefore somehow above reproach product.

Just saying that people are still saying it's racist because the orcs have black skin and there should be more African-American dunedain.
Again because of American cultural bias.

[Psyren]

Just saying that people are still saying it's racist because the orcs have black skin and there should be more African-American dunedain.

But when you think about it, why couldn't there be? It's set in a fictional land (or at the very least, a fictional-alternate-history of this one), it doesn't have to conform to UK or New Zealand demographics.

It's like, we've got undead and elves and dragons and talking trees, sure why not - but black people, oooh, that's so outlandish and strange. And sure, Tolkien's original work didn't include any (because 1950s), but that would hardly be the most egregious change they made from the source material for a modern audience.

[ThinkMinty]

Just saying that people are still saying it's racist because the orcs have black skin and there should be more African-American dunedain.

I kinda figured the part where segregated neighborhoods were presented as a good thing, and then where it's okay to commit war crimes against Orcs but not enemy humans because **** 'em, they're just Orcs it's not like they're people...that that was more where LotR does a racism.


Again because of American cultural bias.

American culture bias? ...what?

[Liquor Box]

Written by an English professor of English Lit, influenced by many things, of which Finnish mythology is a present-but-not-primary factor. I don't know if that somehow makes it a primarily Finnish and therefore somehow above reproach product.

I'm not sure exactly what the criteria is for something to be a hollywood movie, but LotR was filmed in New Zealand, directed by a New Zealander an the premier was in New Zealand. Presumably it was funded by an American film maker though, so does that qualify it as Hollywood?

[Liquor Box]

Apparently there are a lot of people out there that don't know that Ben Kingsley is half Indian. He was born Krishna Bhanji and his father was from the same Gujarati ethnic background as Ghandi.

This is a good reason why the ethnicity of the actor isn't important, even if the ethnicity of the character may be.

If the actor looks (and sounds) the part sufficiently to be believable as the character he or she is playing, then that is sufficient.

[Avilan the Grey]

But when you think about it, why couldn't there be? It's set in a fictional land (or at the very least, a fictional-alternate-history of this one), it doesn't have to conform to UK or New Zealand demographics.

And here is where you lose me completely. I find this simply disrespectful to the setting, the author and the culture that produced both.
We all know the (often very valid) criticism of whitewashing. How is this any different?


I kinda figured the part where segregated neighborhoods were presented as a good thing, and then where it's okay to commit war crimes against Orcs but not enemy humans because **** 'em, they're just Orcs it's not like they're people...that that was more where LotR does a racism.

American culture bias? ...what?

Um what?
Orcs are Evil.
They aren't evil, they are Evil. They are corrupted souls, to the core. If you can't accept that, Fantasy might not be the correct genre for you. I love character depth in my enemies (although the tragic "evil by cultural upbringing" Drow is OLD by now), but Tolkien's orcs don't have any. His HUMANS on the other hand...

And yes. The vast majority of complaints regarding things like this IS from Americans who just assumes that the rest of the world should be made up like America, meaning that in 11th century Scotland or 19th century Sweden or 5th century Siberia about 10% (at least) of the characters should be of minorities not really present outside modern day USA. Screw logic, history and culture. Because "racism".

[ThinkMinty]

Um what?
Orcs are Evil.
They aren't evil, they are Evil. They are corrupted souls, to the core. If you can't accept that, Fantasy might not be the correct genre for you. I love character depth in my enemies (although the tragic "evil by cultural upbringing" Drow is OLD by now), but Tolkien's orcs don't have any. His HUMANS on the other hand...

...the ****? Because I don't like the Always Chaotic Evil trope, I shouldn't be a fantasy fan? That's your argument?


And yes. The vast majority of complaints regarding things like this IS from Americans who just assumes that the rest of the world should be made up like America, meaning that in 11th century Scotland or 19th century Sweden or 5th century Siberia about 10% (at least) of the characters should be of minorities not really present outside modern day USA. Screw logic, history and culture. Because "racism".

That's an unreasonable strawman and we both know it.

[OldTrees1]

...the ****? Because I don't like the Always Chaotic Evil trope, I shouldn't be a fantasy fan? That's your argument?

No. His argument was more along the lines that:

1)In LotR the Always Chaotic Evil is fundamental fact of the Tolkien Orc and thus what would be war crimes against Tolkien Humans are not war crimes against Tolkien Orcs as per the facts Tolkien established in his world.
2)If your distaste for a trope were to cause you to ignore it when critiquing a story even if it was a fundamental part of what you are critiquing, then perhaps fantasy(where sometimes there are fundamental facts the author included that ought not be ignored off hand) would perhaps not be the genre for you.

He made no claim about your personal preferences with regards to tropes having any impact on if you should or should not be a fantasy fan, merely that if you were someone that places your preferences above the facts the author established then a genre that utilizes the authors ability to establish facts might be ill suited to you.

I expect I am misrepresenting the argument somewhere since I do not see it as being watertight. But perhaps this rephrasing of it might help correct the worse rephrasing you initially saw it as.


Sidenote: While I see good points on the "have the actors/actresses be visibly similar to the ethnicity of their characters" position, I am on the "I don't care what ethnicity the actors/actresses are as long as their employers also don't care" side.

[BannedInSchool]

There's also the whole master race business with the Dunedain, getting less super as they mingled with the lesser races of men. :smalltongue: Probably something you don't want to make much of a point of in a modern retelling even if it's all objectively true in the original. Unless you're making a historical documentary about the source material, altering it for the current audience isn't exactly wrong even if not necessarily good.

[Serpentine]

Apparently there are a lot of people out there that don't know that Ben Kingsley is half Indian. He was born Krishna Bhanji and his father was from the same Gujarati ethnic background as Ghandi.
I'm aware, but I still have an issue with the fact that he keeps getting cast as all these random "totes not white" characters regardless of their ethnicities, e.g. his role as a Maori in Ender's Game - I'm a fan of Kingsley, but was it really necessary to cast him, a half-Indian, as a Maori? It's not as though there's a shortage of great Maori actors, though there is a shortage of international roles for them. Or alternatively, if they really wanted him in the role as a pseudo-mystical exotic type, why not just make him Indian?


Speaking of Maoris except not, can I just give a shout-out to Dead Island for diversity? I don't think I can think of a single other piece of any media with an Australian Aboriginal woman as the lead character that wasn't specifically about how crap it is being an Aboriginal woman (spoiler: it's pretty crap - see The Rabbit-Proof Fence for more (depressing) information). I was pretty excited to see that, even though it's probably not really my sort of game, and the rest are diverse too - an Asian woman, a white man, a black man, and... is it a Hispanic man? Dunno, haven't played it.

[WalkingTarget]

I'm aware, but I still have an issue with the fact that he keeps getting cast as all these random "totes not white" characters regardless of their ethnicities, e.g. his role as a Maori in Ender's Game - I'm a fan of Kingsley, but was it really necessary to cast him, a half-Indian, as a Maori? It's not as though there's a shortage of great Maori actors, though there is a shortage of international roles for them. Or alternatively, if they really wanted him in the role as a pseudo-mystical exotic type, why not just make him Indian?

Oh, I agree with this wholeheartedly. I was just bringing up the specific case of his role in Gandhi.

[Avilan the Grey]

No. His argument was more along the lines that:

1)In LotR the Always Chaotic Evil is fundamental fact of the Tolkien Orc and thus what would be war crimes against Tolkien Humans are not war crimes against Tolkien Orcs as per the facts Tolkien established in his world.
2)If your distaste for a trope were to cause you to ignore it when critiquing a story even if it was a fundamental part of what you are critiquing, then perhaps fantasy(where sometimes there are fundamental facts the author included that ought not be ignored off hand) would perhaps not be the genre for you.

He made no claim about your personal preferences with regards to tropes having any impact on if you should or should not be a fantasy fan, merely that if you were someone that places your preferences above the facts the author established then a genre that utilizes the authors ability to establish facts might be ill suited to you.

I expect I am misrepresenting the argument somewhere since I do not see it as being watertight. But perhaps this rephrasing of it might help correct the worse rephrasing you initially saw it as.


Well basically the only rephrasing should be "Then LOTR isn't for you". There is tons of fantasy that is dark grey vs light grey or something, but LOTR isn't.*

As for my strawman... How so? I brought the topic about the imposing of American 21th society on other cultures, and continued to argue it. It isn't the main topic but it is related since it leads o the main topic.

*Also, Chaotic Evil? No. Neutral Evil? Yes.

[hamishspence]

what would be war crimes against Tolkien Humans are not war crimes against Tolkien Orcs as per the facts Tolkien established in his world.

This is never explicit though - and in tie-in material, he specifically contradicts that idea:

After discussing "Orcs were originally bred from captured elves"


But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.


Morgoth's Ring, HoMe X, 419

[Avilan the Grey]

Tolkien did go back on the issue; in The Hobbit and LOTR Orcs are irredeemable. However he openly regretted this decision and walked back on it, at least in theory in later works.

[OldTrees1]

Well basically the only rephrasing should be "Then LOTR isn't for you". There is tons of fantasy that is dark grey vs light grey or something, but LOTR isn't.*

*Also, Chaotic Evil? No. Neutral Evil? Yes.

As always the person that spoke(yourself) is able to best rephrase what they meant. I apologize for how my rephrasing fell short of your meaning.


As for my strawman... How so? I brought the topic about the imposing of American 21th society on other cultures, and continued to argue it. It isn't the main topic but it is related since it leads o the main topic.

I am confused. Was this addressed to me? I don't know what you are referring to in this case.

[Avilan the Grey]

As always the person that spoke(yourself) is able to best rephrase what they meant. I apologize for how my rephrasing fell short of your meaning.



I am confused. Was this addressed to me? I don't know what you are referring to in this case.

No apologies necessary :smallsmile:

And my turn: Sorry, that part was directed to Thinkminty.

[OldTrees1]

No apologies necessary :smallsmile:

And my turn: Sorry, that part was directed to Thinkminty.

No apologies necessary :smallsmile:

I greatly appreciate your fleshing out of the other solid position.

[ThinkMinty]

Well basically the only rephrasing should be "Then LOTR isn't for you". There is tons of fantasy that is dark grey vs light grey or something, but LOTR isn't.*

It's not that I can't enjoy morally binary conflict, I just don't like the idea that an entire race of sapients is just irredeemable scum. It reeks of the kind of editorial grossness Norman Spinrad deconstructs in The Iron Dream.


As for my strawman... How so? I brought the topic about the imposing of American 21th society on other cultures, and continued to argue it. It isn't the main topic but it is related since it leads o the main topic.

I form my own opinions, and those opinions shape my perceptions, including in regards to my perceptions of fiction I take in. How you make the leap from "thinks for himself" to some kind of American cultural imperialism is rather inflammatory both towards myself and the country I'm from.


*Also, Chaotic Evil? No. Neutral Evil? Yes.

Don't play dumb with me, you know this is what I was talking about (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil).

[Avilan the Grey]

Don't play dumb with me, you know this is what I was talking about (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil).

And?

Tolkien's Elves are not Chaotic Evil, they are Neutral Evil.

[ThinkMinty]

And?

Tolkien's Elves are not Chaotic Evil, they are Neutral Evil.

...what did I just say?

Context and source material provided to you clearly state that the term "Always Chaotic Evil" refers to the tendency to depict entire fictional races as uniformly wicked. Your repeated pedantry over D&D alignment just keeps getting more disingenuous and less humorous each time you pull it.

[Avilan the Grey]

...what did I just say?

Context and source material provided to you clearly state that the term "Always Chaotic Evil" refers to the tendency to depict entire fictional races as uniformly wicked. Your repeated pedantry over D&D alignment just keeps getting more disingenuous and less humorous each time you pull it.

I get that.
I also pointed out that actually they are Neutral Evil.

Still not sure why you had to argue your point about this at all?

[Psyren]

And here is where you lose me completely. I find this simply disrespectful to the setting, the author and the culture that produced both.
We all know the (often very valid) criticism of whitewashing. How is this any different?

Because one increases minority representation while the other continues a marginalizing status quo.

We don't have to look far to see an analogy - using the logic you posted above, adding Tauriel to the Hobbit was "disrespectful to the setting, author, and culture that produced it", as she wasn't present in the book. Now, even if I shared this viewpoint (I don't), I can point out the benefits to having done so, and weigh them; in my mind, having more capable female roles in the story added more good than was lost by altering the source work.

Similarly, "the setting, author and culture" that produced A New Hope would never have had a Star Wars film wth Finn and Rey as primary protagonists. The Force Awakens did so, and I would argue that as a society we are enriched for them having done so.

[ThinkMinty]

I get that.
I also pointed out that actually they are Neutral Evil.

Still not sure why you had to argue your point about this at all?

So they're Neutral Evil or what-the-****-ever. My point is I don't like the whole "Tribe X is inherently evil, so commit war crimes on them." thing. It's the kind of bullplops they put in war propaganda, it feels gross in my fantasy literature, which is something for escaping from reality's ****tiness.

[Sapphire Guard]

I don't remember any war crimes against orcs in Hobbit or LOTR. The party always takes the first chance they have to run if they can, and the rest of the confrontations are on battlefields against armed opponents.

Anyway, I think it might be an idea to have this discussion in a separate thread, and leave here for naming diverse franchises.

[Liquor Box]

It's not that I can't enjoy morally binary conflict, I just don't like the idea that an entire race of sapients is just irredeemable scum. It reeks of the kind of editorial grossness Norman Spinrad deconstructs in The Iron Dream.

Orcs aren't a separate race from humans, they are a separate species. I think that is important distinction given that your point seems to be that the evilness of orcs hints at a commentary of racism in the real world. Apologies if I misunderstood the point you were making.

[ThinkMinty]

Orcs aren't a separate race from humans, they are a separate species. I think that is important distinction given that your point seems to be that the evilness of orcs hints at a commentary of racism in the real world. Apologies if I misunderstood the point you were making.

Fantastic Racism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism) and/or speciesism, whatever. It's a distinction without a difference.

[Liquor Box]

Fantastic Racism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism) and/or speciesism, whatever. It's a distinction without a difference.

You may think it makes no difference. But the distinction is still important because others may see things differently. For example, from the trope page you linked:


... this trope can lead to a Broken Aesop if there are in fact good in-universe reasons to discriminate against a certain type of creature (say, because they need to eat other sentient beings in order to survive, or they genuinely are Always Chaotic Evil apart from the odd angsty heroic one)

[BiblioRook]

I was going to mention this anyways, but especially since LotRs and fantasy racism is being talked about, but Discworld.

Now admittedly I haven't personally tried to plum the extent of it, I just happen to be reading/rereading the books right now so it's just really on my mind, it would be hard to argue that Discworld had a pretty big diversity focus. In fact in some cases Pratchett might even be considered to be beating you in the head with it (not that I mind, I still enjoy it immensely).
There's the usually stuff with gender and religion though I don't think he touches on sexuality much if at all (correct me if I'm wrong), but boy is the big one is racism. Er, Fantasy racism at least (honestly ethnicity, while certainly there, is another thing not really pulled out and focused on much I think, or at least not that I noticed). I mean, just with Trolls. In the beginning of the series Trolls were still considered the generic monster fantasy trope (or at least a parody of it, much like the rest of the series), but as the series when on they got more and more accepted as people until it got to the point where it would be unthinkable to think of them as anything but. Then with Trolls settled they moved on to other things like Golems and (towards the very end) Goblins. Hell, just look no further then the City Watch and it's policy of accepting just about anyone or anything into their ranks.

[Eldan]

There's a bit on Racism. The entire book Jingo, for one. It's about a war between Morpork (Britain-ish city state) and Klatch (most often generic fantasy Middle East, here probably the Ottoman Empire), loosely based on Ferdinandea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Island_%28Sicily%29). Plenty of racism in it. There's also Interesting Times, which is an uncomfortably racist book. Not much on sexuality, Pratchett doesn't go into it much, but he did have one couple of confirmed Lesbians.

[Vinyadan]

Written by an English professor of English Lit, influenced by many things, of which Finnish mythology is a present-but-not-primary factor. I don't know if that somehow makes it a primarily Finnish and therefore somehow above reproach product.

Have you ever heard "Don't Be Mean" by Sonata Arctica? It is reproachable because it's Finnish and falls short of expectations.

Anyway, are Power Rangers diverse or racist? I have seen people go internet ballistic about the Olympic Rings formation they display.

[hamishspence]

There's a bit on Racism. The entire book Jingo, for one. It's about a war between Morpork (Britain-ish city state) and Klatch (most often generic fantasy Middle East, here probably the Ottoman Empire), loosely based on Ferdinandea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Island_%28Sicily%29). Plenty of racism in it. There's also Interesting Times, which is an uncomfortably racist book.

In what way? It might play certain cultural stereotypes for laughs - but that's not racism, but, at worst, cultural chauvinism.