Godheval

Read More »

There are many possible reasons for the change, such as wider market appeal, as an ethnically ambiguous character alienates no one.  It is also a truism that the mainstream beauty standard – set mostly by Americans and Europeans – is not inclusive of distinctively “non-white” features, particularly Africanesque features.  For marketing’s sake – and this literally could’ve been a decision made by marketing against the wishes of the original designer – Jade could have been altered to resonate more with the mainstream.  Looking at the final version, is it enough to say that Jade was intended to be “black” by the designer, or even that she is so in his/her mind, in order to claim her as such?  I would say that it isn’t.

Jade’s ethnic ambiguity alone, however, is not enough to dismiss her from the ranks of black heroines.  After all, blackness is subjective, varying from place to place and culture to culture.  If we take it to be synonymous with “African”, then the ethnic diversity of that continent means that Jade could look like anything.  But here’s where we get to another important point.

Jade is most certainly not African.  Because she is not even from this planet.  Beyond Good & Evil takes place on the fictional world of Hillys, where people like Jade are classified as “homo sapiens”, distinguished from other humanoid races such as “Capra Sapiens” (goat people), “Sus Sapiens” (pig people), and “Felis Sapiens” (cat people).  The concept of race that divides human populations on Earth simply does not exist on Hillys.  For that matter, there are no social divisions between any of the “Sapiens” – they are subclassified solely for the sake of compiling a photographic catalogue of all of the planet’s species.  That is to say, these distinctions are biological, and do not manifest at all in the culture of Hillys.

This is an important point, because the meaning of “blackness” on planet Earth is defined mostly in a social context.  There are some vague overlaps into a biological context – some valid, particularly with regards to medicine, and some not – where genetics is cited incorrectly to support a social or political argument.  Without getting too much into the meaning of blackness, there is the experience of so-called “black people” to be considered, which historically, and with few exceptions, tends to be one of hardship, oppression, social inequality, prejudice, and even dehumanization.  This is particularly true of those peoples of Africa who were sold into slavery, and who even in the aftermath, have been forced to face social and economic handicaps.

Coming back to video games, what would be required for a character to be considered “black”?  Appearance could be one qualifier, but as we see in the case of Jade, this can become dubious due to the wide variety of physical characteristics that can be classified as “black”, a reflection of the extreme diversity to be found within such a vague and subjective category.

The “black experience” could be another qualifier, as in a situation where a character is forced to face certain indignities, in spite of her ethnic ambiguity.  There are undoubtedly women who resemble Jade and who have been forced to endure such conditions.  In the United States, by way of the one-drop rule, it is common for a woman of fair skin to be deemed a “black” woman by virtue of her other features, and therefore share in the black experience.  Jade as she appears in Beyond Good and Evil, however, fails to meet either of these qualifiers.

The only remaining qualifier brings us back to the designer’s intent.  Without speaking to Michel Ancel or his art team, we cannot know which ethnicities inspired Jade’s appearance from original concept to final incarnation.  Perhaps then, we could derive clues from the voice actors chosen to play Jade.  We have to take this with a grain of salt, however, because the ethnicity of voice actors do not necessarily match those of their characters.  Cree Summer, who is African-American, is one of the most prolific voice actors in the field, and because her voice does not invoke any particular ethnicity, she has been tapped to play a wide range of characters – most of which are not African-American or “black” in any sense.  She got her start playing Penny from Inspector Gadget.

Cree Summer

Penny

What this suggests about the willingness of game producers to cast black actors for their voices versus their willingness to craft black roles may be another subject worth exploring.  As for Jade, since the game was released in different languages, she was played by several different voice actors.  But with respect to how Jade’s voice corresponds to her ethnicity in the mind of the developer, we should take a look at the actor closest to the developers  – Ubisoft Montreal – which would be the one cast for Jade’s French voice.  Her name is Emma de Caunes, and thanks to the artist John Karp, we can see her picture below modified to resemble Jade.

Emma de Caunes as Jade

Even had Jade’s voice actress been of any French-African ethnicity, it would’ve been a stretch to therefore consider the character as being of any African ethnicity.  The example of Cree Summer demonstrates the distance between the identities of voice actors and their characters.  In any case, Emma de Caunes is not of any visible African descent, and therefore we cannot use her ethnicity as a case for Jade’s “blackness”.

This brings me to my final point about Jade, which is that in spite of the developer’s original intent, any ethnic inspiration for the character, how Jade is perceived by her audience may be even more important.  By looking at a few random samples of fan-created art for Jade, we can gain some insight into how others perceive her ethnicity.

Because an artist’s work will necessarily be based in part on their personal experiences, and probably in some way reflect the artist him or herself, it stands to reason that the artist’s own ethnicity may factor into how they depict a character. The artists of the pictures above are “Asian”, “White”, and “Black”, respectively. The quotes are to acknowledge that those ethnic/racial terms are weak classifications, and that I have no deeper insight into the artists’ backgrounds.

What we see here is that in spite of the varied ethnicities of the artists, not one of them depicted Jade with features any more distinctively Africanesque than what we see in the official Ubisoft rendition. Had these artists had even an inkling that the developer intended Jade to be “black”, then it may have been more likely that we would have seen that understanding reflected in their work.  The renditions by Enchantma and Scott Rogers seem to suggest that Jade may be Asian – based on her eye shape, while the version by Mista Jonz is ambiguous.

While we cannot discount the possibility that Jade’s features would’ve been “de-ethnicized” even had she been more clearly Africanesque – as is common amongst fan artists of Storm from Marvel Comics – we can at least say that nothing about Jade seems to encourage fans to depict her as “black”.  An extensive spread of Jade fan art can be seen at the deviantART Beyond Good & Evil Fan Club, where not one rendition depicts Jade with Africanesque features.

So in the end, based on overwhelming evidence, we are forced to conclude that Jade from Beyond Good & Evil is not “black” in any sense of the word.  For the reasons discussed above about how races are defined, and how they do not correspond to any human categorization on the planet Hillys, she cannot accurately be considered “white”, “Asian” or any other race/ethnicity from Earth.  She can only barely be classified as human, being a “homo sapien”, but those who have played the game also know that she is a little something more.  I’d like to count Jade amongst “black” female protagonists in video games, due to the fact that there are otherwise none, but doing so actually sets a weak precedent.

It is not enough to be inspired by Africanesque features, only to see that inspiration disappear for the sake of market appeal.  And it is regressive, if not plain insulting, to create a character of color – in terms of background and appearance – only to completely undo it in a future incarnation, as in the deplorable example of Vanessa Lewis from Virtua Fighter.  Note the lighter skin, thinner lips, altered facial structure, and reduced hips from the Virtua Fighter 4 version (background) to the Virtua Fighter 5 version (foreground).

Vanessa Lewis
(Background: VF4 Foreground: VF5)

As technology improves, and as the content of games expands in terms of breadth and depth, opportunities only increase for representing diversity.  In the future, it will not be enough for a character to have darker skin, thicker lips, or a different eye shape.  We will have to see different cultures and experiences represented as well.  This wouldn’t have to be a limitation with regards to restricting the game setting to Earth.

After all, there is always interstellar or cross-dimensional travel.  There is also alternative history.  And already, plenty of creators have told stories of other worlds, only to draw inspiration from the experiences of the peoples of Earth, because doing so adds a certain richness and believability.

As I discussed in Ethnic Depictions in Video Games, there has been a want for protagonists of color with which gamers of color can identify.  If gamers cannot identify on a superficial level – i.e. by appearance, if they cannot identify on the basis of a common social experience, and if they cannot identify by way of voice, then there is little remaining to connect them to the character.  For most gamers this probably will not taint their experience with a game, as the lack of inclusive ethnic representation has become the norm.

But there is certainly a call, albeit muted and scattered amongst the more thoughtful pockets of the gamer population, for game developers to be more inclusive in their thinking.

«

Read More »

Part of the reason for this is that a large number of games come out of Japan, which being nearly homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, and insulated – both physically and culturally – may lack a strong frame of reference for depicting a diverse cast of characters.  Where the games are made in the Europe or the United States, where ethnic variety is more common, stereotypes may instead emerge as a consequence of one-dimensional writing.  Perhaps a developer cannot be bothered to do the research into all of the nuance and idiosyncrasies that rise from a character’s ethnic experiences.

So Wright is valid in his concerns about racial stereotypes in that they not only leave players without a character with which to identify, but with a caricature that debases them or their culture.  Where I think Wright is wrong, however, is in thinking that the solution to the problem lies in more restrictive legislation.  Most games with racial stereotypes are also mature-rated games, and laws are already in place to protect minors from playing them.  The efficacy of these laws is questionable, and so simply imposing a second and redundant law is not likely to fix the situation.

In my opinion, it’s necessary for lawmakers to start recognizing games themselves as an extension of culture, to place them within the general category of “the arts”.  Viewed that way, games may be held to a higher standard, as are film and literature.  Rather than restrict the sale of a game with objectionable material, perhaps it would be better to encourage developers to release material that is less objectionable, or that at least places it in its proper context.  For example, were game developers to be provided an incentive, such as an arts grant or tax subsidy, they may be more inclined to develop culturally relevant and accurate games.  Recognizing games as art could inspire more developers to create games as art, rather than simply to turn a profit.

The restriction on mature-themed games, up to and including the blacklisting of anything receiving the “Adults Only” rating, has done nothing to stop younger players from experiencing them.  Even where parents are educated as to what’s out there and mindful of what their children are playing at home, they cannot monitor what their children are playing when they aren’t watching, or what they learn by proxy from peers who have played games with objectionable content.

It would be more more effective to reward developers who perform admirably, who raise the bar in creating games as art, rather than punishing those who produce fluff.  The fluff will continue to exist, of course, because sometimes those games are just plain fun.  But they could be balanced by an increase in the alternative – games with real substance.

Game developers could then take the time to craft characters and settings that are three-dimensional – in how they’re written as well as how they’re rendered.  Three-dimensions allow for dynamic characterization and provide room for development beyond stereotypes and caricatures.

«

Read More »

It seems to evoke Jim Crow-era symbolism that an African-American appointee would be denied entrance to the Senate, which currently has zero African-American members. But the controversy here isn’t that an African-American wasn’t allowed access to an all-white club, it’s that race was introduced as a factor at all. Burris was not turned away because of his skin color, but because he represents the defiance of Blagojevich.

Now, there is no question that Burris was chosen at least in part because of his ethnicity. Because the Senate is losing its only African-American senator (nevermind that that Senator will go on to become the next President), it was mostly a foregone conclusion that the replacement would also be African-American, in order to maintain the status quo.

But Blagojevich had more in mind than the status quo when he appointed Burris. He anticipated exactly what happened – that any denial of Burris to be seated would evoke the race issue. Not only that, but Burris has the unique distinction of being first African-American elected to statewide office in Illinois – when he became the comptroller in 1979, which puts even more weight behind his appointment.

It may be true that some U.S. Senators have ideas about maintaining Senate exclusivity as an “all-white” club, but at the risk of great political fallout, I cannot imagine that any of them would voice those ideas, let alone act on them. So there is little doubt in my mind that the rejection of Burris has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with pride, the Senate attempting to demonstrate their sovereignty – at least within their own ranks.

I am wary of situations where race is injected into matters where it shouldn’t – and actually doesn’t – belong. Every time this happens, it only strengthens the case made by those who like to use troublesome words like “hypersensitivity” or “race-baiting”, and sets back every attempt to truly identify the significance of race within the American social dynamic. It dilutes all of the very real and quite prevalent instances of racial discrimination.

While many people – mostly social conservatives – are in denial about the role that race continues to play in American society, they are right in condemning those instances were race is used as a political tool, or by the media as a way of drawing more readers and viewers. The Roland Burris situation is one such case.

In the end, Roland Burris will be seated, as a matter of legality. Hopefully at that time, or sooner, this race non-issue will be put to rest. That is, of course, until 2010, when the question of Senate exclusivity will probably be raised again in electing a replacement for Burris, who has already decided not to run.

As much as I believe that the Senate should be an all-inclusive body, at least to the degree that it represents the multicultural demographics of the country, I do not think that Illinois or any other state should be held to the expectation that they elect an official of any particular ethnicity. After all, if it were as simple as maintaining a status quo, then we might as well select someone like Alan Keyes or Larry Elder, who have very little interest or personal stake in the plight of African-Americans, and who for their purported ideology would serve in the same ideological capacity as a white counterpart.

«

Read More »

At one time Obama acknowledged a need for Palestinians to be elevated to the status of regular citizens of their country, rather than a colonized, disenfranchised, and oppressed second-class. During his presidential run, in contrast to his previously stated understanding of the Palestinian situation, Obama made very clear and obvious concessions to Israel, and its American lobby – AIPAC.

This is no small thing. While al-Qaida represent the radical fringe of the global Islamic community (to whatever extent we can say such a thing really exists), al-Zawahri’s comments probably do reflect a fear amongst people in the Middle East that Obama – as the next leader of an “American Empire” – will merely continue the policies of his predecessor.

The Islamic world uses the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a gauge of America’s foreign policy. For every year that we unilaterally support Israel, and completely ignore the Palestinians, our reputation in the Middle East and elsewhere diminishes. Bill Clinton made noteworthy strides in mending our relationship with the Middle East through the Oslo accords, but since then, we have regressed – to the point of negating all the work that was done at the time. The current administration didn’t even make an attempt.

Regardless of how you see the Israel-Palestine conflict, regardless of who you think is right or wrong, you would be misguided to believe that the current way we are handling the crisis will eventually bring about any sort of solution. In as far as Obama stays the course, he could rightfully be seen as a betrayer of the faith that many in the Middle East have placed in him as the new face for America.

The use of the term House Negro implies that as an African-American, Obama has some obligation to people of color, either in the United States or abroad. That is where al-Zawahri makes a mistake, because Obama’s obligations have nothing to do with his ethnicity, and everything to do with those who elected him. Only to the extent that those people – the social liberals, progressives, and moderates – support a shift in foreign policy in the Middle East, is Obama obligated to make such a shift.

However, it is also my opinion that he has an obligation as both a human being, and as the future leader of a country which extols the values of justice and freedom, to at least conduct himself in a way that upholds those values unconditionally, and for all people. This means no longer making concessions only to Israel and AIPAC for political gain, but also working towards restoring the Palestinians to their rightful place as healthy and empowered citizens in their own country.

«

Read More »

They adhere to principles based on a very strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution, as well as Trinitarian Christianity, which put them at odds with the large federal government and an increasing secularism. They seemed equally critical of both Republicans and Democrats, and share in many Americans’ concerns over the government infringing upon citizens’ rights.

They are also committed to preserving what they regard as their “Southern heritage”, which on its own is quite legitimate, except where it is coupled with antagonism towards the multiculturalism taking place throughout the country. Where the League of the South aligns with white nationalist movements is in thinking that multiculturalism somehow translates into the marginalization or even destruction of “white” people or heritage.

As I continued to read, I wondered if it was possible for “southern nationalism” and “white nationalism” to be mutually exclusive. Naturally, I also wondered how they perceived the relationship between racial groups, given that those relationships tend to be particularly contentious in the south. They addressed this issue by stating their position on African-Americans in the south. They state:

The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups.

They seemed to be stating their position in a way that was not only inclusive, but acknowledged the antagonism between ethnic groups, and would have succeeded if only it weren’t for that last line – “not just to government-sponsored victim groups”.

Wow! A mere seven words, yet powerful enough to completely undermine any pretext of Southern solidarity as distinct from white nationalism. Even were this phrase not contextualized within a paragraph talking specifically about African-Americans, there would be no question as to whom they were referring. In this one phrase, they tie the federal government directly to the interests of African-Americans – a thinly veiled criticism of Affirmative Action – and therefore imply a wish for racial separation as well. Just like white nationalism. Not only that, but with only two words – “victim groups” – they completely disavow any idea that African-Americans have a legitimate struggle for equal status within the United States.

It would be far-fetched to believe that any significant number of African-Americans (or even one person for that matter) – any common political ideology notwithstanding – would support a Southern secessionist movement. Still, in that the League of the South seemed to be making an attempt to be inclusive, they could’ve perhaps earned some respect. Unfortunately, in what has to be one of the most bizarre instances of self-contradiction I’ve ever seen, they manage to simultaneously suggest inclusion while implying exclusion.

It is my interpretation that this paragraph is not paradoxical by accident. By making a superficial attempt at inclusion, they appear to separate themselves from white nationalist movements, which may alienate white Southerners who except for some moral discomfort with racism may otherwise share the ideology of such groups. At the same time, they manage to phrase racialist views in a way that speaks to the underlying fear of many southern whites that they are being marginalized by the federal government on behalf of minority groups. In this way they not only invoke the racism sowed deeply into Southern culture, but legitimize it under a seemingly separate pretext. This places them firmly in step with every other white nationalist movement, and perhaps makes them even more dangerous than the overtly racist organizations, which due to a legitimate movement within the group consciousness of southern whites to move beyond racism, have been cast to the radical fringe.

«