Jump to content

Smash controversy regarding war bonnet


redlight
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

It's not replaced with the Smash 4 version. The character is just missing the feather in the final release. Which is how the injins in the minigame were depicted in its GBA re-release. It's one canonical image swapped out for another canonical image.

Ah ok. Then it's fine. Doesn't make a difference either way but whatever.

Edited by Armagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I really couldn't care less about Nintendo changing things, but what does annoy me are the debates and arguments over what Nintendo did was right are wrong.

Most people's opinions are either "People are too sensitive. Nintendo should've kept it in." or "Native Americans have been mistreated and people have the right to be offended." People are entitled to their opinions, of course, but arguing over which opinion is objectively right is completely pointless, as is attacking someone because they don't share the same opinion as you. Nintendo added the headgear to the game. Then they removed it. That's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that these sort of discussions shouldn't really even be taking place...what about global warming? Net neutrality? These are a lot more important to me than seeing overly sensitive people being oversensitive as usual.

BOTH the left and right are constantly victimising themselves and not talking about real issues like mental health getting barely any funding in my country. In fact, I've been to a mental hospital (the National Autism Unit) for 14 months which was extremely helpful for helping me personally with my clinically severe sleep apnea and other things I didn't know I had at the time. It's because of this that I can finally get an education and finish my a levels. But did you know...

There's only about 12 places FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY (in the UK)!

And yet...complaining about liberals or white men is somehow more important than this because?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dinar87 said:

And yet...complaining about liberals or white men is somehow more important than this because?

Mostly because everyone put up a stink a while back about how we shouldn't treat people with bad mental health or mental disorders differently because it's not their fault, if my research on the subject is accurate. This led to people with mental illnesses no longer being treated as people who need help, at least not as widely as before, and subsequently tanked a bunch of mental health type places, while the people themselves were left to try to fit in as best as they could without proper assistance.

On-Topic, I fail to see what the issue is since it's apparently been removed. If Nintendo acknowledged and fixed the issue and it's no longer a problem, why are we still talking about it?

Edited by SoulWeaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think RTU has the right idea. there are honestly more important things to get upset about than a video game character's animation.

Like I'm not loosing any sleep over it being in or it being taken out

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, but I will say that we're lucky Game & Watch Gallery 4 included Fire Attack and made changes to its sprites.

'Cause it gives G&W a still-canon animation to fall back on when the original is removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord-Zero said:

You could say the same for pretty much every minority in existence and basically the entirety of the Age of Discovery.

That's right, you can, which is why it's always in very poor taste to include these kinds of caricatures of oppressed peoples.

4 hours ago, silveraura25 said:

I googled Chief Wahoo and I'm struggling to see how this is as near as offensive as that. I get that using red for Native Americans is inaccurately racist, but this is from a primitive era sprite where they're all the same color. I'm at a loss when it comes to skin color. I'm reading about permission to use war bonnets from tribal leaders, but I don't understand if it applies for Native Americans appearing in fiction, games, etc. Does this only apply for real life?

They're attacking a wooden base by setting it on fire. How is that savage (seems smart)? Are they savage for attacking it from the outside or not having a hammer? I get that they were severely mistreated by Americans and I think their lands should be returned to them, but looking at videos of gameplay I can find they're merely "villains" of a mini-game. But it doesn't help that they're probably villains of several movies, because cowboy movies were a big thing in the 20th century. Is this a bad game for having Indians be killed? Yes in the sense than white is hero and Native American bad, but I'm not seeing how in this portrayal there is any justification for them being "devils" other than trying to burn down a fort. Maybe a reinforcement of "Native American is bad" mentality... Oooh. I get it. I finally get it. Apologies for being insensitive. Never really thought this deep about Native American portrayal in fiction and games.

@Florete I was in the wrong. Took me a long think to understand why. See the paragraph above

Yeah, you figured it out by the end there. There's hundreds of years of stereotyping and caricatures in play here. The imagery of the "bloodthirsty savage" is still what many Americans envision when they think of Native Americans (and often all indigenous peoples), especially when talking about our country's history. I suppose a way to contextualize for today it would be if they gave the attackers sombreros and made it into a "defend the border wall from Mexicans" game. Pretty easy to imagine how bad that would go over.

Quote

Though even after all this writing I only have one issue. They did attack forts. So why should they censor that? I get that this is one of those things where it gives off the impression of white man good and Indians bad, but it was a circle of hatred. Whites started it (doesn't help scalping was a thing especially with bounties being offered for them), but it doesn't mean that Indians, of those that chose to, didn't kill in retaliation out of hatred by attacking settlements. Most of the times whites were bad, sometimes good (though in fiction there seems to be tendency for white good). Indians were victims for a huge majority of the part, but some of them did to evil in retaliation. Perhaps the issue lies in there being an impression that it's all Indians that did this, but there is also impression that every white in America was to blame. Still, Native Americans are a beaten people and don't need to be continued to beat down in fiction. Their culture has been disgraced throughout these past hundreds of years. So I'd get it if they feel like they are disgraced even today. Uhhh. This one paragraph is such a grey for me

There's uh, a lot to unpack from this paragraph... the game does not properly reflect how things were back then, Native Americans were slaughtered in large enough numbers that it's not unreasonable to call it genocide, Andrew Jackson was a total monster, honestly we're talking hundreds of years of issues. One of the main reasons people don't really understand what happened (and what continues to happen) is due to how bad it makes America look, which is something our education system doesn't exactly favor (and if you're from outside the US, I presume it's not a subject that gets explored either).

I think you'd like Lindsay Ellis' video essay on Disney's Pocahontas. It's incredibly well researched and her key points relate 100% to what we're talking about in this thread. She breaks down a lot of the issues with what the movie gets wrong (nearly everything), how Disney seems to learn from their mistakes, and provides a lot of background on various indigenous peoples and how they're portrayed (like the "both sides" thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JohannStill...

Spoiler

...it’s part of history. Humanity should never look away from that, even if it’s ugly. Then again, shaming our ancestors and calling them monsters seems to be the cool thing now. Even if they were “terrible” by today’s standards, it’s thanks to them that many of us even exist. All we can do is to try to learn from those events and attempt not to repeat them but some things are just meant to happen to prevent the world to fall into stagnationHistory was, is, and will always be written in blood, sweat and tears. Great achievements have been done but just as there is light, there will also be shadow. One cannot exist without the other. 

I’ll leave it at that since is this teally a topic for a very different day.

 

Anyway, at the very least, it’s an easy fix which would still fall “in-canon” thanks to Game & Watch 4’s changes so it’s not a big deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord-Zero said:

@JohannStill...

...it’s part of history. Humanity should never look away from that, even if it’s ugly. Then again, shaming our ancestors and calling them monsters seems to be the cool thing now. Even if they were “terrible” by today’s standards, it’s thanks to them that many of us even exist. All we can do is to try to learn from those events and attempt not to repeat them but some things are just meant to happen to prevent the world to fall into stagnationHistory was, is, and will always be written in blood, sweat and tears. Great achievements have been done but just as there is light, there will also be shadow. One cannot exist without the other. 

I’ll leave it at that since is this teally a topic for a very different day.

Anyway, at the very least, it’s an easy fix which would still fall “in-canon” thanks to Game & Watch 4’s changes so it’s not a big deal. 

If our ancestors were monsters, then we should call them monsters and definitely not celebrate them. Murder and rape were always considered terrible and in no way justifiable. The human race's great achievements didn't require horrific actions, even if that's how some of them came about.

I'm actually perplexed that some of you guys care more about whether or not removing the feather is G&W "canon" compared to what it meant to have a racial stereotype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Edgelord said:

the italian stereotype in mario is pretty weak at best

However, Nintendo need to be aware of Aran Ryan the next time they make a Punch-Out! game. Being part Irish, it is disrespectful to myself that the Irish are depicted as psychotic, cheaters, angry and uncivilised. This is despicable. Take Aran Ryan out of the game.

hqdefault.jpg

(punch-out was always kind of like this, even joking about it)

Still, I can definitely see where the stickler is in this particular case and I wouldn't blame anyone for being uncomfortable with it, but also perhaps listen to what at least some Native Americans are talking about when they actually give their views on it or don't care instead of speaking for them collectively.

Being fully Irish I enjoy seeing any Irish character in a video game that isn't a leprechaun. Aran Ryan is a drunken beast of a man and I find that cool (cheating not so cool, but hey, this is Punch Out, doesn't like everyone cheat?) Although given how it's basically happened in real life, I wouldn't at all be disappointed if Punch Out went back to its licenced roots and replaced Aran Ryan with Conor Magregor.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double posting because Serenes hates me.

I'll preface my comment by saying this is a minor issue. We can argue what should or shouldn't happen but the reality is that Nintendo chose to remove it and for them, as a business, it was absolutely the right decision, regardless of how racist it is or isn't.

Now, with that out of the way, I ask the question, should Game and Watch's forward Smash necessarily have anything to do with the game Fire? Maybe the game Fire is racist, but Smash us referencing that game with our without the head piece. So if Fire is a racist abomination of a game that referencing it at all is out of the question, logically Game and Watch's entire forward Smash should change. Since no one is calling for that, I can only assume the issue should be examined as if the game Fire and his forward Smash are different entities. In that case I ask, how is wearing a headdress racist? What negative impression is Game and Watch (in Smash. alone) giving about native Americans? Is he saying all of them wear headresses? No, not really imo. Is he appropriating native American culture? No, as he's a completely racless entity. Is he saying native Americans attack with fire? Well, yes. But basically every civilisation in history has used fire as a means of attack. So then I ask, in what way is Mr Game and Watch (in the context of Smash) degenerating, devaluing or misrepresenting the historic native American people by wearing a headdress? How will his wearing of a headresses change the opinions of players towards native Americans in a negative manner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Now, with that out of the way, I ask the question, should Game and Watch's forward Smash necessarily have anything to do with the game Fire?

I just want to point out that the game is Fire Attack, not Fire.

Fire's the one where you trampoline-bounce citizens out of a burning building (and the source of G&W's Up-B). Fire Attack is the torch-based Forward Smash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

I just want to point out that the game is Fire Attack, not Fire.

Fire's the one where you trampoline-bounce citizens out of a burning building (and the source of G&W's Up-B). Fire Attack is the torch-based Forward Smash.

Ah, you're completely right. I blame Nintendo for being uninventive with both names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

(cheating not so cool, but hey, this is Punch Out, doesn't like everyone cheat?) 

The only rule is you got to wear boxing gloves. But you can use any feasible means of attacking you like. No weight divisions either. The WVBA is quite the sport...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Double posting because Serenes hates me.

I'll preface my comment by saying this is a minor issue. We can argue what should or shouldn't happen but the reality is that Nintendo chose to remove it and for them, as a business, it was absolutely the right decision, regardless of how racist it is or isn't.

Now, with that out of the way, I ask the question, should Game and Watch's forward Smash necessarily have anything to do with the game Fire? Maybe the game Fire is racist, but Smash us referencing that game with our without the head piece. So if Fire is a racist abomination of a game that referencing it at all is out of the question, logically Game and Watch's entire forward Smash should change. Since no one is calling for that, I can only assume the issue should be examined as if the game Fire and his forward Smash are different entities. In that case I ask, how is wearing a headdress racist? What negative impression is Game and Watch (in Smash. alone) giving about native Americans? Is he saying all of them wear headresses? No, not really imo. Is he appropriating native American culture? No, as he's a completely racless entity. Is he saying native Americans attack with fire? Well, yes. But basically every civilisation in history has used fire as a means of attack. So then I ask, in what way is Mr Game and Watch (in the context of Smash) degenerating, devaluing or misrepresenting the historic native American people by wearing a headdress? How will his wearing of a headresses change the opinions of players towards native Americans in a negative manner?

The problem isn't that he's wearing a headdress (if you really wanna call it that), it's that there are Native American people offended by racist depictions (bloodthirsty savage stereotype) like in the original game, and paying homage to it is in poor taste. They changed it from a Native American to a bandit and apologized, so the attack itself (which the vast majority of players didn't even know the history of) has a different context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johann said:

The problem isn't that he's wearing a headdress (if you really wanna call it that), it's that there are Native American people offended by racist depictions (bloodthirsty savage stereotype) like in the original game, and paying homage to it is in poor taste. They changed it from a Native American to a bandit and apologized, so the attack itself (which the vast majority of players didn't even know the history of) has a different context.

You've failed to comprehend what I was saying. The racist depiction of Native Americans comes from the game Fire Attack, not Smash Bros. Smash Bros. is referencing the game with the forward Smash regardless if the headdress is present or not (the updated Game and Watch Gallery 4 was released after Melee, so a case can't be made that Game and Watch was referencing that version of the game, he was always referencing the original, as he didn't have a headdress in melee, right?). If it's the unacceptable racist depiction of native Americans that are the problem then the entire forward Smash should be removed (which I'm not suggesting btw, just contextualising the issue). To say that the headdress is bad but the flaming stick is okay means that the problem isn't the depiction of native Americans in Fire Attack, the problem is with the physical existence of the headdress as an object regardless of its context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jotari said:

You've failed to comprehend what I was saying. The racist depiction of Native Americans comes from the game Fire Attack, not Smash Bros. Smash Bros. is referencing the game with the forward Smash regardless if the headdress is present or not (the updated Game and Watch Gallery 4 was released after Melee, so a case can't be made that Game and Watch was referencing that version of the game, he was always referencing the original, as he didn't have a headdress in melee, right?). If it's the unacceptable racist depiction of native Americans that are the problem then the entire forward Smash should be removed (which I'm not suggesting btw, just contextualising the issue). To say that the headdress is bad but the flaming stick is okay means that the problem isn't the depiction of native Americans in Fire Attack, the problem is with the physical existence of the headdress as an object regardless of its context.

No no, I get that, I'm saying that it's a synergistic effect; the headdress establishes the context due to how otherwise featureless G&W is (rather questionable choice), and torch immediately puts that well into offensive territory. Without the headdress, the Smash move is just a guy with a torch. In any context, wearing a feather headdress codifies the G&W sprite as a Native American, prompting the question, why did the game designers go with that? From there, it can easy slide into offensive territory, which the torch attack certainly does.

This wouldn't have been a thing if they never brought back the feather headdress for Smash since otherwise, it's 1) not contextualized and 2) clear that they wanted nothing to do with the source game's depiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johann said:

No no, I get that, I'm saying that it's a synergistic effect; the headdress establishes the context due to how otherwise featureless G&W is (rather questionable choice), and torch immediately puts that well into offensive territory. Without the headdress, the Smash move is just a guy with a torch. In any context, wearing a feather headdress codifies the G&W sprite as a Native American, prompting the question, why did the game designers go with that? From there, it can easy slide into offensive territory, which the torch attack certainly does.

This wouldn't have been a thing if they never brought back the feather headdress for Smash since otherwise, it's 1) not contextualized and 2) clear that they wanted nothing to do with the source game's depiction.

The way I see it, it's the fort that gives context to the situation. What they are attacking, who they are attacking and how they are treated in the game (ie as the enemy). None of those things are present in Smash Bros. (unless there's a questionable event match out there). When Mr Game & Watch uses the torch attack, he's still becoming a representation of a native American from Fire Attack even without the headdress. That's the game he's referencing, it's the game he's always been referencing. The only real consistent logic is that it should always have been considered racist and people just didn't know it was a native American reference and that Fire Attack exists. But now people do, so if Melee or Brawl get remade should they alter Mr Game & Watch so he's not referencing the original Fire Escape with his side smash?

To compare, let's say Snake shot a black guy with a specific type of gun in a Metal Gear Solid game and people started calling it a hate crime. If Snake was to (somehow) go on to appear in Smash and used that exact gun would he be committing a hate crime by using that particular weapon? Should the gun be removed because it was used in a different context in a different game and Smash references it (obviously ignoring the fact that Smash already removes Snake's more conventional fire arms for the sake of the rating). I think Snake shooting a gun isn't a hate crime unless there's a context of him shooting a someone else for less than justifiable reasons. Likewise, I only think the native American incarnation of Mr Game and Watch is an unflattering stereotype if he's attacking a fort and getting moewed down by foreign settlers.

(My apologies to Snake for flaming his character).

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fine what Nintendo did. They're taking the safe route by just deleting something extremely minor and insignificant to the enjoyment of the game for those not racially offended while those who are become satisfied. It's silly how one getting angry over others wanting a very small graphic removed is ironically themselves getting angry over something they described as minor and saying that those offended should not give a damn about it (and the non-offended wouldn't give a damn about had it not been brought up).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NoirCore said:

I think it's fine what Nintendo did. They're taking the safe route by just deleting something extremely minor and insignificant to the enjoyment of the game for those not racially offended while those who are become satisfied. It's silly how one getting angry over others wanting a very small graphic removed is ironically themselves getting angry over something they described as minor and saying that those offended should not give a damn about it (and the non-offended wouldn't give a damn about had it not been brought up).

It's more a microcosm of the current battle in our society between sensitivity and freedom of expression. That is to say no one actually cares about the headdress, it's just a small part of a much larger issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, looking at it, in my opinion, this is a case of an Association Fallacy. By itself, "Native American carrying a torch", isn't a bad thing, or a good thing. It just is. However, because Fire Attack had Game & Watch use it in a context that was bad, it makes people now think that every instance from now on is also bad, regardless of context. Smash's context is quite different from Fire Attack's, but that won't stop people from associating.

Humans are fickle things. Sometimes it needs to be specific things, and be brought into attention. As previously mentioned, it took the headdress for people to complain. Despite the torch being there since Melee. So it wasn't "Game & Watch with a torch", or "Game & Watch as a Native American". It had to be both things at once, because of its association with Fire Attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't care about all the controversy, and not sure if I find this a racist stereotype, good on them for removing it. I'd be sad if anyone felt like they were made fun of while they were playing this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

The way I see it, it's the fort that gives context to the situation. What they are attacking, who they are attacking and how they are treated in the game (ie as the enemy). None of those things are present in Smash Bros. (unless there's a questionable event match out there). When Mr Game & Watch uses the torch attack, he's still becoming a representation of a native American from Fire Attack even without the headdress. That's the game he's referencing, it's the game he's always been referencing. The only real consistent logic is that it should always have been considered racist and people just didn't know it was a native American reference and that Fire Attack exists. But now people do, so if Melee or Brawl get remade should they alter Mr Game & Watch so he's not referencing the original Fire Escape with his side smash?

To compare, let's say Snake shot a black guy with a specific type of gun in a Metal Gear Solid game and people started calling it a hate crime. If Snake was to (somehow) go on to appear in Smash and used that exact gun would he be committing a hate crime by using that particular weapon? Should the gun be removed because it was used in a different context in a different game and Smash references it (obviously ignoring the fact that Smash already removes Snake's more conventional fire arms for the sake of the rating). I think Snake shooting a gun isn't a hate crime unless there's a context of him shooting a someone else for less than justifiable reasons. Likewise, I only think the native American incarnation of Mr Game and Watch is an unflattering stereotype if he's attacking a fort and getting moewed down by foreign settlers.

(My apologies to Snake for flaming his character).

It's really not that complicated. With no headdress in either Fire Attack and Smash, it's not a Native American caricature anymore. Also, it's not up to you to decide how people of a group you don't belong to feel about this.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's more a microcosm of the current battle in our society between sensitivity and freedom of expression. That is to say no one actually cares about the headdress, it's just a small part of a much larger issue.

This is probably the worst take you've given in the thread. "Freedom of expression" is not under attack, especially not here, and it's not much of a defense to say "it's ok to use racial stereotypes if I enjoy it, I'm just expressing myself". If a person were to, say, put on black face for a party, they deserve all the shit they get for it, especially from the group they are mocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Johann said:

It's really not that complicated. With no headdress in either Fire Attack and Smash, it's not a Native American caricature anymore. Also, it's not up to you to decide how people of a group you don't belong to feel about this.

This is probably the worst take you've given in the thread. "Freedom of expression" is not under attack, especially not here, and it's not much of a defense to say "it's ok to use racial stereotypes if I enjoy it, I'm just expressing myself". If a person were to, say, put on black face for a party, they deserve all the shit they get for it, especially from the group they are mocking.

What on Earth gave you the impression I was deciding how people should or shouldn't feel about anything? I'm just dissecting the logic as to why people feel the way they do. What ethnic, gender, age or class background I come from is completely irrelevant. If I happened to be a native American and typed the exact same words, they wouldn't magically have a different meaning. I haven't even expressed my personal opinion on the matter (beyond thinking it was a wise business move on Nintendo's part). I'm trying to have an intellectual debate upon the whats, the wheres and the whys of it. Maybe you're reading more aggression into my words than I'm intending (and my intention is none).

On that point, is it a case that all caricatures are bad and unallowed then? If instead of Fire Attack, in 1982 Nintendo released a simple LCD game that featured Native Americans as the protagonists fighting off Wedingos with the same fire animation, would the animation still warrant removal? Is Mr Game & Watch completely unallowed to be depicted as a Native American under any and all circumstances? Even positive ones?

Regarding freedom of expression, perhaps that's the wrong turn of phrase, but it's absolutely true that there is a backlash against over political correctness and social justice warrior culture in modern society. That's why these things are called controversies in the first place. It's one of the main reasons Trump got elected.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...