Apr
18th

Race, Croal, Conrad and Resident Evil

Files under Editorial | Posted by Justin | Email, Facebook, Etc.

resident_evil5

A funny thing happened to 5 on its way to release, it became the center of a growing race debate in video games.  Of course, this is not shocking really.  Not only is one of the few titles to feature a large group of black characters, but they also happen to be the villains who are savagely trying to tear your character apart.  But wait, that’s a bit too simplistic of a description.

The fifth title leaves behind the Pacific northwest of the United States and dreary Spanish villages for the sun soaked continent of Africa.  In the process, obviously, there’s going to be a significant increase in black characters.  You could perhaps set a title in parts of Africa with a mostly white cast, but certainly that would be more than a little disingenuous.

Since most characters are black, and since games usually wind up with legions of zombies on the attack, therefore the zombies in this game end up being black.  At least, that’s what the trailers have shown so far.  Perhaps there is a secret underground lab with all white scientists, but then that brings up whole other racial stereotype issues.

So, what’s the issue?  Aren’t black Africans just as capable of being zombies as white Americans or Spaniards?  Sure, why not?  It isn’t as if black people have some unique gene preventing them from turning zombie, and there have certainly been black zombies in past games.

Not so fast though, says Newsweek’s N’Gai Croal.  While it may be perfectly acceptable to have black zombies, or even set a horror game in Africa, the footage so far released of the game raises some troubling issues.  In an interview with MTV’s Multiplayer blog, Croal admits some hesitations about the title, saying his first reaction was, “Wow, clearly no one black worked on this game.”  He continued:

 

“It’s like when you engage that kind of imagery you have to be careful with it. It would be like saying you were going to do some sort of zombie movie that appeared to be set in Europe in the 1940’s with skinny, emaciated, Hasidic-looking people. If you put up that imagery people would be saying, ‘Are you crazy?’ Well, that’s what this stuff looks like. This imagery has a history. It has a history and you can’t pretend otherwise. That imagery still has a history that has to be engaged, that has to be understood. … If you’re going to engage imagery that has that potential, the onus is on the creator to be aware of that because there will be repercussions in the marketplace.”

The reaction on the Internet has been mostly negative against Croal’s comments.  Many have accused him of playing the mythical “race card.”  Many more have accused him of simply being a whiner who should get over himself.  This reaction, of course, raises a couple of interesting questions.

First, why paint Croal suddenly as a traitor to gaming?  This is a guy who writes professionally about gaming for the mainstream media.  He does so respectfully and intelligently.  In fact, most gamers usually praise him.  He has one unpopular opinion questioning the content of games and the gaming community wants to turn on him?  Why not instead consider that he might have a point?  Why not give him the benefit of the doubt that he might be on to something?  After all, if he is usually sound, isn’t it more plausible that he has a point here too rather than simply being off his rocker?

The second question, of course, is why have fans of the series reacted so vehemently to questioning of the title?  Croal is the second darling of gaming media in the past couple of weeks to get scrutinized for offering any scrutiny of games.  Perhaps these people aren’t so far off base, but instead hitting a little too close to home?

Croal’s criticism, contrary to how it is often summarized, is not calling 5 racist.  Far from it.  Croal goes out of his way to be careful not to label as a company or the development team as racists.  Instead, he works at making the argument that some images can be viewed as culturally insensitive.

Croal points out that even before the villages turn zombie, there are still some unnerving portrayals.

 

“There sort of being, in sort of post-modern parlance, they’re sort of “othered.” They’re hidden in shadows, you can barely see their eyes, and the perspective of the trailer is not even someone who’s coming to help the people. It’s like they’re all dangerous; they all need to be killed. It’s not even like one cute African — or Haitian or Caribbean — child could be saved. They’re all dangerous men, women and children. They all have to be killed. And given the history, given the not so distant post-colonial history, you would say to yourself, why would you uncritically put up those images?”

Of course, the convenient rebuttal to this point is to ask what about the Spaniards?  Weren’t they also “othered” in 4?  Croal argues, “The imagery is not the same. It doesn’t carry the same history, it doesn’t carry the same weight. I don’t know how to explain it more clearly than that.”  And he’s got a point.

Of course, context matters with any media.  The fact that this is a horror game means this isn’t exactly the same as Sony releasing their secret Afrika title finally only to have negative images of the locals presented.  Still, most Europeans don’t have quite the same cultural baggage that those of African descent do.  He makes an excellent point about old Jewish caricatures–how would they be received?  If one has a moment’s hesitation about how their presentation, then don’t Africans also deserve the same consideration?

Because when Croal talks about post-colonial history he doesn’t just mean what actually happened, but he’s also referencing much of the media that has also represented Africa for Western audiences.  Consider the novel Heart of Darkness, which is often taught in high schools and freshman college literature courses.  Chinua Achebe famously criticized the novel for its depiction of the native Africans as being little more than an extension of the black jungle that was so foreboding to Marlow and his men.  While there remains some controversy over this reading of the novel, it is generally accepted by many today.

5, at least in trailers so far, seems to be presenting a similar vision.  When the character Chris Redfield is walking through the village the natives run in and out of shadows, with only their eyes barely visible.  This is an excellent demonstration of the game’s lighting engine, but is it insensitive toward the way many blacks have traditionally been represented?  If saying yes, does that mean that blacks can never be the main villain within a video game, or simply that native Africans are off limits?  Is it possible that in being offended, some are actually being racist in denying Africans equal representation in games?  Are Africans too fragile to be zombies?  Can they not handle such representations like the rest of people shrug off?

Again, it isn’t that simple or easy.  As Croal points out, no one is accusing of having racist intentions with the game.  On the contrary, most would chalk it up to ignorance on the designers’ part as most of them are of Japanese descent, and certainly Japan doesn’t have quite the same exploitive background with Africa as Europe does.  Still, ignorance is only an explanation for cultural insensitivity, not a free pass for it.  And most copies of 5 will eventually be sold in North America and Europe, not Japan.  In these two places such ideas and hurt run deep, the same as with Croal’s Jew example.

Of course, everyone will never agree on this issue.  Race is still quite a divisive issue, and many would rather bury their heads in the sand than look at it rationally.  But the trailer can at the very least be labeled borderline culturally insensitive.  How far you go beyond that probably has much to do with your personal background.  Some who have been the victim of racism will likely see more there than those who have never been such victims.  In that way, 5 is opening up a fascinating avenue for dialogue within the gaming community.  The final game might even capitalize on such issues by exploring them, and therefore rendering much of this controversy moot.  Regardless how it turns out, Croal and others opened a can of worms for academic video game criticism and analyzation that will likely never close again.  And that, is a very good trend toward being accepted as legitimate media.


Related posts:

  1. Resident Evil Zero, just like a good zombie, has risen again now for Wii
  2. Resident Evil CG movie trailer premiere
  3. Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles ships one million plus
  4. Resident Evil 5 footage is scary beautiful
  5. Video of the day: Beyond Good & Evil piano arrangement

6 Responses to “Race, Croal, Conrad and Resident Evil”

  1. 1
    zengonzo Says:

    I’m really glad to see this site approach the issue with a bit of open-mindedness.

    Ever since this started I’ve been dismayed to see the community react with such vehement opposition to the issue, that there wasn’t even the opportunity to discuss it.

    I’ve found that a large percentage of my geek friends, generally well-meaning and open-minded in most regards, are uniquely touchy about the race issue. It seems as though they find it such an uncomfortable subject, that they would prefer to never have it brought up, preferring instead to rationalize that since they don’t have an issue with race, that it shouldn’t have to come up.

    Obviously since it sparks such controversy, and prohibits meaningful dialog, there is, in fact, a problem.

    I think Shawn Elliot on the most recent GFW podcast also handled the topic with the clarity and understanding we should all be willing to approach it with.

    Kudos again for your thoughtful approach.

  2. 2
    Muadib Says:

    All I’d like to say is, “Wow.” I thought it would take longer for such a level headed view to come about on this subject given how much venom and disdain has been thrown around forums. Which is always a poor way to react.

    I really do love the thoughts and concepts that are being generated here. Prior to this post, I too have been insensitive. I do love that we’re not talking about condemning the game or the company, (Please no! RE5, I need you!) What we are talking about is, being considerate and open minded. Great post!

  3. 3
    Bryan Says:

    Croal argues, “The imagery is not the same. It doesn’t carry the same history, it doesn’t carry the same weight. I don’t know how to explain it more clearly than that.”

    His response to why it was okay to kill brown people instead of black people was… “because, it just isn’t”? And we accept that as insightful and true?

    Listen, I love N’Gai and his ability to speak intelligently and coherently about my hobby and career, video games. But his argument in this instance smacks of bias and poor logic. So now the continent of Africa is off limits for game makers? That’s ridiculous. We have no problem killing Russians, Germans, Spaniards, Afghans and Iraqi’s… but God forbid someone take aim at a group of Africans.

    I’ll still read what he writes and still think him brilliant… the only person I agree with all the time is myself, and that’s not sure odds either.

    Cheers

  4. 4
    Muadib Says:

    Just to be on the same page, I believe he was saying be socially conscience, not that Africa is off limits. Which is cool, because, um, come RE5? I’m gunnin’ down all fools.

  5. 5
    Rabidkeebler Says:

    While I applaud you for taking the high ground and presenting many of the arguments on both sides, as well as clearly stating Croal’s argument, I still disagree overall with him. Primarily because it shows how little ground we have covered when it comes to being offended, and how we react.

    In this case, why did Croal see this and refer to a style of picture that hasn’t been made since the 1950s? Think about the limitations on style that this can create, and the complaints we see from others. Think about the people who were upset about the movie 300 and its portrayal of middle easterners. Or more importantly, the item that best fits this argument, Pork Chop the mascot. A Pennsylvania Minor League BaseBall team was doing a public search for its pig themed mascot. The name that was chosen was Pork Chop. A perfectly legitimate name. Except that at one time the name Pork Chop was used as a derogatory name for Puerto Ricans. A few complained and the name was changed. This is a perfect example of taking something perfectly okay, then taking out of context and complaining about it.

  6. 6
    Marola15 Says:

    From watching the trailer I can see where alot of it can be misinterpreted as racist. Something like this can eaisly be flipped into something presenting negative stereotypes, so its not ridiclous for people to feel upset. Where some see just another zombie being shot in the head, others see a hord of offensive charachatures being mowed down by “The Man”. The trailer was never intended to be insulting, but people still felt disrespected.

    Another thing is this whole controversy can’t just explained away. You can not tell people how they should feel in a situation if someone feels offended then let them feel offended. They have just as much right to be angry and see something as upsetting as you do to feel this whole controversy is silly.

Leave a Reply