Taro Omiya

Warning: racism will be openly discussed in this post.

In a podcast I was in earlier, there was a mention of black face appearing in the Dragon Ball Z anime, which the US localization team did their best to cover. The brief discussion about it being racist left me with mixed feelings, so I wanted to address some thoughts that propped from that moment. In short, I have a theory that many racist undertones from Japanese media are not a result of racist intent, but rather, consumption of racist foreign media from a clueless audience. And to be honest, that’s a rather tragic way of revisiting an old problem.

When it comes to the US, topics about slavery and segregation in our local history comes up starting around middle school, and most teachers emphasize how horrible they were, and how they still affect us today. In comparison, at least up to middle school level I was educated in, Japan doesn’t even talk about slavery in their local history (despite the fact that they obviously existed there), let alone anything related to the African continent. On top of this, Japan is an infamously homogeneous population, with 98.5% reported as ethnically Japanese as of 2011. To them, the racism against blacks might as well not exist: they lived through a completely different history that didn’t involve enslaving blacks, and since their country’s black population is so tiny, most citizens haven’t encountered a black person either.

So if a Japanese medium depicts a black face with no knowledge of historical context, and thus, no ill will, that’s not racist, no? While I do believe that the creators probably intended to create a cool looking character, it also tells me they’re depicting the worst kind of racism: one born from ignorance. Unlike what most “Japanese people are really patriotic” comments like you to believe, Japan does consume foreign media, and even crave it. Many manga artists, including father of anime, Osamu Tezuka are well-known to be inspired by American comics and films, especially Disney and Looney Toons. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that any black face and other racial stereotypes are directly inspired by racist comics and films from the USA. And these stereotypes trickle down into their daily lives: since their presence in Japan is so small and thus, they have no real-life examples to go by, when a Japanese person does meet a black person, it’s fairly common for them to make a huge list of poor assumptions. Ironically, these very assumptions brings birth to fashion styles that attempt to depict the positives in that racial stereotypes (in comparison to Japan’s absurd level of politeness, anyway), which proves to be further damaging when they go out of style. In a way, Japanese media is a child learning from a racist father, the American media.

The part that I’m feeling most mixed about is whether this is something that can be solved, or even whether it should. I don’t, for example, think it should be Japan’s responsibility to learn the dark history of segregation in the US, similar to how I don’t think the US needs to teach Japanese history. As mentioned before, I genuinely think Japan uses racial stereotypes because “it looks cool.” It’ll be difficult to convince anyone that something that looks cool to them is actively harmful outside of their own country (side note: yes, it’s harmful inside their own country, too, but there isn’t many that can speak up against the practice). I frankly can’t blame the creators there not knowing any better: they are making media for their own country, and it falls under the localization team’s responsibility to adopt the medium to their country’s standards.

On the positive side, though, the reduction of black face appearing in the American media has reduced black faces in Japan as well, albeit slowly. It’s more common to see black people in mangas and animes now-a-days depicted as simply anime characters that just have darker skin; their lips are either not depicted or very thin pink, rather than the doughnut shape black face is known for. Japan’s way of stereotyping black people are looking less and less distinguished from how they depict other foreigners, too: obnoxiously curious about everything, rude, insensitive, violent, and more. I mean, yes, the xenophobia is a problem in and of itself, but it’s a bit humbling to see that they look at both white and blacks as equally annoying presence in their rhythmic lives full of manners and rules. Finally, American media that depicts segregation and their harmful effects are positively influencing Japanese media as well, with mature mangas like Billy Bat depicting segregation with the proper weight and respect.

Besides, it’s not like Japan can’t be intentionally racist, either. The Japanese population being racist against South Koreans and Chinese is a very real reality. One can easily see this in the standardized Japanese education, the very same middle-school-level education I was taught in, that fails to mention their historical slavery practices. I get very wary of Zatch Bell!‘s depiction of Li-en, and in particularly, her strange, thin(ner) eyes. While she’s a character that, fortunately, kicks ass and is a fantastic ally, her racist design is something the artist must have been informed of, and chosen deliberately. I hope that you, consumer of Japanese media, don’t learn from these stereotypes depicted by the racist father, the Japanese media.

Today, I want to talk about heavy topics and how it relates with my anti-censorship beliefs. As a warning, I’ll be discussing about domestic abuse, and make very brief mentions of rape.

With Ludum Dare 33 over, and our Tech Valley Game Space stream finished, I can’t help but notice compared to other Ludum Dares, this one in particular had more controversial games. I guess this is to be expected: the theme was, “You Are The Monster.” To be honest, I’m disappointed, not because games were more controversial this time — if anything, it’s a sign that the medium is maturing — but rather, because they didn’t serve to do anything positive. These games have, in my opinion, failed to utilize the power of free speech, and instead serve as examples of how to abuse the lack of censorship in today’s connected world.

For example, there’s a game called Monster in the House which involves a greedy spouse whacking her husband with a bat to extract money from him. In the middle of the game, some children will bounce in, and the spouse has to be careful not to hit them while extracting more money. Game ends when the spouse’s satisfaction meter falls to 0, or the spouse accidentally hits a child. It’s a pretty comical game, to be honest, with all characters in the game either looking like grumpy clowns or bouncing balls. Likewise, the depiction of blood is very unrealistic, utilizing a string of red squares instead of looking like an actual liquid. Playing the game, I think the creator wanted it to be a fun game above all else, and had no intention of offending any specific person. It was made with good intentions, and I personally have no ill will to the creator. That said, the subject hits very close to home, and it’s infuriating that the game fails to recognize the gravity behind domestic abuse issues.

My dad owns a sushi restaurant filled with days of ups and downs. My mom, despite her children still in high school and middle school, did her best to help him out during the downs. Both were hard-working, and my mom especially was resourceful, rarely showing any signs of greed. That day was, perhaps, the worst moment the restaurant faced. I was exceedingly lucky. I was asleep when it happened, and have to rely on my siblings recollection about this event. After one stressful night, my mom snapped. Unable to take the day-by-day stress anymore, she attempted to claw and tackle my dad. My dad, usually calm and quiet, frantically pinned her down until her anger subsided. It only happened one night, and neither parent violently attacked each other again. Yet, it was enough to change our entire family.

I want to get back to my position with censorship for a minute. I’m against censorship: I favor keeping our speech in public as free as possible. The reason? I’m a strong believer that if we want to tackle topics like domestic abuse, it’s necessary to discuss about them directly, rather than working around them as if they doesn’t exist. Similarly, anti-censorship gives us the freedom to criticize, especially those in position of authority. With this measure, we the people can put companies, politicians, law enforcers, and other authoritative or privileged figures in check by pointing out their flaws. Thus, I lament when public schools or libraries — any public locations with employees who are in the exact position and expertise to discuss and educate difficult topics in a civil manner — censor mediums that cover said topics. Anti-censorship is most powerful when a medium causes the public to discuss how to improve our current world.

When mediums cover heavy topics, I’m always asking whether it successfully starts a constructive discussion in the subject matter, or criticizes any unfair practices. For Monster in the House, the answer is a stern no. The game fails to make useful observations as to why domestic violence often goes unreported, and certainly poses no solution to solve it. Even if it was presented as a joke — and to be fair, I do think the creator meant it as a joke — it fails to be either absurd, or a criticism to the practice. Similarly, when Wild Flirtation casually presents “Card Rape Sakura” as an option your monster character can respond to a woman, I fail to see how that joke is absurd, or provide a meaningful discussion about rape. And being a Japanese-American, I’m fully aware what that joke was making fun of. The joke only serves as a criticism to Japan’s image issue, and not the rapists in the Japan, or in any other country. Both games only serves as an example (even a normal) of violence, passive and unwilling to comment on the subject when they should be. They’re just controversial for controversy’s sake.

As opposed to these games, there were two that comes to mind that served to be a more positive example. Manifest Destiny depicts a giant white male figure roaming around and destroying pyramids while small black people runs away from him. A casual observer would probably comment the game is racist, and it is: the game openly admits it’s a metaphorical depiction of colonizers taking over African countries, including selling off the natives as slaves. Even without this message, the criticism the game makes on race still stands: the white giant progressively becomes more demonic as the game moves along, making it clear to the player their actions in-game are evil. I also really liked Hitogochi which, despite it’s more innocent dialog options than Wild Flirtation, was graphically more violent. The game makes the player role-play as a monster being treated by a klutzy and inexperienced caretaker. Important to the plot is a separate, primal personality the monster is fighting against that wants to eat more human flesh. Hitogochi makes it clear this primal split-personality is the main villain, and offers numerous options to fight against it. It successfully criticizes violent urges by presenting it as an absurdly psychopathic personality, and even provides some positive actions one could take to fight against it. While both games contains controversial subject matters, their presentation makes it clear both wants to fix said matters.

Free speech should be treated as a tool, something that can be used for good and for ill. As game developers focusing on pushing bounds of the medium, we should focus on the good behind free speech: providing positive and constructive messages for the public. It is our responsibility to both approach controversial topics with confidence, and with proper research and education. Covering just controversy itself isn’t enough anymore.