Posts Tagged bias

Date: February 18th, 2009
Cate: society + culture, things to think about

Can you see it?


It depicts a white protagonist going into an apparently poverty-stricken village (the location is unspecified) and killing throngs of black zombified men and women (see the trailer yourself)…

What was not funny, but sort of interesting, was that there were so many gamers who could not at all see it. Like literally couldn’t see it. So how could you have a conversation with people who don’t understand what you’re talking about and think that you’re sort of seeing race where nothing exists?

Newsweek’s N’Gai Croal On The ‘Resident Evil 5′ Trailer: ‘This Imagery Has A History’ [multiplayerblog.mtv.com]

Let me help you out, N’Gai Croal – the reason so many gamers can’t see it is because it’s all in your head. It’s totally subjective. The trailer depicts the main character of a zombie killing game, killing zombies. The setting is some sort of impoverished african village. The zombies are zombies. This isn’t racism, it’s a classic zombie situation.

There was stuff like even before the point in the trailer where the crowd turned into zombies. 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.

It’s called ‘foreshadowing’ – the village is full of spooky looking people because they’re going to turn into zombies. No, you can’t spare any of them, because they’re zombies! Lack of redemption and compassion does not make this racist. Let me take a moment to brainstorm situations in which the game would be racist:

  1. If the black people became zombies because being black they were too stupid to avoid getting infected
  2. If the black people were zombies in the first place because only black people, having inferior physique and poor personal hygiene, are naturally more zombie-infection-prone.
  3. If the protagonist called them ‘niggers’ as he was shooting them between the eyes.

Actually, even the last example wouldn’t make the game racist – it’d make the main character racist. It’d make the audience uneasy about their avatar in the game – they’d enjoy the thrill of making him fight his way through waves of zombies, but be a little uncomfortable with his overt bigotry. It could be an important lesson in the grey area of morality.

If it had been me in that situation, I wouldn’t have put out a trailer like that. I think it’s very easy to misunderstand what that game is about based on that trailer.

No kidding.

Date: January 13th, 2009
Cate: society + culture

Study may be less conclusive than you think, Matt says.

Would you get upset if you witnessed an act of racism? A new study published Thursday in the journal Science suggests many people unconsciously harbor racist attitudes, even though they see themselves as tolerant and egalitarian.

 - You may be more racist than you think, study says [cnn.com]

In short, a group of people were chosen to watch a white person interact with a black person. First the interaction was neutral, second it was racist, and finally the racism was more strongly expressed (whitey dropped the ‘nigger bomb’.) Immediately afterwards, the observers were asked to choose either the white peson or the black person for an ‘anagram test’ (whatever that is), and most chose the white person, “regardless of the severity of the comment that person made earlier.”

It goes on to point out that a second group who only experienced the interaction and partner-picking as a hypothetical situation was more likely to choose the white person if they acted racially neutral, but less likely if they were openly racist.

“Some people might think that they’re very egalitarian and they don’t have to deal with their prejudices, and that’s not related to them at all, when in actual fact they may hold these hidden biases,” Kawakami said.

The study is consistent with decades of psychology [cnn's link] research pointing to the same thing: People are really bad at predicting their own actions in socially sensitive situations.

This seems like total jumping-to-conclusions bullshit. Are the confusing racial preference for racial bigotry? In a situation where you’re supposed to choose between a white person and a black person, all other things being equal, then I guess the chances could be fifty-fifty, but I can’t see how all other things would ever be equal. Maybe the observer’s didn’t take the white person’s racial comment seriously – I know I wouldn’t. I can’t really imagine someone saying, “clumsy nigger” and meaning it. If they seemed like they were serious, I’d definitly be less likely to pick them as a partner, I suppose.

But I would say that in general I’m more attracted to white people. That doesn’t make me racist. It would be racist if I believed that people with lighter skin were more beutiful universally -but I don’t, I know that it’s just my own opinion. There’s plenty of good looking black guys, and girls, but by ‘default’ the white people are more attractive. Could something like that factor into the choice the test participants made? If I had thought that the one guy was racist, I probably would’ve said something, in a joking tone, to see if they really were serious. “Black people typically bump in to you?” “Did you really just say ‘clumsy nigger?’” If they were serious, I’d argue with them about it, if they weren’t, I’d let it go.

Yeah. This test is just poorly thought out. Making comments that could be construed as racist and then guessing at the impact those comments have on a decision process involving the commentor and an observer it way too abstract – an overtly racist act, on the other hand, such as lying to a black person but not to a white person, would most likely produce markedly different reactions.