I used to be a progressive when progressive meant something else. I still believe what I did back then. It's activism that has changed for the worse and trying to get into other topics in a forceful, massive, repetitive way. I hated "for women by women about women" trend when it came out, and then "4 blacks, by blacks, 'bout blacks". Then came "for queers, by queers in a queer way". This is self-pidgeonholing! It's like art and even social reforms are being treated in a very algorithmic, label-based, marketing-focused manner. Outsiders used to hate labels back then and for a deep, wise reason: once you get respect for being a [insert oppressed, marginalised "fancy-in-big-media-for-5-mins" label here] you don't get respect just because you are you. It's a twisting to the already flawed "union thinking" self-support/lobbying model (that has been good while nothing better was around and then hit their original limit as it was made around the "we fight for our battle in a blissful indifference" model, and it can do society good just up to a grade, then you have to be inclusive...in changing the meaning of your battle itself).
Funny enough, I was all into "for nerds by nerds 'bout nerds" and "for asians by asians 'bout Asia" scenes, but I've always been aware they were scenes, stages, i.e. some separate fan communities that are somewhat alternative and subculture-like (not necessarily substandard or shady: there were great and wholesome masterpieces in them, many went mainstream in a short time, and I'm not called a weirdo anymore for liking LotR, not even for liking mangas that were and still are quite self-absorbed, japan-centric and/or actually shady). I just don't agree with this next step to take something that was heavy on a subculture and exporting to mainstream without modification or additions to appeal to breoader set, and not because of changing sensibilities, but artificially demanding that change and calling someone a bigot for not adapting to a very strictly defined fandom/demographic that is even more restrictive than genre (you can put more plot and character variety in a genre, you can play with it: if you have to feature "a black", "a professor", "a low-income person", "a trendy young girl", etc. it's an explicit restraint). Then I came to the conclusion above: that in earlier stages, some new group (or a group new for a discriminating media, or a new style that was not liked before) just has to create new small environments in contrast to widespread "soft rejection", but then the outside big world will appreciate at least something about this new thing and, for the new thing not to die, even in art, not just in politics, the bubble of "we fend for themself" *must* be popped and in a careful way. You don't have to sell yourself out but the threat of discriminating others that are indeed *not* your opponents is bigger: you'll create more opponents instead, mainly out of frustration of wanting to connect with you and not being able to. Because they're not outsiders, i.e. not-insiders according to that subculture. How ironic.
Now for the non-political part: these are great games, but I really don't understand why someone would want them mainly because they features blacks. Except if you're looking for a full black culture or urban hip-hop black references (that are not even embraced just by blacks anymore, and sometime succesfully cross-breed with asian tropes or everything else). Then it's at least a sub-genre, call it a "ghetto-" a "afro-" or a "african culture based" game setting and I'm fine, but just having a black char says nearly nothing to me. It's more of a hashtag than a gaming category. It would make a bit of more sense if the list included every game with non-wasp characters (which include italians, spanish, latins, chinese, even british catholics btw) . But it's kinda reverse discrimination at that point: if A is so narrow, then being non-A is wieder than most think.
Post edited February 06, 2022 by marcob