ray245 wrote: ↑
And I think the allied forces should depict more non-whites.
If you're looking for accuracy, then sure: in segregated units and black officers dealing with as many "n-words" and "boy" being throw their way by white enlisted men and general douchebaggery.
And Nazi Germany made it explicitly clear that racist policies were central to their entire political ideology. The Allies did horrible shit as well, but I don't think it's just a matter of scale. Did the Allies have a coherent ideology centered around race-supremacy on the same level as the Nazis?
I'm confused at your distinction between "scale" and "level." They mean about the same thing to me. On the topic, the U.S. had Jim Crow running alive and well. But even though that was true, no one would really have cared about the whole thing. They only started caring when Germany started moving West.
I'm not opposed to Fascist Italy having African soldiers and so forth, because they never make race ideology paramount to their whole political ideology the same way the Nazis did.
Allying with Japan showed Hilter cared more about winning than any ideas of ideological purity.
Did the other powers formulate an ideology that makes it explicitly clear they are built upon race ideology? Every country back then was racist, homophobic, practicing eugenics and so forth. That is true. (Concentration camps also exist in the US at that time.) That does not mean they built their entire political ideology based on those views.
Once again, you're talking about scale: something I already admitted to. But Hitler based a lot of his ideology on U.S. attempts, eugenics being one in particular. The U.S. had it's own which hunts. Even we weren't shitty enough (all the time) to imprison someone JUST for being black. But, provided you could avoid being murdered, homosexuality was a crime. And not just in the U.S. So I doubt "political ideology" meant anything to a homosexual back when hiding it was a desperate "non-choice."
If the results are the same then whatever ideology is most prevalent doesn't matter.
Do you seriously think I have any power over what DICE thinks? Put it this way, if "games are art", does that make it acceptable to make a game about a Black soldier fighting for the Confederacy? They did exist (in non-combat roles), but there are problems with such depictions imo.
Yes, yes it makes it "acceptable." That's a rather large point of "art:" it's going to offend someone. We're talking about a game that, by nature of what it is, is almost 99% going to glamourize mowing motherfuckers down en masse. In fact, out of one trailer some woman beats another soldier to death with (I think is) a cricket bat. Blood for all. Sure, there's probably going to be a "what is man" style lamenting here and there... you know, in between all the DAKA DAKA DAKA.
A woman doing that rates a big "non-issue" for me considering the other shit we're whitewashing. Big Goddamn Heroes! I've talked to many vets of war(s). They don't talk about it like Big Goddamn Heroes.... except the 2 Marines... those guys are on a whole other level.
I'm ranting again, but I'll say I don't like arbitrary lines drawn on what's acceptable and what's not, mostly when it comes to fiction. Because it leads to stupid shit. Like, would you read a book about a pre-pubescent girl being raped by a family member, told from her perspective and all the lack of understanding to come along with it? And in fact talking about how it was relatively pleasant? Pretty shitty, huh? That's a line even I'm line "uuhhhhhh, I don't know about this." But I think I would be poorer for it never having read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings."
Shit's banned down here now. My wife's high school kids won't read it, school board won't let them.