Good points and logical from your viewpoint. But your argument is based on the conviction or axiom that a racial stereotype used unironically/unsatirically is a no-go under any circumstances and some users disagree on that opinion. Because a stereotype needs repeated use to become problematic, it needs to reach a certain threshold. Since many of the forum users here seem to have no contact with that stereotype it may be understandable that they do not see that it is reaching that threshold.
Thanks for the compliment. It is appreciated. I hope you know that I consider you to be logical and thoughtful as well. Now, let me disagree with you.
I disagree that a stereotype needs repeated use to become problematic. Presenting a negative racial stereotype (unironically/un-satirically) means the presenter is associating derogatory or malicious characteristics to people of a certain race; and implying that these characteristics are typical among members of that race. They could imply this by, for example, not presenting anyone of that race who
doesn't have those negative characteristics. (Or they could outright state it, obviously, but you rarely see that nowadays.)
I don't think that's ever a good idea, even if those characteristics have never been associated with that race before in real life.
But, I do see your point. I understand why people wouldn't see something as a negative stereotype if they haven't been exposed to it before. They might think "well that's just a bad guy" or something. I would consider them people who
don't agree that it's a negative stereotype, and if they don't see the problem with keeping those stereotypes in, I don't think they're doing it for any malicious reason.
EDIT: Also - if this really is a stereotype that hasn't met a "threshold" yet, how do you think TFP heard of it? They didn't come up with the idea, and I really doubt that they went looking for it.
I am on the fence really since I know about indian casinos and it would be so much less controversial if that stereotype were used for humorous effect or ironically subverted in a game that is big on humor. I also see that there are already references to the casino in the story (mainly the coins) so dropping that would make further adjustments necessary. It may be easier dropping the indian heritage, but that would need another break with reality as (AFAIK) casinos in non-reservation Arizona are illegal, right?
Yes, it's illegal for
anyone to privately own a casino in Arizona, and that includes anyone outside a reservation.
The only casinos allowed are casinos owned by tribal governments. But, that's not the only form of gambling, and other forms
are allowed. For example, bingo parlors or raffles - though if you're not a church, you probably have to get a permit for those.
Also, like many other states, Arizona has its own state-run lottery: www.arizonalottery.com
Maybe
that's what TFP should do with the Duke. He could be the corrupt, ambitious owner of the Arizona State Lottery. It brings in a whole lot more money than a casino, and it makes exactly as much sense to own it.
Instead of casino tokens, traders would accept scratch tickets.
Let me explain the threshold with an example: Consider the case of the racial stereotype of the black sidekick used extensively in TV series and movies years ago. Doing it once or even many times would be no problem, but Hollywood did that so extensively that it generated an image problem. Probably it was from good intentions to have more black actors on screen while still not brave enough to cast them as main actors. And it achieved that, black actors got more roles and visibility. But naturally when they were always the sidekick and never the lead it fostered an image of the black as always the second fiddle. And being dumb because in comedies the sidekick used to be always the cardboard-thin character that was made the most fun of and often was the most unintelligent being in the story.
Now today it isn't such a problem anymore if a new series has a black sidekick. Because there are also lots of series with leads of all colors and white sidekicks. There may still be some way to go for equality of all races in Hollywood movies, but at least from my outside subjective view the black sidekick racial stereotype is below the threshhold.
Perhaps the confusion is over the word "stereotype." Colloquially that's used for a lot of things that might be better suited to other terms.
The example you brought up is called the "minority sidekick" when it's applied to more than just Black people. I think that's more of a
trope than a stereotype. The issue has nothing to do with the characteristics of the minority characters themselves.
In fact, when I did a search for "minority sidekick," one of the first pages that I found used Ned from the Marvel Spider-Man films as an example. But, I don't think anyone (including the page I mentioned) thinks that the
character of Ned is a racial stereotype; it's the
trope of being a sidekick to a White person, regardless of character, that is the issue.
Also, not everything that
can be used as a negative racial stereotype, is
always a racial stereotype. Not all black characters who are angry are "angry Black men." Conversely, though Hispanic drug lords are very real, they might
turn into stereotypes if the
only Hispanics in the story work for drug lords.
And, sometimes "stereotype" is just used to mean "typical" or "simplified," something like an "archetype," without a particular negative connotation. You might see "They lived in a stereotypical two-bedroom home in the suburbs" in a book, and it is usually not meant to disparage people who live in the suburbs. Or their homes.
So, someone could misunderstand a "racial stereotype" to be that kind of "stereotype," even though it's not.
When I am talking about a character who
embodies negative racial stereotypes, maybe a better term would be a racial
caricature. That seems much more easy to understand, at least to me.
