So, we are back.

oh no...

@PurpleDave said:"About the only term that was socially acceptable at one point, it has since fully fallen out of favor, is the five-letter variant of “Indian”."

Took me a few seconds to figure out what you meant.

@dhaas06 said:
"I choose to interpret this "yikes" moment as a reflection of just how long LEGO has been around, through decade after decade of changing social conscience and progress leading to where we are today. This set came out in a decade when the U.S. still had racially-segregated schools, it's almost unfathomable how different the world was. It makes me wonder what LEGO product is normal in 2025 that future generations might cringe at one day."

Come to think of it, I wonder how we'd look at this set now if the figures had used the same yellow as every other Homemaker-style figure, but the set had otherwise been identical and called "Indians."

@TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:"About the only term that was socially acceptable at one point, it has since fully fallen out of favor, is the five-letter variant of “Indian”."

Took me a few seconds to figure out what you meant.

@dhaas06 said:
"I choose to interpret this "yikes" moment as a reflection of just how long LEGO has been around, through decade after decade of changing social conscience and progress leading to where we are today. This set came out in a decade when the U.S. still had racially-segregated schools, it's almost unfathomable how different the world was. It makes me wonder what LEGO product is normal in 2025 that future generations might cringe at one day."

Come to think of it, I wonder how we'd look at this set now if the figures had used the same yellow as every other Homemaker-style figure, but the set had otherwise been identical and called "Indians.""

We wouldn't be talking about it.. as in red indians. just a nice native set or first nation ect.

Right after that article brought it up…

@PurpleDave said:
" @Erylion said:
"Pretty cool build though. The shaping of the canoe, as well as the cradleboard are nice.

And while we balk at that dated nomenclature and color choice nowadays, it's cool that LEGO was trying to represent another culture back in 1977. And with a very limited color palette and the accepted parlance of the day, it's not surprising LEGO handled it the way they did.

I for one would love to see a range of First Peoples sets...with a more appropriate name,"

That’s tricky, because there really isn’t a clean answer to that, even now. Canada calls them First Nations, and that might be universally accepted there, but ask enough registered members of tribes in the US and you’ll find those who prefer Indian, Amerind, Amerindian, Native American, only their own tribe’s name, only their own tribe’s non-Europeanized name, and probably a few other options. About the only term that was socially acceptable at one point, it has since fully fallen out of favor, is the five-letter variant of “Indian”.

Go south of the border, and Latino peoples can certainly trace their roots back to the indigenous peoples of those lands, but they are considered distinct from the native peoples of the US and Canada (there was an incident maybe a year or two ago where visiting individuals from just such a group had their ceremonial headdresses confiscated at the border because it’s illegal for anyone in the US to own bald eagle feathers unless they are “Native American”…and they didn’t meet the definition under federal law).

Go north, and you still have problems. The circumpolar peoples of North America and Eurasia all got together and formed a compact to present a unified stance on issues that matter to them. When they voted on what everyone should be called, the Inuit of Canada an d Greenland voted that everyone should be called Inuit, and all the non-Inuit of Alaska and Eurasia simply got outvoted. I watched a native of Alaska stand on a stage in Anchorage and _apologize_ to us before telling us that the native peoples of Alaska still prefer to be called Eskimos, which we’ve been hearing for years now is a bad word, and needs to be excised from the vocabulary. The US government punted on the issue and simply calls them “Alaska natives”.

"color scheme,"

Several years ago, I read that genetic testing showed that the native peoples of North America were a close genetic match for ethnic Chinese, which certainly fits with the Bering land-bridge theory. They have very little relation to the people of Japan. TLG has a sketchy track record with this stuff, as for years they’ve been making Cho Chang minifigs that have a similar skintone to the Patil sisters, when Katie Leung has skin that’s no darker than Daniel Radcliffe’s.

"and modern building techniques of course."

Gimme a second. I’m trying to think if there’s ever been a racially insensitive building technique that should be avoided if possible.

Nope, I think you’re good on that one.

@Nuclearxpotato:
They could go for years just releasing one set per month with a village representing a new tribal group that hasn’t been done before. When we visited the Native Heritage Center in Anchorage, you can walk out back and see at least six different dwelling styles of major tribal groups that are only found in Alaska. One of the more curious things I noticed while looking through the exhibits in the big museum in Anchorage is that, of these tribal groups, only the ones who hailed from the panhandle region had any weapons that were designed for waging war on other humans. The other groups only had weapons intended for use when hunting. Their survival relied far too much on banding together as a community for them to consider trying to kill their neighbors."

genetic testing also showed from doing genetic testing from people frozen at time.. and with blessings from most tribes who got tested for DNA... 1/3 are Northern European/Northern Arabia other 1/3 have Asia area and Beringan tribes from Siberia.., 1/3 third are unknown from different tribes...

I shouldn't say anything going get in too much trouble...

"There is a genetic link between the paleolithic population of Europe and modern Native Americans. The evidence is that the population that crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia into the Americas more than 15,000 years ago was likely related to the ancient population of Europe."

continued.. South America which split off from other tribes after crossing... had philipines I think cross over by boat to south America...

can not seem to find the published scientific article explaining DNA fully for the process maybe 2013 or later thought was way later years.

edit possibly was November 2012 issue of the Genetics Society of America's journal Genetics.
According to Nick Patterson

@StyleCounselor said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"I wonder how many of the members who want this (167 according to its database page) want it because it's an old set, and how many want it because of its notoriety.

@PurpleDave said:
"Didn’t we just have an article about this already? This feels like a trap…"

I even commented on that article, regarding this set, that "[It's] Gonna be an interesting day if and when that gets picked for VSotW."' I just didn't expect that that day would come so soon! I fear I may be responsible for this somehow."

IT'S A TRAP!!!"

IT'S A SCRAP!!!

The bell osprey crew?

certified bruh moment

That set didn't age well

I swear this has been chosen before

Uh-oh!

Get them some sunscreen!

A set from 1977, the year I was born.
It was a good year too. The year of the birth of Star Wars, and the year of my all time favourite James Bond movie.

Funnily enough, even though playing Cowboys and Indians was very popular over here back then, I never really cared much for it. Even back as a kid I preferred fantasy and especially sci-fi. Or maybe knights and Robin Hood.
And above all, my friends and I loved to reenact our favorite TV shows: The Fall Guy, Knight Rider, and Masters of the Universe. By the way, I was Howie, Devon Miles, and Stratos, respectively. :-)

Wait, what was this set again we were talking about? ;-)

I see Ridgeheart’s profile signed in today, what happened?

Oh, this set. HAHAHAHA!

@TheOtherMike said:
"I even commented on that article, regarding this set, that "[It's] Gonna be an interesting day if and when that gets picked for VSotW."' I just didn't expect that that day would come so soon! I fear I may be responsible for this somehow."

As soon as I saw this on the front page, my immediate first thought was "wait, didn't someone JUST say that really recently...?!" Huwbot accepted your challenge I guess xD

Interestingly, I've just got back in from the Brick Festival event that was held locally today, and a seller on one of the tables actually had this set for sale (it was the only set of its age that they were selling as far as I could tell, most of the rest they had were 1999 Star Wars or sets from the past decade). So it's curious to see that some of them are still floating around in the wild out there; it was also the first time I'd seen it physically, rather than just through pictures online.

This also isn't the first time I've seen a set on sale second-hand, only to find that it was the featured Random Set that day. Always weird when that happens!

There was a time a few years ago that this set always popped up in the most viewed sets of the week, maybe a few months in a row.

No real comment on the set itself.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickodillo said:
"It is a good thing when looking at a set like this irks."
And why exactly?
In what way is this set disrespectful towards native Americans? It shows two people in a canoe rowing and a mother with two kids on the shore looking and/or waving.
I think this set is as innocent today as it was back then, and I don't feel any irk when looking at it.
So what's the reason that some say this set couldn't be sold today, or that it "hasn't aged well"?
By that definition one could also criticize the Homemaker line of sets, because they promote the stereotypical housewife, a concept that also doesn't sit well with some people these days, even though there are girls still today who are not interested in seeking a career in business but actually want to be a mother and housewife. Imagine that.
Just because it doesn't fit in with the view of some people doesn't mean it's not a valid goal in life.
Funnily enough it's about exactly the respect that these people are demanding from others but are unwilling to give themselves. People who in their self-righteousness can't see or even imagine that their point of view isn't the only valid one out there.

I mean, who are people of today to judge people of a totally different era?
Back in ancient Rome for example there were slaves, the concept of gladiators and cruelty towards animals for show, yet those were the times back then.
In medieval times there were crusades, and witch hunting and many other kinds of cruelty.
Even today there are cruel and gruesome traditions in many parts of the world, however enlightened we might think the human race might have become.
Or take all the wars still happening around the globe for whatever reason.
In the light of all this, what's the problem with a nearly half a century old LEGO set depicting a perfectly innocent scene of a canoe and a couple of people in and around it.
They are not skalping a settler, or doing the rain dance or whatever other maybe inappropriate action there might be. "

Your comment reads like you’re saying slavery is totally not a bad thing. And I feel any argument that reads like it’s trying to justify slavery has not been made very well

@TheOtherMike said:
"Come to think of it, I wonder how we'd look at this set now if the figures had used the same yellow as every other Homemaker-style figure, but the set had otherwise been identical and called "Indians.""

How much did we ever say about the tribal sets from the Western theme? They've got yellow hands and heads, just like the soldiers. Look, TLG's stance has always been that they picked yellow for minifigs, in part, because nobody is yellow, and that it can therefore represent all peoples. Except, apparently, these people. This feels like a situation where some LEGO designer just so happened to be aware that red was a color that was associated with the skin of Native Americans, and made an alcohol-fueled decision.

@missedoutagain:
Well, we don't have any written records telling us who came here, or when, or what happened to them after they got here. Archaeological and genetic evidence is all we have to go by. The latter has only recently become available, and requires people to volunteer to get tested. The former is even trickier, because we don't even know where to look. It's not like some parts of the world, where civilization has been built on top of civiliziation so many times that you know you're going to find stuff when you start digging, and more crucially, even when you do find something there's almost no chance it will reveal anything about where those people originally came form. We know about the land bridge, and we know that at least one Viking expedition made it (but probably packed up and left). It would make sense that someone made it here from the South Pacific, since the people who settled Oceania were the most skilled navigators ever to sail the oceans, and there's no reason for them to have just stopped once they finished populating all the islands between Australia and South America.

Further complicating things is how evidence clashes with ancient beliefs. There is genetic evidence that the Hebrew people actually did come from Africa, which matches with the Exodus story claiming they'd passed through Egypt before settling in Israel. But native beliefs in North America are that they were created here with the land, and that they have always been here and nowhere else. Consequently, any bones that are found beyond a certain age are automatically considered to be Native American, and have to be turned over for reburial without any testing being allowed. So, short of finding a contradictory artifact buring with them, how do you prove that this skeleton is actually foreign-born?

Actually a really detailed portrait of red indians. At lest that's what Lego thought.

We all knew this day was coming, I just hope Reddit and the string of most viewed set charts prepared us.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Feroz said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Brickodillo said:
"It is a good thing when looking at a set like this irks."
And why exactly?
In what way is this set disrespectful towards native Americans? It shows two people in a canoe rowing and a mother with two kids on the shore looking and/or waving.
I think this set is as innocent today as it was back then, and I don't feel any irk when looking at it.
So what's the reason that some say this set couldn't be sold today, or that it "hasn't aged well"?
By that definition one could also criticize the Homemaker line of sets, because they promote the stereotypical housewife, a concept that also doesn't sit well with some people these days, even though there are girls still today who are not interested in seeking a career in business but actually want to be a mother and housewife. Imagine that.
Just because it doesn't fit in with the view of some people doesn't mean it's not a valid goal in life.
Funnily enough it's about exactly the respect that these people are demanding from others but are unwilling to give themselves. People who in their self-righteousness can't see or even imagine that their point of view isn't the only valid one out there.

I mean, who are people of today to judge people of a totally different era?
Back in ancient Rome for example there were slaves, the concept of gladiators and cruelty towards animals for show, yet those were the times back then.
In medieval times there were crusades, and witch hunting and many other kinds of cruelty.
Even today there are cruel and gruesome traditions in many parts of the world, however enlightened we might think the human race might have become.
Or take all the wars still happening around the globe for whatever reason.
In the light of all this, what's the problem with a nearly half a century old LEGO set depicting a perfectly innocent scene of a canoe and a couple of people in and around it.
They are not skalping a settler, or doing the rain dance or whatever other maybe inappropriate action there might be. "

Your comment reads like you’re saying slavery is totally not a bad thing. And I feel any argument that reads like it’s trying to justify slavery has not been made very well "

It doesn't read like that at all.

It just points out how humans tend to point over there, be it in the past or not, while there are many atrocities taking place right in front of us.

No need to twist someone's words so you can disregard it.

There's too much of that going on already."
Thank you. That's exactly what I meant.
In no way did I want to justify slavery or any of the other atrocities I mentioned. Quite the contrary.

I just didn't understand what some think is so horrific, or disrespectful, or generally bad about this innocent set. "

If you didn’t want us to think you were trying to justify slavery then you probably shouldn’t have included “The Romans had slaves and who are we to judge that?” as part of your argument. Because when you say we shouldn’t judge them for having slaves, really sounds like you’re justifying slavery, no?

@Brickalili: I just wrote a really long and comprehensive answer, but when I posted it it disappeared, and I am definitely NOT going to write it all again.
Tl.dr: I didn't want to justify slavery, and I still don't agree that this set contains anything that's disrespectful.

@AustinPowers
So to clarify, after making your original post which involving a critique of people being too self-righteous to respect other people’s views…you’re outright saying that you’re refusing to respect other people’s views because you’re too caught up in your own opinions to respect their views.
…would you like to give that a bit more self-reflection?

@Brickalili : no, because why should I? It's my opinion. Just as those who see this set as problematic are of the opinion that it is indeed disrespectful.
I do respect their opinion, but I don't have to agree with it.

That's the important bit imho that many people today who claim something is disrespectful fail to acknowledge - it's only their opinion. It might be true, it might not be. In the end their opinion is just as valid as mine.

Lovely set, hopefully this theme makes a comeback one day

5966 next? :D

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickodillo said:
"It is a good thing when looking at a set like this irks."
And why exactly?
. "
Well i guess you’re trolling? You cannot see what is wrong with this set if would be released nowadays? If it irks, it means we move on to a more respectful world. And if it doesn’t irk, that means that you need to catch up.

@ZeeEssBS said:
"I found a commercial for this set from 1977 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DJRcAHnZYI "

wow, nice video find.

Legendary set... (infamous is more accurate)

Oh and if I were trolling I might write something like
"Let's level the playing field and make a typical 1980s set called "Red Britains", containing two skinny red sunburned figures with orange hairpieces and knotted handkerchiefs on them, and a bit of beach, two towels as well as two cans of Carlsberg lager as scenery - THAT at least would be appropriate for all the tons of such people I saw at the beach in West Kirby and Hoylake back in the day."

End sarcasm.

@Brickalili said:
"Collar-tugging-with-throat-noises aside, do you need to dismantle the canoe to give the two guys sailing it their legs back?"

Going by the woman in yellow, they'd need four more bricks to be full height. Figuring yellow for loincloths, there are only seven 2x2 bricks available. Either one of them is going to be shorter, or one of them will have to wear longer pants that incorporate a pair of 1x2 blue bricks. More concerning, there's no way for the woman in white to stand up.

@WokePope et al:
He's had comments purged before (so have I, including a few times when I knew it was likely to happen before I even hit the Submit button). He's also been shadowbanned before, and as the subject, typically the only two ways to know are if other people start talking about your absence, or if you check the site while logged out and see that all your posts are missing. If you're shadowbanned, while you're logged in, you can still post and see your posts, but nobody in white can see them (I suspect people in yellow can, so they can monitor if you're settling down or becoming fully unhinged). If the ban is lifted, all your comments, including those you made while banned, presumably come back, but it's unlikely that anyone will ever go back and read them. Being outright banned, I would think the account would either be locked down or deleted, so you couldn't even log in. But I don't have a lot of experience with that. The only time I've had an account banned was when I made it clear I was never coming back to BZP, and again after my account was reinstated and I didn't come back.

@Erylion:
There's a place nearby where, sometime maybe 15-20 years ago, tribes from all over congregated to hold the biggest pow-wow in recorded history, and if my work schedule hadn't been so crazy at the time I really would have liked to check it out. But to my point, I suspect part of the issue is that there was never any word to encompass all of America's tribes before Europeans arrived. They'd never needed one, and there were so many languages that it would have been impossible to pick a single word before then. Afterwards, there was most definitely a need, but all the options currently on the table are of European origin, and any attempt to offer an alternative is going to have to overcome centuries of new tradition, and the fact that there's still no shared language between all the tribes that's not of European origin.

But I get the feeling that TLG has realized that they don't have the history required to do this, and that conflict was so ingrained in the Westward Expansion that it's pretty much impossible to do anything with that subject that doesn't revolve around that conflict. I think the two best paths forward are to just let them keep slipping the odd CMF out (just off the top of my head, I can think of seven they've done so far, ranging from Alaska to southern Mexico). Or the alternative solution would be for them to hire cultural experts (something I don't think they've ever done before) to guide them through releasing a theme that maybe encompasses a pre-colonial history, where only the native tribes have to be represented.

@RaiderOfTheLostBrick:
Probably cases where someone who knew about the set pulled the number up to post in a comment, and then all the people who were unaware that such a set exists had to go gawk at it.

@AustinPowers:
They used primary red for the skin color, which plays into a negative stereotype and a racial slur that even the NFL has washed its hands of. They also put feathers on everybody's heads, which, in my understanding, were only worn by warriors (as wearing such a feather would be taken as a claim that the individual was so stealthy and skillful that they'd plucked the feather from a live eagle).

That aside, there's only one kid depicted. The woman in white is kneeling. Incidentally, I'd been aware that there were a few sets that used minifigs to depict the children of maxifigs, but this is the only set I'm aware of that used a miniquin to do so. Which, ironically, meant t

Something just occurred to me. Be interesting to see someone build a Homemaker-style figure using a lot of bricks that have been introduced since the line (and the Building Set With People line, which is what this set came from) died. I'm talking macaroni bricks, SNOT elements, slopes at angles they didn't start making until the twenty-first century (possibly including cheese and curved slopes), stuff like that. Still use the heads and arms, though.

@PurpleDave: Your comment got cut off, if you didn't notice.

@PurpleDave: Your comment got cut off, if you didn't notice.]]

Only a little bit I believe, and no I hadn't. I was saying that it was ironic because it meant the baby has no face in a set where all the adults do.

Ah, no, one more missed the cut. I spent a few hours trying to find one piece of information, before ultimately giving up. Anyways, gonna have to go on memory for this one.

@Brickalili said:
"Your comment reads like you’re saying slavery is totally not a bad thing. And I feel any argument that reads like it’s trying to justify slavery has not been made very well "

Not disagreeing with you at all, but we do view slavery through a modern lens. In truth, most ancient cultures appear to have practiced some form of slavery. In about a month, black people in the US will be observing Juneteenth, celebrating the end of slavery in the US...except that it wasn't. It was merely the date that the US Army showed up in Texas to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation on the last pocket of slave ownership left in the former Confederate states. It wouldn't be until December that year that the 13th Amendment was ratified, finally ending slavery in border states Delaware and Kentucky (the other border states had already independently ended slavery within their own jurisdiction). And even that didn't fully end things, as Native American tribes are considered to be sovereign nations, not fully subject to US law. Slavery wasn't officially ended in the Indian Territory of Oklahoma until the following year. Most of the time I spent writing that last post was simply trying to track down one name I'd previously encountered, because legal slavery in the US didn't really end until a lone woman died on a Native American reservation some years later. I think she was mute, or at least non-verbal.

@PurpleDave

It's worth noting that Native Americans are quite diverse in culture, and the stereotypical ones with feathered headdresses and tepees often seen in Wild West settings only represent the Native Americans of the Great Plains. Others such as the Iroquois from the Northeastern regions built longhouses, while the Pueblo peoples from the Southwest lived in multistoried mudbrick buildings.

It would be like making figures of people wearing lederhosens and referring them as "Europeans".

@SolidState said:
"I get that Danes in the 70s were maybe not as dialed into American race relations and racist depictions as we are today but they also weren't dialed into American race relations and racist depictions in the 90s either."

Unfortunately even today in the age of the internet there are still ignorant comments going around. Just look at the reactions to the Monkie Kid and Lunar New Year sets, with comments accusing TLG of "pandering", despite Journey to the West being written centuries ago and LNY traditions dating back over a millennium, as if they should only focus on European and American holidays and franchises.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickodillo said:
"It is a good thing when looking at a set like this irks."
And why exactly?
In what way is this set disrespectful towards native Americans? It shows two people in a canoe rowing and a mother with two kids on the shore looking and/or waving.
I think this set is as innocent today as it was back then, and I don't feel any irk when looking at it.
So what's the reason that some say this set couldn't be sold today, or that it "hasn't aged well"?
By that definition one could also criticize the Homemaker line of sets, because they promote the stereotypical housewife, a concept that also doesn't sit well with some people these days, even though there are girls still today who are not interested in seeking a career in business but actually want to be a mother and housewife. Imagine that.
Just because it doesn't fit in with the view of some people doesn't mean it's not a valid goal in life.
Funnily enough it's about exactly the respect that these people are demanding from others but are unwilling to give themselves. People who in their self-righteousness can't see or even imagine that their point of view isn't the only valid one out there.

I mean, who are people of today to judge people of a totally different era?
Back in ancient Rome for example there were slaves, the concept of gladiators and cruelty towards animals for show, yet those were the times back then.
In medieval times there were crusades, and witch hunting and many other kinds of cruelty.
Even today there are cruel and gruesome traditions in many parts of the world, however enlightened we might think the human race might have become.
Or take all the wars still happening around the globe for whatever reason.
In the light of all this, what's the problem with a nearly half a century old LEGO set depicting a perfectly innocent scene of a canoe and a couple of people in and around it.
They are not skalping a settler, or doing the rain dance or whatever other maybe inappropriate action there might be. "

I couldn't have said it better myself. What really bothers me are the white people who feel the need to be offended for everyone else without first asking the people who were supposedly offended. They try to romanticise the culture of the American Indian but are either ignorant to or turn a blind eye to the fact that American Indian tribes DID keep slaves of their own LONG before white people got here and they DID make human sacrifices. I find it hard to romanticise any of that.

This is the longest VSotW comment section by a good margin (this is the eighty-sixth comment). The previous record holder was https://brickset.com/article/92704/vintage-set-of-the-week-moon-landing , with seventy comments, and I expect this one to keep pulling ahead.

@Pekingduckman said:
" @PurpleDave

It's worth noting that Native Americans are quite diverse in culture, and the stereotypical ones with feathered headdresses and tepees often seen in Wild West settings only represent the Native Americans of the Great Plains. Others such as the Iroquois from the Northeastern regions built longhouses, while the Pueblo peoples from the Southwest lived in multistoried mudbrick buildings.

It would be like making figures of people wearing lederhosens and referring them as "Europeans"."

I'm well aware. Just in the past week I posted a comment mentioning a visit to the Alaska Native Heritage Center and the Anchorage Museum, and some of the observations I'd made. The contiguous US has even more varied climate and ecology than just Alaska, so there are even more cultural groups represented in the native peoples. Since I didn't post any reply to you, and you didn't include or state which specific comment you were replying to, I'm guessing you meant the bit to @Erylion, where I suggested a pre-colonial theme. In that, I meant exploring the full breadth of tribal cultures. Even a small theme could touch on most of the major dwelling types, but an ongoing theme could provide a much more in-depth look at the sheer variety. Problem is, how long would such a theme maintain interest enough to stay in production?

Anyways, presently, the Western theme is the only full-on original attempt, and with the teepees, horses, and buffalo headdresses, that pretty clearly only represents the plains culture (which is fair, since the theme _is_ Western, and one of the other main factions is the US Army). The only other major representation is the Lone Ranger theme, which again features a plains tribe (but again, that's where the story is set, and where Bass Reeves originally operated).

For CMFs, 8683, 8803-3, and 71011-5 all look like they share a common style of outfit (except, again, the Tribal Woman looks like she's planning to go to war). 71001-5 also looks like he's from the contiguous US, but has a very different look. I'm not an expert on all the different looks, but my gut instinct says he's from the northeast, maybe Great Lakes region (he just reminds me so much of Wes Studi's Magua in Last of the Mohicans). I suppose you could count 71020-15 and 71038-12, but they're both based on fictional characters more than the actual cultures.

71002-5 _could_ be from Hawaii, but there's a lot of other islands in the South Pacific that he could hail from, and Hawaii isn't technically part of the Americas anymore than Greenland is part of Europe. 8805-4 looks like an Eskimo from the North Slope region (no idea how he compares to the Inuit from Canada or Greenland). 8831-2 and 71029-8 are both clearly Aztecs, so southern Mexico in origin.

@AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better. Making them red feeds into an inaccurate stereotype used to other and dehumanise vast swathes of people for several hundred years in a way that depicting sunburned Britons doesn’t.
Again, for someone who keeps insisting opinions should be respected and other viewpoints seen, you seem quite unwilling to respect other opinions and see beyond your own viewpoint, it renders everything you’re saying into hypocrisy

@Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better. Making them red feeds into an inaccurate stereotype used to other and dehumanise vast swathes of people for several hundred years in a way that depicting sunburned Britons doesn’t.
Again, for someone who keeps insisting opinions should be respected and other viewpoints seen, you seem quite unwilling to respect other opinions and see beyond your own viewpoint, it renders everything you’re saying into hypocrisy "

Have you ever actually met a native American Indian from the southwest US?

@Pekingduckman said:
"It would be like making figures of people wearing lederhosens and referring them as "Europeans"."
Which is kind of ironic, considering what many people in America think typical Germans look like or what is typical of life in Germany - which apparently is wearing Lederhosen and Dirndl, eating Weisswurst and Kraut, drinking vast quantities of beer, and yodeling and shoeplattling all the time ;-)

And the funniest thing is, even though all of the above are at least considered kind of (stereo) typical of Bavarians even in other parts of Germany, Bavaria in itself is made up of two very distinctly different regions that have very different traditions, attire etc. Those being the actual historical region Bavaria, making up only the southern part of the German federal state of Bavaria, and Frankonia (where I live), making up the northern part.

Anyway, I think Germans have a more relaxed attitude towards the subject of American natives, since to us it's merely one of many historical cultures from other parts of the world. For an American it's a direct part of their history and hence emotions might run higher than in a third-party nation. Plus we call them "Indianer", not referring to skin colour at all. Yes, there used to be the term "Rothaut" which literally translates as "red skin", but that term hasn't been around in ages and wasn't even commonly used any longer when I was a kid almost 50 years ago.
And then of course we have Karl May, whose books (and later the insanely popular 60s movies based on them) forever ingrained a love and romantic attitude for the native Americans' culture in many Germans' hearts and minds.

@oldtodd33 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better. Making them red feeds into an inaccurate stereotype used to other and dehumanise vast swathes of people for several hundred years in a way that depicting sunburned Britons doesn’t.
Again, for someone who keeps insisting opinions should be respected and other viewpoints seen, you seem quite unwilling to respect other opinions and see beyond your own viewpoint, it renders everything you’re saying into hypocrisy "

Have you ever actually met a native American Indian from the southwest US? "

I’ve never met a slave; does that mean I can’t call slavery bad? I’ve never met a murderer (…that I know of), does that mean I can’t call murder bad?

@Brickalili said:
" @oldtodd33 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better. Making them red feeds into an inaccurate stereotype used to other and dehumanise vast swathes of people for several hundred years in a way that depicting sunburned Britons doesn’t.
Again, for someone who keeps insisting opinions should be respected and other viewpoints seen, you seem quite unwilling to respect other opinions and see beyond your own viewpoint, it renders everything you’re saying into hypocrisy "

Have you ever actually met a native American Indian from the southwest US? "

I’ve never met a slave; does that mean I can’t call slavery bad? I’ve never met a murderer (…that I know of), does that mean I can’t call murder bad? "
What has your answer got to do with the (imho very valid) question @oldtodd33 asked?
The answer to your (rhetorical) question(s) is of course you don't have to have first-hand experience with someone (or something) to have an opinion on the subject. I would say that's a non-issue.

Heck, I mean I could take offense when people call me an "old white man", since while I'm definitely not young anymore, my skin colour would be best described in LEGO terms as "warm tan". And yes, I checked by holding a piece in said colour next to my arm to verify ;-)

Oh and if you take offense to that last paragraph for being maybe too humorous for the serious subject matter, I would have to ask you directly: are you a native American or of native American descent?
If so then I sincerely apologize if any of my comments came off as disrespectful to your culture and heritage. They definitely weren't meant that way.
But if the answer is no, then my reply is what is it to you anyway? Native Americans don't need you to take offense to something for them.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @oldtodd33 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better. Making them red feeds into an inaccurate stereotype used to other and dehumanise vast swathes of people for several hundred years in a way that depicting sunburned Britons doesn’t.
Again, for someone who keeps insisting opinions should be respected and other viewpoints seen, you seem quite unwilling to respect other opinions and see beyond your own viewpoint, it renders everything you’re saying into hypocrisy "

Have you ever actually met a native American Indian from the southwest US? "

I’ve never met a slave; does that mean I can’t call slavery bad? I’ve never met a murderer (…that I know of), does that mean I can’t call murder bad? "
What has your answer got to do with the (imho very valid) question @oldtodd33 asked?
The answer to your (rhetorical) question(s) is of course you don't have to have first-hand experience with someone (or something) to have an opinion on the subject. I would say that's a non-issue.

Heck, I mean I could take offense when people call me an "old white man", since while I'm definitely not young anymore, my skin colour would be best described in LEGO terms as "warm tan". And yes, I checked by holding a piece in said colour next to my arm to verify ;-) "

The point is that by that same logic if I’ve never met a murderer or a slave I can’t say murder or slavery is bad. I don’t think it’s too much of a hot take to say that’s kind of a nonsense ideal; it certainly doesn’t vibe with your espoused ideas of seeing outside your own viewpoint if you’re now saying only people with a specific viewpoint count ;)

So no I don’t have first hand knowledge of any First Nations people…but what I -do- have is the knowledge of all the other times those people have complained about such portrayals, and I’m choosing to respect their opinions. Can you, who say that’s what you wish to do, say the same?

@Brickalili said:
"So no I don’t have first hand knowledge of any First Nations people…but what I -do- have is the knowledge of all the other times those people have complained about such portrayals, and I’m choosing to respect their opinions. Can you, who say that’s what you wish to do, say the same?"
Actually I do know several people of native American descent personally, back from the days I visited the US and Canada, believe it or not, and we have talked in the past about their history and heritage, because I have been interested in the subject ever since I was a kid. We even talked about the portrayal of their way of life and traditions back in the early 2000s, because back then a movie called "Der Schuh des Manitu", a comedy set in the old West, was massively popular in Germany and even back then some people (Germans) accused it of being culturally insensitive. I wanted to know their view on the subject at the time and they didn't mind at all. They understood that it wasn't meant disrespectfully and took it as the innocent comedy it was.

That's why I asked if you were personally affected by the subject matter, because often enough people not affected by something take offense in lieu of others who might not even mind themselves.

@SearchlightRG said:
" @SolidState said:
"I get that Danes in the 70s were maybe not as dialed into American race relations and racist depictions as we are today but they also weren't dialed into American race relations and racist depictions in the 90s either."

Some of my fellow Americans weren’t exactly doing so hot on that front at the time either. I’ve come across some questionable moments revisiting the cartoons of my childhood."

Some of them still don't...

@AustinPowers
And did that comedy use the same stereotypes as this set? Or did something from the 2000s instead on the 1970s maybe apply a bit more tact? Especially given it seems to a parody, which this set is not. Jumping through quite a few hoops and false equivalencies to justify not listening to people outside your own select bubble there

@SearchlightRG said:
" @SolidState said:
"I get that Danes in the 70s were maybe not as dialed into American race relations and racist depictions as we are today but they also weren't dialed into American race relations and racist depictions in the 90s either."

Some of my fellow Americans weren’t exactly doing so hot on that front at the time either. I’ve come across some questionable moments revisiting the cartoons of my childhood."

Personally, I’m shocked whenever I see a Looney Tunes cartoon today. Between the violence and the racism, I can’t believe that they were acceptable. I’m not at all shocked that kids today are pretty much completely unfamiliar with them and think they are just generic animals at Six Flags.

@Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
And did that comedy use the same stereotypes as this set? Or did something from the 2000s instead on the 1970s maybe apply a bit more tact? Especially given it seems to a parody, which this set is not. Jumping through quite a few hoops and false equivalencies to justify not listening to people outside your own select bubble there"

Like @ToysFromTheAttic said, the movie (a sequel to which will follow this August incidentally) was a parody of the aforementioned 1960s Western movies that were so immensely popular in Germany in those days.
Example: there's a scene where the antagonist tribe wants to dig up the hatchet and go to war with the good guys (the Apache tribe in this case), a typical trope.
Unfortunately they realize that they haven't got a hatchet to dig up since it broke years ago due to having been bought through a cheap outlet (today one might have said it was bought from Temu for example).
So the chief asks what else they got, to which one of the tribesmen answers that they have a folding chair. So the chief cries "dig up the folding chair" (which they do). When our heros see the smoke signals and decipher that "the folding chair has been dug up", the reaction by one of our heroes is "now they've totally lost it".

The whole movie feels a bit like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, only in the "wild" old West.

@AustinPowers
So in other it’s using absurdist comedy not the cliches we’re talking about here, making it a largely worthless comparison to use. Remember, the problem is not “this features Native Americans” it’s “this uses outdated cliches about Native Americans”

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
And did that comedy use the same stereotypes as this set? Or did something from the 2000s instead on the 1970s maybe apply a bit more tact? Especially given it seems to a parody, which this set is not. Jumping through quite a few hoops and false equivalencies to justify not listening to people outside your own select bubble there"

Like @ToysFromTheAttic said, the movie (a sequel to which will follow this August incidentally) was a parody of the aforementioned 1960s Western movies that were so immensely popular in Germany in those days.
Example: there's a scene where the antagonist tribe wants to dig up the hatchet and go to war with the good guys (the Apache tribe in this case), a typical trope.
Unfortunately they realize that they haven't got a hatchet to dig up since it broke years ago due to having been bought through a cheap outlet (today one might have said it was bought from Temu for example).
So the chief asks what else they got, to which one of the tribesmen answers that they have a folding chair. So the chief cries "dig up the folding chair" (which they do). When our heros see the smoke signals and decipher that "the folding chair has been dug up", the reaction by one of our heroes is "now they've totally lost it".

The whole movie feels a bit like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, only in the "wild" old West. "

With the exception that Monty Python and The Holy Grail was genuinely funny and clever. ;-)

@Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
So in other it’s using absurdist comedy not the cliches we’re talking about here, making it a largely worthless comparison to use. Remember, the problem is not “this features Native Americans” it’s “this uses outdated cliches about Native Americans”"
Yes, but my point was (as I wrote earlier) that even this clearly absurd parody drew serious criticism back then by self proclaimed do-gooders for being "culturally insensitive".

@ToysFromTheAttic: I must admit that I found the movie hilarious and fully plan on seeing the new one this year as well.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
So in other it’s using absurdist comedy not the cliches we’re talking about here, making it a largely worthless comparison to use. Remember, the problem is not “this features Native Americans” it’s “this uses outdated cliches about Native Americans”"
Yes, but my point was (as I wrote earlier) that even this clearly absurd parody drew serious criticism back then by self proclaimed do-gooders for being "culturally insensitive". "

Ah so we have to respect opinions and see other’s viewpoints…unless they’re “self proclaimed do-gooders” who which case they should be ignored and insulted. What if those “do-gooders” also had Native American friends who had told them that, unlike yours, they -weren’t- happy with the way they were depicted? You don’t seem willing to consider that, instead writing them off and dismissing them. So much for considering other views, huh? The more you try to defend yourself, the more it becomes clear that the only viewpoint you want to see respected is your own and all others can take a hike

@Brickalili said:
" @oldtodd33 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better. Making them red feeds into an inaccurate stereotype used to other and dehumanise vast swathes of people for several hundred years in a way that depicting sunburned Britons doesn’t.
Again, for someone who keeps insisting opinions should be respected and other viewpoints seen, you seem quite unwilling to respect other opinions and see beyond your own viewpoint, it renders everything you’re saying into hypocrisy "

Have you ever actually met a native American Indian from the southwest US? "

I’ve never met a slave; does that mean I can’t call slavery bad? I’ve never met a murderer (…that I know of), does that mean I can’t call murder bad? "

I asked because if you had actually met one in person you would realize they do really have a reddish skin tone and are easily distinguishable from people of Mexican heritage. The most absurd thing I find about this set is the fact they are in a canoe. If you've ever been to the Southwest US you'd quickly realize there isn't enough water to need a canoe. It seems to me the set is an amalgamation of the Indians of the Eastern US with the canoe and the Indians of the Southwest US with the skin tones.

@oldtodd33 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @oldtodd33 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better. Making them red feeds into an inaccurate stereotype used to other and dehumanise vast swathes of people for several hundred years in a way that depicting sunburned Britons doesn’t.
Again, for someone who keeps insisting opinions should be respected and other viewpoints seen, you seem quite unwilling to respect other opinions and see beyond your own viewpoint, it renders everything you’re saying into hypocrisy "

Have you ever actually met a native American Indian from the southwest US? "

I’ve never met a slave; does that mean I can’t call slavery bad? I’ve never met a murderer (…that I know of), does that mean I can’t call murder bad? "

I asked because if you had actually met one in person you would realize they do really have a reddish skin tone and are easily distinguishable from people of Mexican heritage. The most absurd thing I find about this set is the fact they are in a canoe. If you've ever been to the Southwest US you'd quickly realize there isn't enough water to need a canoe. It seems to me the set is an amalgamation of the Indians of the Eastern US with the canoe and the Indians of the Southwest US with the skin tones. "

Pretty sure the guy who designed this was a Dane who only knew Native American depictions from westerns and cartoons. ;-)

A few years ago I wrote a short review of this set here on Brickset and for some reason this is one of my highest rated reviews, I still wonder why? Although the amount of replies on this VSotW might be an indiciation the fact remains that this is some rather obscure old little set...

@Brickalili said:
" @AustinPowers
Honestly yes, if they’d chosen to make these figures yellow and just called the set “Indians” it probably would be better."

Putting it right in the name certainly didn't improve things, either.

@oldtodd33 said:
"I asked because if you had actually met one in person you would realize they do really have a reddish skin tone and are easily distinguishable from people of Mexican heritage. The most absurd thing I find about this set is the fact they are in a canoe. If you've ever been to the Southwest US you'd quickly realize there isn't enough water to need a canoe. It seems to me the set is an amalgamation of the Indians of the Eastern US with the canoe and the Indians of the Southwest US with the skin tones. "

Having a slightly red tint isn't really the same as being depicted in primary red. And the canoe just shows how little Europeans really understand about the United States. There's at least as much difference between the various indigenous peoples of North America as there is between the countries of Europe, but stereotypes paint them all as a single people. They didn't all ride horses, they didn't all paddle canoes, they didn't all hunt bison, they didn't all live in teepees, they didn't all welcome the Pilgrims, and they didn't all massacre settlers heading to California. The indigenous people of Mexico and the boreal region are so different from the ones living in the contiguous US that we don't even think of them as being part of the same group, but the fact that everyone between the Atlantic and Pacific were treated as a single people is at the root of so many problems that followed.

This looks more like Europeans vacationing in Florida to me.

Before this set got picked, I could easily have seen it getting more than a hundred comments when it did get picked. I probably wouldn't have foreseen the comments having increasingly less and less to do with the actual set, though.

I've seem various threads of people asking for skin tones instead of yellow in Lego City, but then I see these comments, it's like... one can never win with you people...

Releasing this set nowadays would be out of the question, but at the time, in Europe, when I was a kid, indians were a popular theme. Rather inaccurate and idealized, but I thought nothing of it. And LEGO as a European company wouldn't be that sensitive to issues on the other sode of the pond.

Now this set may be a good thing, because it stirs up the discussion on native people.

@crawlerbot said:
"This looks more like Europeans vacationing in Florida to me."

It's a Scottish family two hours after they arrived in Spain.

@AustinPowers said:
"Oh and if I were trolling I might write something like
"Let's level the playing field and make a typical 1980s set called "Red Britains", containing two skinny red sunburned figures with orange hairpieces and knotted handkerchiefs on them, and a bit of beach, two towels as well as two cans of Carlsberg lager as scenery - THAT at least would be appropriate for all the tons of such people I saw at the beach in West Kirby and Hoylake back in the day."

End sarcasm. "

Two cans? If you're going to do it, at least make it accurate!

One of my favourite sets. No matter what some people think today this was clearly made with lots of respect and love for the native americans. Yes they were called something else back then. So were many other things and people.
And frankly, I was a kid in Denmark when that was released: No one thought less of those people by calling them red or indians. We also call our own ancestors vikings - event though we are wrong. They were not actually called vikings and they didn't all go viking to plunder and rape. You choose to be offended - or not be offended.

@Martin_S said:
"One of my favourite sets. No matter what some people think today this was clearly made with lots of respect and love for the native americans."

Not enough love to do even a tiny amount of research into them and avoid presenting them as a broad pastiche of stereotypes.

Wow, there is only 440 of that have this set!. I expected thousands to have this set. The headband piece is a pain to put on then if you buy replacement headbands, they can crack from old age as well. I think I have 7 headbands and 5 are cracked. Then the black paddles are also unique and should have been made a during the Pirates era.

@medleyj said:
"Wow, there is only 440 of that have this set!. I expected thousands to have this set. The headband piece is a pain to put on then if you buy replacement headbands, they can crack from old age as well. I think I have 7 headbands and 5 are cracked. Then the black paddles are also unique and should have been made a during the Pirates era. "

This isn’t the same paddle that minifigs use with rowboats. The blade looks like it’s at least two studs wide, and it has apparently been used as a mirror in the Homemaker theme. But they still never released black minifig oars, though someone currently has 10 listed for sale on BL.

The softness never ceases to amaze me. It’s like the people complaining about Dumbo & the like.

@Vindicare said:
"The softness never ceases to amaze me. It’s like the people complaining about Dumbo & the like. "

Softness of what? I'm not quite understanding your comment.

It's a cute set

@TheOtherMike said:
" @Vindicare said:
"The softness never ceases to amaze me. It’s like the people complaining about Dumbo & the like. "

Softness of what? I'm not quite understanding your comment."

The softness of people. Like “no comment” or “imagine this set in 2025.” Or any number of them referring to the skin tone, inferring like this is something we’d definitely see today because society hasn’t progressed.
We all know this made decades ago when minds were different than they are now. We’ve has plenty of Indians since the 90’s, (carefully stating because I’m not 100% sure) none of which has this skin tone, or name.

It’s much like how Disney decided to put “trigger warnings” on their classics that were made in a very different era. It’s easy to see.

Offended by everything, ashamed of nothing.

@Zeitgeist said:
" @Vindicare said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @Vindicare said:
"The softness never ceases to amaze me. It’s like the people complaining about Dumbo & the like. "

Softness of what? I'm not quite understanding your comment."

The softness of people. Like “no comment” or “imagine this set in 2025.” Or any number of them referring to the skin tone, inferring like this is something we’d definitely see today because society hasn’t progressed.
We all know this made decades ago when minds were different than they are now. We’ve has plenty of Indians since the 90’s, (carefully stating because I’m not 100% sure) none of which has this skin tone, or name.

It’s much like how Disney decided to put “trigger warnings” on their classics that were made in a very different era. It’s easy to see. "

Looks like word-salad's back on the menu."

My apologies for your comprehension ability.

Oh c'mon, not again.

Before this set disappears 'over the horizon', I just want to state: I don't hate this set...now ,now, I realize it has not aged-well, nor under a 'modern lens' is it 'a good thing', but...a friend of mine had this set 'back in the day'; and I thought it was good that Lego was trying to produce...skin-tones for a lack of terminology...I mean, clearly they were trying; the figures' 'tone' is not the same as the red in their canoe (which we should address that design for a minute, but let's stay focused...). Basically, as 'bad' as this set is, it 'crawled' so todays licensed set can walk and run...so in closing: this set is (ironically) like the movie "Blazing Saddles"; in that it could not be made today, but still has certain merits that should not be disregarded or ignored...

@brick_r said:
"Before this set disappears 'over the horizon'..."

Not often the VSotW stays as active as this one has. I mean, I'm posting less than an hour before the next one shows up!