Why does the Table Football set contain skin-toned minifigures?

Cool for this set but I hope this is not a harbinger. I've always thought that yellow "skin tone" is already universalising.

Diversity and inclusiveness is always a good thing. Kudos to Lego!

The idea behind it is nice, but the beauty and appeal of the yellow is that it’s universal, like @Harmonius_Building said. I don’t think they needed to include the skin tones to really make it inclusive.

Are there spare hands, or the color of the hands practically fixes the number of heads with a certain skin tone, that can be used at the same time?

Not sure how I feel about a Lego company that no longer considers basic yellow minifigures good enough to represent everyone.

The point of yellow Lego people was that you could imagine whoever you wanted it to be, it represented everyone.

I’d rather there was more imagination in the world than new Lego parts :D

I wonder if this is a market tester for fleshies in other sets. Hopefully.

The yellow is universal has been an argument since the early 2000s when they released a brown Lando with yellow Luke/Leia. LEGO can claim they’ve always meant it to be universal but that’s a retcon.

They should have made the leap in 2004 amidst the great colour debacle. Better late than never.

@MainBricker said:
" wheelchair football."

I've got a new sport to look up. I've met someone who plays wheelchair rugby (the video he showed me was great, the tackles are super-loud) and basketball but I've never even heard of wheelchair football.

To be inclusive in that regard they'd need 10 wheelchair pieces which would drive up the price even further.

@Harmonious_Building said:
"Cool for this set but I hope this is not a harbinger. I've always thought that yellow "skin tone" is already universalising. "

Me Too

Oof. That blonde on the red team looks drunk.

People are being a bit disingenuous about yellow representing "everyone".

The fact of the matter is I can use a yellow head to make a Minifigures of me and people will recognize it as me. if I had dark skin that would not be the case.

It's also very hard to build Minifigures using alternative skin tones as the only themes that contain them are licensed themes, and even there the main characters are almost always light nougat. Options are limited and pricey on the aftermarket because of it.

I don't want them to ditch yellow as it's iconic, but it seems reasonable to me to introduce at least reddish brown as a skintone to use with the standard yellow for non-licensed themes.

For those who want yellow, I imagine you can easily get all the heads and hands you want. It's much harder to get this many skin-tone parts.

As to the "universal" color, aside from the Lando controversy as noted by @jsworpin, there's a great bit about this in the book Philosophy of Lego. It may be how they tried, but it really doesn't work out perfectly and this sort of representation is great. I'd love if they'd sell a "representation pack" of heads and hands that comes with a lot of these types. Some people want them, others don't, but that's the beauty; you can choose what to use.

@MLF said:
"Not sure how I feel about a Lego company that no longer considers basic yellow minifigures good enough to represent everyone."
I guess it depends on whether today's kids of color consider yellow minifigs good representation. IIRC, LEGO chose yellow in the beginning because kids back then agreed that yellow worked as a neutral skin color. Things are probably quite different now.

I don't like the look of 'fleshies' and am glad that they're only in licensed themes. That said, I'm not at all the target audience for this (once again), so I don't mind this. I just hope this will not be a trend, as yellow minifigs are much easier to use for minifig customization. In fact, I prefer minifigs that don't have too much visible hair either. In the 2000s they would often print some head hair, which meant a fig either had that hair color or had mismatched printed hair and hair element hair. To me it's a bit like that. Licensed figs often have very specific head designs. And the ones that don't end up being generic and used for every licensed fig under the sun. The Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor heads come to mind.
If you like fleshies, there's plenty to choose from now. But if you like yellow minifigs, there's also still plenty to choose from. With original minifig themes making a smaller part of all themes than a decade ago, I really hope Lego doesn't just do away with that choice for the consumer.
Finally I just don't like light flesh. It looks so washed out and pale compared to the regular yellow minifig heads. I guess it's fine to portray real people such as actors. But I much prefer the look of yellow.
So let's hope this is just a one-off.

@Brick_Belt said:
"People are being a bit disingenuous about yellow representing "everyone".

The fact of the matter is I can use a yellow head to make a Minifigures of me and people will recognize it as me. if I had dark skin that would not be the case. "

Respectfully, I think this disingenuousness does cut both ways. Kids and adults are perfectly fine with projecting themselves onto a blocky out-of-proportion plastic creature with claw hands that can time travel and fight space aliens alongside Batman, James Bond, and the Powerpuff Girls, but the plastic not being a match for one's skin tone is just a cognitive bridge too far? Perhaps it's true for some people but I guess I just struggle to get into the mind of such an individual.

I'm quite happy to see a greater variety of regular skin tone heads be made available. I like doing purist custom minifigures and it's remarkably difficult to find heads that accurately reflect the characters. I'm still waiting for a feminine, light flesh head with glasses to ship from the Netherlands (I can't find it in Australia) for my Barbara Gordon/Oracle custom! It's even harder for characters from ethnic minorities.

As for the expansion, I think it should seem appropriate for flesh toned figures to be seen in the 18+ range, as these sets strive for realism. Exceptions can be made to sets like 10305 , where it's intended to be a remaster of the original line, but sets like 21335 could work with flesh tones. I don't think yellow should be retired completely however, it still has use in City and Ninjago. Regardless, I'm glad to see more useful tones be made available.

One more point: Is this the first time LEGO has contradicted their acknowledged that 'Yellow can be anyone'? Kind of contradicts their brand values, but I guess they're more like guidelines nowadays.

Personally I'm a huge fan (Both of foosball and of the minifigures) and will be picking the set up as soon as my budget allows. I'm particularly partial to the minifigure with vitiligo which is SUPER cool, but the whole thing is stellar

Non licensed sets should just keep it yellow, IMO.

@gorillax said:
"if LEGO wanted to be inclusive, a $250 price tag is not, the yellow tone LEGO minifigures already represented everyone, dragging real world politics into this brand is a very dumb move
"

I think you’re missing the point. Sport is something that people aspire to be a part of and therefore being able to play as a mini figure that better represents the individual user is to be applauded, rather than being called dumb!

Funny thing is, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a real foosball table that made any attempt to replicate anyone’s skin tone. Most of them have colored pegs that have one end that vaguely resembles a head (it’s round) and another end that vaguely resembles feet (it’s a wedge). So Lego could have used blue and yellow monofigs and avoided the whole question. Why not include five monofigs each of eight different colors so people can play as their preferred color that way? It would have been an even better monofig pack than Everyone is Awesome.

I'm fine with the skin colours, hoping that yellow will not become extinct.
Just bought this set: https://brickset.com/sets/215-1/Red-Indians
Wonder what the designers were thinking though, with yellow being inclusive already.

"21337 Table Football is the first non-licenced set to contain skin-toned minifigures"

Does 40410 Charles Dickens Tribute not count? It's a public domain work, so I didn't think it was licensed.

@Harmonious_Building said:
" @Brick_Belt said:
"People are being a bit disingenuous about yellow representing "everyone".

The fact of the matter is I can use a yellow head to make a Minifigures of me and people will recognize it as me. if I had dark skin that would not be the case. "

Respectfully, I think this disingenuousness does cut both ways. Kids and adults are perfectly fine with projecting themselves onto a blocky out-of-proportion plastic creature with claw hands that can time travel and fight space aliens alongside Batman, James Bond, and the Powerpuff Girls, but the plastic not being a match for one's skin tone is just a cognitive bridge too far? Perhaps it's true for some people but I guess I just struggle to get into the mind of such an individual.

"

True, but I can make a Minifigures that looks like me, put it in a spacesuit or armor, and use it for play or display. I have used Minifigures of me before for models and know which nougat and which yellow heads work best for making me. I've made models that include my wife and I as Minifigures and we're recognizable in Minifigures form. If my skin color was different I don't think that would be possible due to how limited alternative skin tones are, and even if it was with the limited options available it would be pricey because of the rarity of such alternate skin tones in Lego. I don't think it's hard to imagine that there's kids out there that want to make Minifigures of themselves and face limitations.

It's a very cool concept. I hope the new faces will eventually be available in Pick a Brick too.

@gorillax said:
"if LEGO wanted to be inclusive, a $250 price tag is not, the yellow tone LEGO minifigures already represented everyone, dragging real world politics into this brand is a very dumb move
"

Yeah this is very annoying. Such alternate skintone heads already command a hefty price on the aftermarket. Limiting them to a $250 set doesn't alleviate that.

If anything they should have used generic for the foosball table and sold a separate "football team" set with the minifigs, a couple nets, and a ball. They could advertise compatibility between the two. At least then it would be accessible for people.

@Brick_Belt said:
" @gorillax said:
"if LEGO wanted to be inclusive, a $250 price tag is not, the yellow tone LEGO minifigures already represented everyone, dragging real world politics into this brand is a very dumb move
"

Yeah this is very annoying. Such alternate skintone heads already command a hefty price on the aftermarket. Limiting them to a $250 set doesn't alleviate that."

See how this works, folks? We all got wrapped up in a silly argument when the reality is that all of us should be on the same side against LEGO gouging consumers left and right...

@Harmonious_Building said:
" @Brick_Belt said:
" @gorillax said:
"if LEGO wanted to be inclusive, a $250 price tag is not, the yellow tone LEGO minifigures already represented everyone, dragging real world politics into this brand is a very dumb move
"

Yeah this is very annoying. Such alternate skintone heads already command a hefty price on the aftermarket. Limiting them to a $250 set doesn't alleviate that."

See how this works, folks? We all got wrapped up in a silly argument when the reality is that all of us should be on the same side against LEGO gouging consumers left and right..."

Yup they know these Minifigure heads will be desirable. It's like adding a premium exclusive Minifigures to a icons set to raise the value except here there's no IP so they had to do it other ways.

I also think the feel of the set is different now with actual skin tones, like it’s trying to be a cross between a foosball table and a regular soccer game set. Add in the reduced sized and it just doesn’t quite work when compared to the original submission.

if LEGO is so pro-representation, why won't they offer affordable packs of different hairstyles, clothing and so on instead? not everyone knows/is fond of pick-a-brick and that would also bring a product that can be found on shelves.

Like I said on the other article--these pieces are really cool and I like them. But they don't make sense for a foosball table at all. Foosball is not a soccer game and it's pretty much the last place where representation ever comes to mind.

It's also silly to worry that LEGO has given up on yellow as a universal--there are several cases of recent modern minifigures with yellow skin who are intended to clearly represent different real-world races or ethnicities. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to depict vitiligo on a yellow-skinned minifigure, perhaps with tan lightened areas on the face. I think this set is probably a one-off to deliver some more varied and representative fleshy heads beyond the scope of what licensed themes might offer (due to fairly limited representation in said media)...it's just a bit misplaced in this particular set.

So - people wanted a foosball table, and Lego give them a "decently" priced manifest.

For all those who say that yellow is supposed to represent everyone: would you like to go back to the days of just classic smiley faces with non-detailed torso prints? No overtly feminine or masculine clothing or facial features, no beards, no glasses, no different facial expressions. I know that some people want this, but I didn't think it was a majority view. It's curious to me that Lego minifigures have been moving farther and farther away from being universal and representing "everyone" (though, when I was a kid in the 1990s, I was disappointed that Lego didn't make hair in my color), but people tend to get more up in arms when there's talk about the potential of changing skin tones.

@utlf:
The theater where I watched Minions 2 had a Minions-themed foodball table, which is as close as I’ve ever seen.

@Brick_Belt:
The instant they start mixing yellow and brown in a non-licensed set, they destroy the historical argument that yellow is representative of everyone.

@RaiderOfTheLostBrick:
TLM/TLM2 had a mix of yellow and corpses, thanks to the inclusion of various WB-owned characters and that minidoll.

@iwybs:
I’ve seen at least one foosball table that had varied skintones on the players. What they skipped was any sort of deco on their faces. Blank molded flesh-colored face, and painted hair.

@Wrecknbuild:
That predates real minifigs by about a year.

@Harmonious_Building:
Sorry, too busy being against them having not released a GCPD station yet.

We can always use yellow head if we want. I prefer yellow heads.

@TeaWeevil said:
"For all those who say that yellow is supposed to represent everyone: would you like to go back to the days of just classic smiley faces with non-detailed torso prints? No overtly feminine or masculine clothing or facial features, no beards, no glasses, no different facial expressions. I know that some people want this, but I didn't think it was a majority view. It's curious to me that Lego minifigures have been moving farther and farther away from being universal and representing "everyone" (though, when I was a kid in the 1990s, I was disappointed that Lego didn't make hair in my color), but people tend to get more up in arms when there's talk about the potential of changing skin tones.
"

I feel like the notion of "everyone can be represented by generalities" has proven flawed, since so many people feel defined by and possibly ostracized for the things that make them specific. It's a nice idea to believe in that everyone can be called together under a broad umbrella of humanity or that generic characters can be related to by everyone, but across human history, many people have been treated as inhuman for the things that make them different from the so-called "universal" picture of their society. If anything, representing overlooked experiences and human differences comes closer to representing everyone since humans are complex and live so many different kinds of lives that a generic depiction cannot hope to reflect. If you try to use one generic thing to represent or appeal to everybody, you might not actually *connect with* anybody, and there will always be people questioning the traits you decided were "universal" because they won't be and may reflect on a standard of normalcy that can come off as exclusionary.

I like what LEGO's doing these days. Yellow in regular sets as a universal skin tone, but minifigure facial and hair details that communicate cultural/ethnic/ability/personal specificity. The characters are reflecting more of what real people are while not being singled out for it, and they're all depicted as human without their differences being left out. This set may be a way to make fleshy collectors able to achieve a similar standard.

Lego is made for ANYONE, not EVERYONE.

I've never been a fan of flesh colored minifigures, and only buy sets / minifigures if they're yellow.

@ArchitectureFan said:
"Yellow is only an inclusive skin colour if you are white. Imagine being a non-white kid growing up not really seeing anyone like you in toys. Diverse representation in toys is so important, and I’m so glad Lego is trying to make their toys so much more diverse."

Do you think Master Wu and the Ninjas are "white"? How about Monkey Kid and his friends?

Kids don't care about this stuff unless they have pushy adults in their lives. Most normal adults don't care either. Almost all AFOLs I know, of all stripes, have yellow sigfigs. They judge minifigs by the content of their character (the stories put into them by creative kids and adults) and not the colour of their plastic.

I find it endlessly amusing that the people who claim to be the most broadminded, seem to have the strongest desire to label and divide even the most abstract representation of humans.

I just hope TLG realizes that the people being the most vocal are not the people spending money. I hope they don't throw away nearly 50 years of inclusive design continuity in a vain attempt to appease those vocal people.

The more I look at the set, an even more cynical thought occurs. I wonder if they tried, and failed to get the set sponsored in some capacity. The players were supposed to be real people, and they kept trying beyond the point where the set could be scaled back. Stuck with a huge set with no license "hook", they pivot the marketing, and here we are generating free engagement.

I can completely understand the skin tone mostly for licensed sets reflecting a real life actor or somebody/something similar.

For such a set like this I cannot understand why simple yellow Lego heads aren't used, we were used to them for decades and now they aren't "good enough" or what?

And yes, this for sure increases the price of the set, unfortunately. Hope they will at least keep the yellow heads for Modular buildings (I know prints are now different, but I hope they keep the color at least...).

"It's about representation, diversity and inclusivity." Just be prepared to pay $250. Another puzzling decision by Lego and just shows how out-of-touch the company management is.

@gorillax said:
"if LEGO wanted to be inclusive, a $250 price tag is not, the yellow tone LEGO minifigures already represented everyone, dragging real world politics into this brand is a very dumb move
"
Differences in human skin tone are not "politics", they're just reality — same as differences in hair color, which I've never seen anybody complain about to this extent.

And diverse skin tones in non-licensed sets aren't even something totally new for LEGO. Duplo has had sets with varying skin tones since the 90s, and likewise BrickHeadz and LEGO Friends have had varying skin tone options. From what I've seen, fans of those themes have generally responded very positively to that sort of variety.

I know that traditionally, non-licensed minifigures have used Bright Yellow as a proxy for all human skin tones, but it's not as though only fans of licensed or non-minifigure themes care about these sorts of details. Especially since it adds a lot of creative character customization potential to sets like this one, 76399, 40383, 40384, 40541, 40542, or 40597. I don't see any reason to read any sort of nefarious political motives into it.

The beauty of the yellow classic minifigures is that no actual human skin tone matches that yellow. In a sense, having a "signature minifig" (or "sig fig" as people often call them) with the yellow pieces was about how we are all a part of the hobby at the core and that all other things become auxiliary. We're here to have fun and be creative and, for at least a bit, block out all the real-world misery.

My fear is that Lego will slowly start to phase out this idea for current internet trends. Instead of the core principle of the minifigure being an imaginative symbol of everyone's creative potential, I fear it will just become another means of division - where we have to incorporate real-world arguments and disputes and misery into our creative endeavors and hobbies. I would dare say the majority of us prefer Lego in separation to the current popular socio-political trend, not in complete conjunction.

Of course, you can make your sig fig however you want - I'm not your parent. I just really hope that we can all go back to the idea of the original yellow minifigures being a symbol of the hobby, and not the symbol of the current thing Twitter is on about.

Could have been cheaper if they went with a more generic yellow minifigure and easier to include your own spare heads.
There really is little point in 11 minifigures per side when substituting achieves nothing other than a cosmetic difference and they could have achieved that by providing 5 bodies per side but with extra spare heads.
However, I do wonder if 4 different colour teams (eg red, yellow, green and blue) would have been a better option to encourage people to run tournaments.

If this set was "for everyone" as claimed by the designer maybe it should not have been priced at over $300 Canadian. I know lots of everyones who can't afford this wonderful opportunity to get the shade of colour they identify with. And if i had vitiligo, I wouldn't be really pleased to know Lego wants me to buy a set at this price just so I could have my minifig head.

As said in comments before, seems a weird choice to make an inclusivity move. Why not have these tones available in smaller sets that could be bought by more everyones?

The sad thing is, the idea behind the diverse set of minifigs is great, but they totally chose the wrong set to introduce them.
It's like the designers have never seen or played with a real football table.

The best figs for such a table would have been the pre-minifig late 70s figs with fixed arms and legs. Preferably with black legs and either red or blue (undecorated) torsos and yellow heads without prints.

The minifigs in this set should have been released as a separate "Fun at the..." pack.

Even if you are able to swap the 40+ heads and hairs, hands will be the limiting factor here (swapping hands is not official and potentially weakens hands/arms over time)

As for details, if the torsos would have had printing, short sleeves, or dual moulded short shorts it would have been even more complicated, in that case yellow has it's own advantages.

It's nice to add more heads for sure, but both yellow and skin tones have their pros and cons when it comes to swapping parts.

That said, LEGO is certainly working on more, just based on minidolls, LEGO even doubled the amount of skin tones from 3 to 6 this year which is a big leap.

@GBP_Chris said:
"The beauty of the yellow classic minifigures is that no actual human skin tone matches that yellow. In a sense, having a "signature minifig" (or "sig fig" as people often call them) with the yellow pieces was about how we are all a part of the hobby at the core and that all other things become auxiliary. We're here to have fun and be creative and, for at least a bit, block out all the real-world misery.

My fear is that Lego will slowly start to phase out this idea for current internet trends. Instead of the core principle of the minifigure being an imaginative symbol of everyone's creative potential, I fear it will just become another means of division - where we have to incorporate real-world arguments and disputes and misery into our creative endeavors and hobbies. I would dare say the majority of us prefer Lego in separation to the current popular socio-political trend, not in complete conjunction.

Of course, you can make your sig fig however you want - I'm not your parent. I just really hope that we can all go back to the idea of the original yellow minifigures being a symbol of the hobby, and not the symbol of the current thing Twitter is on about."

I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun.

How can they talk about diversity when there's a severe lack of Scott Sterling in this set?!

All jokes aside, I wonder what the price could have been if it was just the table and 10 "neutral" yellow minifigs, not all of the unnecessary fluff....

Ah, now I understand the intense unnecessary hatred for this set upon its reveal. It all makes perfect sense now...

@MLF said:
"Not sure how I feel about a Lego company that no longer considers basic yellow minifigures good enough to represent everyone."

100% agree with you.

I thought the first non-licensed sets to contain skin-toned minifigures were the LEGO MOVIE sets with Vitruvius. Were they not?

@8BrickMario said:
"I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun."

I don't think it's quite as simple as "joyful." Ethnicity has become an incredibly sensitive issue thanks to the internet being, well, the internet, and quickly oscillates between the extremes of self-righteous virtue signalling and self-absorbed trend marketing. Until we see a sizeable social shift in the internet (and by extension, the Lego fanbase), it will continue to be a sensitive issue that opportunistic people will twist for selfish gain - and, in consequence, dilute its sincerity even further. We have ended up with buzzwords around the idea that prompt division online as people become more obsessed with appearing virtuous versus acting virtuous.

In raw premise alone, having more Lego minifigure skin tones is a really cool idea, and I know the fans appreciate more variety, but the internet is its own beast and I know this set will be used as a means of driving people to extremes yet again. Additionally, the classic minifigure has been a quieter yet more potent symbol of unity in a fanbase, and one I am quite happy with as I mentioned in my previous comment. I just really hope that Lego sticks with this idea of unity without marketing fanfare, versus the inevitable money-making diversity we keep seeing companies do. With the way this set is produced, I am already bracing for the further mud-slinging the fans are going to engage in and, by proxy, reward Lego for merchandising a sociological situation even further.

@GBP_Chris said:
" @8BrickMario said:
"I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun."

I don't think it's quite as simple as "joyful." Ethnicity has become an incredibly sensitive issue thanks to the internet being, well, the internet, and quickly oscillates between the extremes of self-righteous virtue signalling and self-absorbed trend marketing. Until we see a sizeable social shift in the internet (and by extension, the Lego fanbase), it will continue to be a sensitive issue that opportunistic people will twist for selfish gain - and, in consequence, dilute its sincerity even further. We have ended up with buzzwords around the idea that prompt division online as people become more obsessed with appearing virtuous versus acting virtuous.

In raw premise alone, having more Lego minifigure skin tones is a really cool idea, and I know the fans appreciate more variety, but the internet is its own beast and I know this set will be used as a means of driving people to extremes yet again. Additionally, the classic minifigure has been a quieter yet more potent symbol of unity in a fanbase, and one I am quite happy with as I mentioned in my previous comment. I just really hope that Lego sticks with this idea of unity without marketing fanfare, versus the inevitable money-making diversity we keep seeing companies do. With the way this set is produced, I am already bracing for the further mud-slinging the fans are going to engage in and, by proxy, reward Lego for merchandising a sociological situation even further."

Ethnicity has been an issue because us white people spent 200 years taking over the planet and enslaving an entire continent. The US civil rights act is not even 100 years old yet and it's been in more danger than ever than being repealed. POC are still being killed in the name of white supremacy to this day. It is just factually incorrect to claim that racial issues are just an "internet thing"

Frankly, i would rather people just come right out and say they are uncomfortable with seeing non-white people than do this weird masked concern. People here are being weird about it for no reason other than they saw the word "diversity" and got triggered and have to go into the comments and virtue signal about how much they don't care about it or how it's actually harmful (?) to be more inclusive.

@8BrickMario said:
"hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!"

Of course, had they stuck with yellow figs, then the head with vitiligo could represent those of all races who have vitiligo...

@Trionx said:
" @GBP_Chris said:
" @8BrickMario said:
"I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun."

I don't think it's quite as simple as "joyful." Ethnicity has become an incredibly sensitive issue thanks to the internet being, well, the internet, and quickly oscillates between the extremes of self-righteous virtue signalling and self-absorbed trend marketing. Until we see a sizeable social shift in the internet (and by extension, the Lego fanbase), it will continue to be a sensitive issue that opportunistic people will twist for selfish gain - and, in consequence, dilute its sincerity even further. We have ended up with buzzwords around the idea that prompt division online as people become more obsessed with appearing virtuous versus acting virtuous.

In raw premise alone, having more Lego minifigure skin tones is a really cool idea, and I know the fans appreciate more variety, but the internet is its own beast and I know this set will be used as a means of driving people to extremes yet again. Additionally, the classic minifigure has been a quieter yet more potent symbol of unity in a fanbase, and one I am quite happy with as I mentioned in my previous comment. I just really hope that Lego sticks with this idea of unity without marketing fanfare, versus the inevitable money-making diversity we keep seeing companies do. With the way this set is produced, I am already bracing for the further mud-slinging the fans are going to engage in and, by proxy, reward Lego for merchandising a sociological situation even further."

Ethnicity has been an issue because us white people spent 200 years taking over the planet and enslaving an entire continent. The US civil rights act is not even 100 years old yet and it's been in more danger than ever than being repealed. POC are still being killed in the name of white supremacy to this day. It is just factually incorrect to claim that racial issues are just an "internet thing"

Frankly, i would rather people just come right out and say they are uncomfortable with seeing non-white people than do this weird masked concern. People here are being weird about it for no reason other than they saw the word "diversity" and got triggered and have to go into the comments and virtue signal about how much they don't care about it or how it's actually harmful (?) to be more inclusive. "

This comment is so ignorant is doesn’t even get the European colonization of the America’s right. It’s been much longer than 200 years. But it turns out, whites people aren’t the only conquerors throughout history. The Mongols, the Ottomans, etc had multicontinent empires too.

And where did you pull the Civil Rights act thing from??

@GBP_Chris said:
" @8BrickMario said:
"I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun."

I don't think it's quite as simple as "joyful." Ethnicity has become an incredibly sensitive issue thanks to the internet being, well, the internet, and quickly oscillates between the extremes of self-righteous virtue signalling and self-absorbed trend marketing. Until we see a sizeable social shift in the internet (and by extension, the Lego fanbase), it will continue to be a sensitive issue that opportunistic people will twist for selfish gain - and, in consequence, dilute its sincerity even further. We have ended up with buzzwords around the idea that prompt division online as people become more obsessed with appearing virtuous versus acting virtuous.

In raw premise alone, having more Lego minifigure skin tones is a really cool idea, and I know the fans appreciate more variety, but the internet is its own beast and I know this set will be used as a means of driving people to extremes yet again. Additionally, the classic minifigure has been a quieter yet more potent symbol of unity in a fanbase, and one I am quite happy with as I mentioned in my previous comment. I just really hope that Lego sticks with this idea of unity without marketing fanfare, versus the inevitable money-making diversity we keep seeing companies do. With the way this set is produced, I am already bracing for the further mud-slinging the fans are going to engage in and, by proxy, reward Lego for merchandising a sociological situation even further."

You're kidding yourself if you think the topic of racial/ethnic diversity wasn't a "sensitive issue" prior to the Internet. And yet it's not like nobody cared about the importance of representing that diversity before the Internet, either! After all, that's why shows like Super Friends, Captain Planet, and The Magic School Bus had ethnically diverse protagonists. Mind you, these shows were often guilty of tokenism in that regard, but if anything, that makes their efforts to represent people of various races and ethnicities even MORE obvious in hindsight.

The biggest difference between now and the pre-Internet days in this regard is that back then, people who wanted to broadcast their grievances about "political correctness", "multiculturalism", "forced diversity", or whatever other buzzword was in vogue at the time had to rely on TV, radio, and print media to get their message out — as did those who wanted to voice their support for that sort of representation in turn!

As such, today you end up with folks coming across these sorts of exhausting "culture war" debates via the Internet and not realizing that they're just re-litigating the same tired old arguments people have been having about these topics for over three decades at this point — longer than some of us have been alive!

Avoiding this sort of representation ENTIRELY because some folks' opinions on it are just as backwards as they were in the 70s or 80s is not only cowardly, but also does nothing to help alleviate those sorts of prejudices or resonate with wider audiences. Kids of my generation and beyond grew up with toys, products, and media that acknowledged racial diversity as a fact of life, implicit to the increasingly interconnected world we live in. What does LEGO gain from pretending their buyers can't handle that simple reality?

Sorry, AFOLS, yellow is not a good representation of neutral skin tone, no matter the original LEGO intention or what you insist on. It's Caucasian. I guarantee if you polled non-AFOLs, the large majority would say the classic yellow fig represents white skin.
I've heard a black teen at Build a Fig at my closest LEGO store make the joke to his friends that they "don't have any heads that look like me." You may want to think yellow is neutral, and in ideal world maybe it would, but it just isn't that way in the real world. Sorry for saying so.

Lego's own public statements about diversity and inclusion have made it clear that they are going to expand racial representation in their parts. This is a major early step, not the last. I don't know why so many here are arguing about it like this is a matter of debate when Lego has made their own position very clear.

Lego even used to have a FAQ item where they defended the history of the yellow minifigure, but they've taken that offline.

This is also not an issue specific to Lego. Emoji used to only be in one color--not confidentially, yellow--and then about a decade ago the Unicode Consortium expanded to include other races. The entire world and the internet have accepted that. The jury isn't out, there's no reason for Lego to resist, they're overdue for catching up.

Finally, there are a ton of bad-faith arguments here about representation and I don't think they're worth engaging with. Get ready for the future, because it's coming, and mock indignation isn't going to stop it.

@8BrickMario said:
" @TeaWeevil said:
"For all those who say that yellow is supposed to represent everyone: would you like to go back to the days of just classic smiley faces with non-detailed torso prints? No overtly feminine or masculine clothing or facial features, no beards, no glasses, no different facial expressions. I know that some people want this, but I didn't think it was a majority view. It's curious to me that Lego minifigures have been moving farther and farther away from being universal and representing "everyone" (though, when I was a kid in the 1990s, I was disappointed that Lego didn't make hair in my color), but people tend to get more up in arms when there's talk about the potential of changing skin tones.
"

I feel like the notion of "everyone can be represented by generalities" has proven flawed, since so many people feel defined by and possibly ostracized for the things that make them specific. It's a nice idea to believe in that everyone can be called together under a broad umbrella of humanity or that generic characters can be related to by everyone, but across human history, many people have been treated as inhuman for the things that make them different from the so-called "universal" picture of their society. If anything, representing overlooked experiences and human differences comes closer to representing everyone since humans are complex and live so many different kinds of lives that a generic depiction cannot hope to reflect. If you try to use one generic thing to represent or appeal to everybody, you might not actually *connect with* anybody, and there will always be people questioning the traits you decided were "universal" because they won't be and may reflect on a standard of normalcy that can come off as exclusionary.

I like what LEGO's doing these days. Yellow in regular sets as a universal skin tone, but minifigure facial and hair details that communicate cultural/ethnic/ability/personal specificity. The characters are reflecting more of what real people are while not being singled out for it, and they're all depicted as human without their differences being left out. This set may be a way to make fleshy collectors able to achieve a similar standard. "

Oh, I completely agree with your first paragraph, and I hope I didn't come across differently. I love how Lego has continued to make minifigures more personalized, and I think things like this set can be a great step forward, if it's done at a lower price point.

As for your second paragraph, I mostly agree. My Lego town is populated by a variety of flesh-toned minifigures; the visual homogeneity of all yellow just didn't look right for the kind of town I wanted. However, if Lego is going to do something like this, I hope that they'd make it a bit more accessible. I would love a $20 or $30 minifigure pack (like the people packs they used to do) with different minifigure flesh tones, for example. Essentially: I like what they're doing, and I see the charm of the yellow minifigure, but I wish they would expand on things like this.

@Ridgeheart said:
"Is that Richard Ayoade on the blue team?
Man, I guess Moss really got into soccer in a big way, after all."

The thing about the red team is they always try to walk it in!

@TeaWeevil said:
"For all those who say that yellow is supposed to represent everyone: would you like to go back to the days of just classic smiley faces with non-detailed torso prints? No overtly feminine or masculine clothing or facial features, no beards, no glasses, no different facial expressions. I know that some people want this, but I didn't think it was a majority view. It's curious to me that Lego minifigures have been moving farther and farther away from being universal and representing "everyone" (though, when I was a kid in the 1990s, I was disappointed that Lego didn't make hair in my color), but people tend to get more up in arms when there's talk about the potential of changing skin tones.
"

Speaking as someone whose childhood was in the 1980s: I didn't think my own play was enhanced by the introduction of heads other than the original yellow smiley. A lot of the new heads were, in my view, ugly (bandits, wicked witches and so forth) and I didn't have any use for them, so I'd end up with more usable bodies than heads to go on them. For me, it was part and parcel of Lego wanting to dictate who was a Good character and who was a Bad character rather than letting me decide that for myself.

That's orthogonal to the question of skin tone, of course. Seen from the present day, I think the idea of a pack of minifigure parts with different skin tones and hair colours is a great one. I'm inclined to agree though with those commenters who think it it might have been better standalone rather than part of an expensive football set. And I'd be sorry if it ever got to the point that the original yellow colour was retired.

Seems like an excuse for the high price tag. I’ve been around plenty of foosball tables and they’ve all been bland faceless things. They’re cool & all, but would’ve been better suited to a City People Pack.

I'm happy with the current situation - fleshies for licensed figures and yellow for classic themes like castle, space, city etc.

if they go for fleshies in some classic themes you're going to end up with the same cognitive dissonance you feel when you see some recent Hollywood productions where, for example, a castle set with clear European medieval architecture will be full of black or asian minifigs when historically populations were much more insular before globalisation.

Gonna just slip this in here like so…

I was fine with how minifigs had been, by and large. When licensed themes started to use other colors, it did eventually allow for me to make a sigfig that better looked as I do (see avatar). But prior to this, I had no problem being represented by someone with a basic yellow head and that iconic smile. My imagination did the rest for me (and still does). But, since now there’s so much more variety, I try to apply that to my LEGO cities. I also like how there’s a John Stewart minifigure. I too am black and (originally) from Detroit. For me, this is cool. But without this being a thing, I could have just imagined it as a thing. I would like more facial variety in dark tone heads. Feels like I can choose either from a comical smile or a stern gaze… more in-between would be nice.

@Trionx said:
" @GBP_Chris said:
" @8BrickMario said:
"I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun."

I don't think it's quite as simple as "joyful." Ethnicity has become an incredibly sensitive issue thanks to the internet being, well, the internet, and quickly oscillates between the extremes of self-righteous virtue signalling and self-absorbed trend marketing. Until we see a sizeable social shift in the internet (and by extension, the Lego fanbase), it will continue to be a sensitive issue that opportunistic people will twist for selfish gain - and, in consequence, dilute its sincerity even further. We have ended up with buzzwords around the idea that prompt division online as people become more obsessed with appearing virtuous versus acting virtuous.

In raw premise alone, having more Lego minifigure skin tones is a really cool idea, and I know the fans appreciate more variety, but the internet is its own beast and I know this set will be used as a means of driving people to extremes yet again. Additionally, the classic minifigure has been a quieter yet more potent symbol of unity in a fanbase, and one I am quite happy with as I mentioned in my previous comment. I just really hope that Lego sticks with this idea of unity without marketing fanfare, versus the inevitable money-making diversity we keep seeing companies do. With the way this set is produced, I am already bracing for the further mud-slinging the fans are going to engage in and, by proxy, reward Lego for merchandising a sociological situation even further."

Ethnicity has been an issue because us white people spent 200 years taking over the planet and enslaving an entire continent. The US civil rights act is not even 100 years old yet and it's been in more danger than ever than being repealed. POC are still being killed in the name of white supremacy to this day. It is just factually incorrect to claim that racial issues are just an "internet thing"

Frankly, i would rather people just come right out and say they are uncomfortable with seeing non-white people than do this weird masked concern. People here are being weird about it for no reason other than they saw the word "diversity" and got triggered and have to go into the comments and virtue signal about how much they don't care about it or how it's actually harmful (?) to be more inclusive. "

While I appreciate the sentiment and generally agree with other comments which feel likewise, its morally dogmatic presentation is unhelpful to discourse and ultimately damaging to its cause, for the binary implication that “unless you value ethnicity as highly as the original commenter does (as a non-white person myself, I do not) you are a racist” is not going to convince anybody of your argument and will instead further solidify the opinions of those on the opposing side (one response to feeling attacked is to double down on one’s opinions); and the binary too leaves little room for nuance. (I would also point out that America isn’t the world’s centre; not all arguments need to revolve around it.)

Woke has arrived at TLG

@tomenadi said:
"Woke has arrived at TLG "

You haven't been paying attention have you?

When you really think about it, yellow figs are not the standard people hold them as. Duplo figs have been fleshy since the 90’s. Friends has only ever had flesh tones. And given how much of LEGO’s product portfolio is based on licensed material, the number of actual lines that use yellow figs is smaller than you might have realised…!

The way I see it, once you start trying to please everyone, you please no one. Lego hasn't been racist or non-diverse before, they've just been Lego. Once they start shifting in a certain direction, it will only go downhill. The yellow heads are the best way to just be Lego, nothing more.

I think it’s about time that TLG acknowledges that the yellow minifigures just aren’t a good way to represent a diverse group of people. While the intention may have been good (to have one color to represent any race), there is no way to really ignore that many people see yellow = white. Emojis have acknowledged it, the Simpsons acknowledged it, and I think it would be a smart move for LEGO too. Now, maybe in some themes/sets there could still be room for yellow minifigures. For instance, classic spacemen or other recreations/callbacks to the past. Maybe even keep cmfs yellow for now. But I think for the majority of in-house themes (especially City) they really need to make the switch. I know that’s not a popular opinion amongst AFOLs but I think the benefit it would provide to children far outweighs any fandom moaning. Just my 2 cents.

It is a nice set, even though it is a shame it is a sized down table football set. It probably would have been too expensive otherwise?!
I am not going to buy it, but I like it as it is.

I like classic yellow head & hands minifigs as well as the so-called 'fleshies' that try to emulate the various races / ethnicities that all comprise the species: Homo Sapiens, we all are members of. Then again, plenty of minifigs represent non-human alien/fantasy humanoid races, and I mostly like those minifigs too.

I read a bunch of comments, and here are my proverbial two cents about this topic:
The entire supposed inclusivity and diversity ideology, which when it comes to accepting deemed 'politically incorrect' opinions, and being open to views which divert from its rather narrow and forced norm it is in the habit of pushing onto all others, all too often demonstrates how non-inclusive this virtue signalling 'diversity religion' actually is. So I really don't care for it, and I don't think anyone here is going to convince anybody else why fleshies or yellow-heads are right or wrong, or whether the mix of various shades of light and brown skin tones, and types of hairpiece and colours is balanced enough etc.

Love this set, or hate it, for what you perceive it to represent. Buy it or skip it. The choice is yours.
Table football is fun, building one out of Lego that works and can handle the duress and stress from people pulling and shoving those handle bars must be tough. But it is probably all about the idea, the same way some other Lego Ideas were about recreating something out of Lego that captivates the spirit, and that is fun to built and look at, and not so much about being a realistic football table or piano etc.

I think, in regards to all the comments on the articles related to this set, it is important to remember that the folks here at Brickset represent only a VERY NARROW slice of the Lego fan community. That's not an insult to Brickset members - you're fans as much as any other fan - but I think it's critical to remember that the views of people here do not necessarily represent the views of the vast majority of Lego customers.

The Lego customers I interact with in real life on a daily basis often have completely different views from those shared in these forums. That's almost certainly because this is not a statistically accurate representation of the community, but rather a self selecting segment of fans who have relatively similar views and similar passion for Lego.

So, while I think everyone here has a right to express their views on pricing, scale, minifig diversity, etc, without being subject to ad hominem attacks, it's also worth being humble and understanding that we are just a piece of the Lego community, and there are many other fans out there who have never been to this website who have totally different thoughts about what makes a good, desirable Lego set.

@Sandinista said:
" @Trionx said:
" @GBP_Chris said:
" @8BrickMario said:
"I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun."

I don't think it's quite as simple as "joyful." Ethnicity has become an incredibly sensitive issue thanks to the internet being, well, the internet, and quickly oscillates between the extremes of self-righteous virtue signalling and self-absorbed trend marketing. Until we see a sizeable social shift in the internet (and by extension, the Lego fanbase), it will continue to be a sensitive issue that opportunistic people will twist for selfish gain - and, in consequence, dilute its sincerity even further. We have ended up with buzzwords around the idea that prompt division online as people become more obsessed with appearing virtuous versus acting virtuous.

In raw premise alone, having more Lego minifigure skin tones is a really cool idea, and I know the fans appreciate more variety, but the internet is its own beast and I know this set will be used as a means of driving people to extremes yet again. Additionally, the classic minifigure has been a quieter yet more potent symbol of unity in a fanbase, and one I am quite happy with as I mentioned in my previous comment. I just really hope that Lego sticks with this idea of unity without marketing fanfare, versus the inevitable money-making diversity we keep seeing companies do. With the way this set is produced, I am already bracing for the further mud-slinging the fans are going to engage in and, by proxy, reward Lego for merchandising a sociological situation even further."

Ethnicity has been an issue because us white people spent 200 years taking over the planet and enslaving an entire continent. The US civil rights act is not even 100 years old yet and it's been in more danger than ever than being repealed. POC are still being killed in the name of white supremacy to this day. It is just factually incorrect to claim that racial issues are just an "internet thing"

Frankly, i would rather people just come right out and say they are uncomfortable with seeing non-white people than do this weird masked concern. People here are being weird about it for no reason other than they saw the word "diversity" and got triggered and have to go into the comments and virtue signal about how much they don't care about it or how it's actually harmful (?) to be more inclusive. "

This comment is so ignorant is doesn’t even get the European colonization of the America’s right. It’s been much longer than 200 years. But it turns out, whites people aren’t the only conquerors throughout history. The Mongols, the Ottomans, etc had multicontinent empires too.

And where did you pull the Civil Rights act thing from?? "

What a silly, whataboutist, comment. The Mongol and Ottoman no longer exist, whereas as of 2020 people of colour still had to protest for their civil rights.

@GBP_Chris said:
" @8BrickMario said:
"I don't see how LEGO happily and honestly depicting diverse groups of people through multiple forms can be anything but joyful. It's the moment people start speaking up against it or calling it unnecessary that reminds me of the misery of reality. And maybe LEGO's doing it for cynical reasons and brownie points, but I don't find that to cancel out the nice fact that hey, now we have a minifigure head with vitiligo!

The yellow minifigure has not ceased to be an iconic and unifying symbol of LEGO. But there is no generic universal human, and both the yellow figures and the fleshies are doing more to reflect that truth. This set is not a threat to the use of yellow figures and specifc inclusivity should not prevent those not in said groups from having fun."

I don't think it's quite as simple as "joyful." Ethnicity has become an incredibly sensitive issue thanks to the internet being, well, the internet, and quickly oscillates between the extremes of self-righteous virtue signalling and self-absorbed trend marketing. Until we see a sizeable social shift in the internet (and by extension, the Lego fanbase), it will continue to be a sensitive issue that opportunistic people will twist for selfish gain - and, in consequence, dilute its sincerity even further. We have ended up with buzzwords around the idea that prompt division online as people become more obsessed with appearing virtuous versus acting virtuous.

In raw premise alone, having more Lego minifigure skin tones is a really cool idea, and I know the fans appreciate more variety, but the internet is its own beast and I know this set will be used as a means of driving people to extremes yet again. Additionally, the classic minifigure has been a quieter yet more potent symbol of unity in a fanbase, and one I am quite happy with as I mentioned in my previous comment. I just really hope that Lego sticks with this idea of unity without marketing fanfare, versus the inevitable money-making diversity we keep seeing companies do. With the way this set is produced, I am already bracing for the further mud-slinging the fans are going to engage in and, by proxy, reward Lego for merchandising a sociological situation even further."

What? How is having multiple skin colours "sensitive"? This is just as silly as people complaining that Barbie in the last decades produced dolls of colour, after having the same skinny blonde for decades.

Social attitudes change and move on. What's acceptable decades ago may not be so because people rightfully realise that they exclude marginalised peoples. There's a reason why we don't see Blackface anymore, or sets like 215 to represent Native Americans.

You are all missing the easiest solution to the problem - they should have added yellow as one of the skin tones in the pack, in addition to all of the realistic tones. That way anyone can set up a completely yellow minifig table if they want, without it having to be a question of 'yellow is universal' or race. I think this would have changed the conversation on sites like Brickset considerably, if yellow were included as an option already. It would run the risk of some claiming it is racial to offer yellow as a skin tone but that feels like a mild controversy when so many people know yellow is LEGO tone already.

At the same time, I say it might have not been a bad idea to simply release a group of diverse mix and match heads, hands and hairstyles as an evergreen product - just like what's included here or the Hogwarts trunk - so that each set can afford to contain fewer options. This will not just be useful for POC who want to customize their minifigures but also for customizers in general - I'd really like to change some of the Shang Chi characters out for example. (It might sound like it runs the risk of relegating POC to an add-on pack, but I still want sets like this and the Trunk to include additional pieces for poc. I just think maybe broader options would be possible if a further add-on were available.)

LEGO bright yellow is what all people look like in LEGO’s reality. With the right hairstyle, face printing, and clothing, everyone can create a LEGO-reality version of themselves. Given the choice between my skin tone and the bright yellow of a LEGO person, I’ll take bright yellow every time because I want to see what I’d look like in that reality.

Licensed properties are a different issue because people want the minifigs to look exactly like the source material, which is not from the LEGO reality.

This set is strange in that it neither fits into LEGO’s reality nor is it a licensed property representing actual people or established characters.

I love this feature of the set.

I’ve decided to forgo reading any previous comments on this article to preserve my sense of goodwill.

@Aanchir said:
"
Differences in human skin tone are not "politics", they're just reality — same as differences in hair color, which I've never seen anybody complain about to this extent.
"

You are right that everyone's skin tone is not politics. But pushing diversity, inclusion and pointing out at this fact is a damn real politics.

Or have you ever seen so many activists pointing out at group of people with the same hair color that they are not diverse enough, not inclusive enough etc. ... You are comparing bear to apples.

To me it simply looks like virtue signalling to try to make up for the set being bad. But when there's no true virtue in it... it won't make the set any better either.

A lot of (probably white) people saying "yellow minifigs represent everyone". Have you actually asked people of colour if they feel represented? A lot of people I know don't feel yellow minifigs represent them. When LEGO first started portraying real people in basketball sets, black players didn't want to be represented as yellow minifigs, which is why skintones were introduced.
I've seen a lot of AFOL displays that inserted a few brown minifigs, suggesting the builders see the yellow minifigs as white people. The same could be said of LEGO, as the first version of Cloud City in the Star Wars theme featured a brown Lando while all the other minifigs in the Star Wars theme at the time had yellow faces.

@lostcarpark said:
"A lot of (probably white) people saying "yellow minifigs represent everyone". Have you actually asked people of colour if they feel represented? A lot of people I know don't feel yellow minifigs represent them. When LEGO first started portraying real people in basketball sets, black players didn't want to be represented as yellow minifigs, which is why skintones were introduced.
I've seen a lot of AFOL displays that inserted a few brown minifigs, suggesting the builders see the yellow minifigs as white people. The same could be said of LEGO, as the first version of Cloud City in the Star Wars theme featured a brown Lando while all the other minifigs in the Star Wars theme at the time had yellow faces."

Ok, but why does Lego have to "represent"? Why do you feel the need to be "represented" in a fictional world of plastic toys? Why are you incapable of enjoying a toy for what it is? No one is yellow in the real world, yet for decades yellow minifigs worked perfectly fine, because it was never supposed to "represent" the real world, it was always it's own different world. What's different now? Suddenly people cannot comprehend that maybe this fictional world is different to ours? Or are they so egocentric nowadays that they think everything should revolve around them and "represent" them?

And don't tell me about licensed sets, because I always said it was a mistake and Lego should never have attempted to recreate other intellectual properties. I know Star Wars saved them, but I don't care, modern Lego has no appeal to me.

@Arnoldos said:
" @lostcarpark said:
"A lot of (probably white) people saying "yellow minifigs represent everyone". Have you actually asked people of colour if they feel represented? A lot of people I know don't feel yellow minifigs represent them. When LEGO first started portraying real people in basketball sets, black players didn't want to be represented as yellow minifigs, which is why skintones were introduced.
I've seen a lot of AFOL displays that inserted a few brown minifigs, suggesting the builders see the yellow minifigs as white people. The same could be said of LEGO, as the first version of Cloud City in the Star Wars theme featured a brown Lando while all the other minifigs in the Star Wars theme at the time had yellow faces."

Ok, but why does Lego have to "represent"? Why do you feel the need to be "represented" in a fictional world of plastic toys? Why are you incapable of enjoying a toy for what it is? No one is yellow in the real world, yet for decades yellow minifigs worked perfectly fine, because it was never supposed to "represent" the real world, it was always it's own different world. What's different now? Suddenly people cannot comprehend that maybe this fictional world is different to ours? Or are they so egocentric nowadays that they think everything should revolve around them and "represent" them?

And don't tell me about licensed sets, because I always said it was a mistake and Lego should never have attempted to recreate other intellectual properties. I know Star Wars saved them, but I don't care, modern Lego has no appeal to me."

Thank you for this comment.

@vzarmo said:
" @Arnoldos said:
" @lostcarpark said:
"A lot of (probably white) people saying "yellow minifigs represent everyone". Have you actually asked people of colour if they feel represented? A lot of people I know don't feel yellow minifigs represent them. When LEGO first started portraying real people in basketball sets, black players didn't want to be represented as yellow minifigs, which is why skintones were introduced.
I've seen a lot of AFOL displays that inserted a few brown minifigs, suggesting the builders see the yellow minifigs as white people. The same could be said of LEGO, as the first version of Cloud City in the Star Wars theme featured a brown Lando while all the other minifigs in the Star Wars theme at the time had yellow faces."

Ok, but why does Lego have to "represent"? Why do you feel the need to be "represented" in a fictional world of plastic toys? Why are you incapable of enjoying a toy for what it is? No one is yellow in the real world, yet for decades yellow minifigs worked perfectly fine, because it was never supposed to "represent" the real world, it was always it's own different world. What's different now? Suddenly people cannot comprehend that maybe this fictional world is different to ours? Or are they so egocentric nowadays that they think everything should revolve around them and "represent" them?

And don't tell me about licensed sets, because I always said it was a mistake and Lego should never have attempted to recreate other intellectual properties. I know Star Wars saved them, but I don't care, modern Lego has no appeal to me."

Thank you for this comment. "
Representation is not a new or controversial idea. If you Google "representation matters," you will find tons of links on media analysis, psychology, social policy, education, and justice. There are controversies about its effective implementation, but its value is only disputed by socially regressive culture warriors. If you're in that camp, then you don't believe in the same values as TLG and civil society, your arguments are in bad faith, and there is no value in further engagement.

If you want to educate yourself, there are plenty of articles out there. If you refuse to engage with them or read a range of these opinions and still reject them, then we all know what's up.

This is why the tolerance / intolerance counter-argument is misplaced. "Why alienate part of the fandom over toy opinions?" Because it's not an opinion about toys but about cultural values. If you're against racial representation because you'd prefer a white-aligned cultural standard, that's a bigger problem than minifigures.

My eating of popcorn intensifies.