Duplo people skin colour.

scottdd2

Pulled out some Duplo today as the youngest wanted to go down memory lane, I hadn't paid attention before but the people are true skin colours, just wondering if there's a reason they aren't the traditional yellow of the minifigs.

Aanchir

scottdd2 said:

Pulled out some Duplo today as the youngest wanted to go down memory lane, I hadn't paid attention before but the people are true skin colours, just wondering if there's a reason they aren't the traditional yellow of the minifigs.

It's an interesting question. Notably, the early brick-style Duplo people with square bodies and cylindrical heads had white (as in the color, not the race) faces. But the Duplo figures with hinged arms and legs used Nougat as their skin tone even in their earliest set appearances.

Early on, each of these two types of figures stuck to that one initial skin tone. But in 1989, LEGO released a Duplo Figures International set as part of their educational line, LEGO Dacta. This set specifically included figures representing different races (white, black, and Asian), presumably to help introduce kids to the idea of living in a diverse society. Notably, not only did the black figures feature classic brown (officially, Earth Orange) skin), but also afro-textured hair — something that we wouldn't see for System minifigures for over two decades!

This sort of real-world-inspired racial diversity would make the jump to Duplo sets outside of the educational range beginning in 1991, in the World People set, and would appear outside of assorted packs in the mid-90s as Caucasian, Hispanic, African, and Asian Family sets.

Even at that point, though, they were still appearing only as supplemental figure packs — "normal" Duplo playsets continued to use Caucasian-looking skin tones, facial features, and hair colors/textures as their default. Playsets like #4681-1 Fire Truck and #4688-1 Team Construction from the 2004 "LEGO Ville" relaunch finally began to change this. On an unrelated note, this relaunch also corresponded to a curvier redesign of Duplo figures.

From then on, we've seen diversity steadily increase, to the point that today some Duplo sets like #10929-1 Modular Playhouse now depict mixed-race families. I definitely feel like this has been a positive development!

And truth be told, I can't help but wonder whether we'll ever see LEGO System sets take more steps in a similar direction. Sadly, a lot of AFOLs seem to have a ridiculous aversion to the very idea of real-world diversity being portrayed in LEGO sets, as you can see in many of the comments to Brickset's article on the 2018 LEGO Friends redesigns.

scottdd2

Aanchir said:

scottdd2 said:

Pulled out some Duplo today as the youngest wanted to go down memory lane, I hadn't paid attention before but the people are true skin colours, just wondering if there's a reason they aren't the traditional yellow of the minifigs.

It's an interesting question. Notably, the early brick-style Duplo people with square bodies and cylindrical heads had white (as in the color, not the race) faces. But the Duplo figures with hinged arms and legs used Nougat as their skin tone even in their earliest set appearances.

Early on, each of these two types of figures stuck to that one initial skin tone. But in 1989, LEGO released a Duplo Figures International set as part of their educational line, LEGO Dacta. This set specifically included figures representing different races (white, black, and Asian), presumably to help introduce kids to the idea of living in a diverse society. Notably, not only did the black figures feature classic brown (officially, Earth Orange) skin), but also afro-textured hair — something that we wouldn't see for System minifigures for over two decades!

This sort of real-world-inspired racial diversity would make the jump to Duplo sets outside of the educational range beginning in 1991, in the World People set, and would appear outside of assorted packs in the mid-90s as Caucasian, Hispanic, African, and Asian Family sets.

Even at that point, though, they were still appearing only as supplemental figure packs — "normal" Duplo playsets continued to use Caucasian-looking skin tones, facial features, and hair colors/textures as their default. Playsets like #4681-1 Fire Truck and #4688-1 Team Construction from the 2004 "LEGO Ville" relaunch finally began to change this. On an unrelated note, this relaunch also corresponded to a curvier redesign of Duplo figures.

From then on, we've seen diversity steadily increase, to the point that today some Duplo sets like #10929-1 Modular Playhouse now depict mixed-race families. I definitely feel like this has been a positive development!

And truth be told, I can't help but wonder whether we'll ever see LEGO System sets take more steps in a similar direction. Sadly, a lot of AFOLs seem to have a ridiculous aversion to the very idea of real-world diversity being portrayed in LEGO sets, as you can see in many of the comments to Brickset's article on the 2018 LEGO Friends redesigns.

Interesting history thanks. I had the same self discussion about having some of the dark skinned minifigs (basket ball players) in my city for diversity but then thought that that is going against the ethos of yellow being a non specific colour to represent all races so I have now not put them in. If I was to add them then I would need white and asian and middle eastern etc, so I have kept it all yellow.

CCC

I imagine the original decision to make them a flesh colour is also partly due to them wanting the duplo sets to be very bright and colourful (even compared to regular lego sets of the day). Having yellow fleshed duplo figures would mean that yellow is a hard colour to use for other body parts and the rest of the parts in sets too.

Changing to the flesh colour was done at the same time as introducing that style of figure, so they were not going back on anything they had done previously. Whereas if they had changed yellow skin minifigures to fleshies, then figures are less compatible. I cannot remember the first time I saw the explanation about yellow being a neutral colour for skin - I wonder if the original decision was just that it was either that or white, as that was all they had available at the time and the neutral story came later.

What was strange was that even though Duplo figures were done in fleshie tones, later Primo figures were done in yellow.

MrShinyAndNew

If yellow is a neutral minifig skin colour representing no particular race or all races, then why was Lando brown in 2003's Cloud City? I've never really bought this idea - it seem far more likely that yellow minifigs read as any of a few lighter skin tones, but not the darker ones, and the likeliest explanation is that it was easier to make a bunch of "white" minifigs in yellow plastic back when it was acceptable for a set to contain only white minifigs.

oldtodd33

^ All of the licensed sets are accurate for the character. 

ReesesPieces

oldtodd33 said:

^ All of the licensed sets are accurate for the character. 

Early star wars characters were yellow...except Lando.  Even in the Lego Movie, all the characters that are not based on other themes (batman, star wars, etc.) are yellow except for virtuvius.  Not trying to flame anything but it is what it is.

oldtodd33

^ I know the EARLIEST Star Wars sets were yellow heads. The Cloud City set was introduced in 2003, the same year the Basketball sets were introduced. Lando has the same skin color as many of the LICENSED sets for the NBA so they just used brown for both themes since brown was available. Flesh tone heads were also made for the NBA licensed sets too. Why they didn't make flesh tone heads for Luke, Leia and Han I don't know. Maybe had a bunch left over printed from years past. Why Darth Vader got his own light grey head I don't know either. Maybe they were out of yellow at the time or just decided to do the change then. 

Aanchir

CCC said:

Changing to the flesh colour was done at the same time as introducing that style of figure, so they were not going back on anything they had done previously. Whereas if they had changed yellow skin minifigures to fleshies, then figures are less compatible. I cannot remember the first time I saw the explanation about yellow being a neutral colour for skin - I wonder if the original decision was just that it was either that or white, as that was all they had available at the time and the neutral story came later.

Well, for what it's worth, brick-built characters and "maxifigs" before the introduction of the modern minifigure notably did NOT use yellow as a "neutral" skin tone, but specifically as a representation of light skin. Set #215-1 "Red Indians" used bright red as the skin tone for its figures, including a proto-minifigure as an infant. And the idea book #239-1 uses black bricks for for African Americans and bright red bricks for Native Americans in its ninth chapter, "We Build the New World" (beginning on page 79) — after using Bright Yellow bricks for European brick-built characters in earlier chapters.

It's possible that the Bright Yellow faces of the classic minifigure WERE meant to be racially neutral, in an attempt to walk back those earlier decisions which could be perceived as offensive. And I'm certainly not too bothered on a personal level by the use of Bright Yellow as a skin tone on the black-coded family in #60234-1 or collectible minifigures representing Egyptians, Native Americans, etc. After all, these sorts of figures demonstrate major strides in portraying non-white characters without distasteful racial caricatures like the exaggerated eyes and noses of Native American minifigs of the 90s.

But I'm still troubled by how many comments I've heard from black parents online and at fan conventions asking why there aren't any black people in most sets or MOCs. The notion that Bright Yellow minifigures represent everybody starts to feel awfully dismissive after seeing how many people understandably have a hard time seeing themselves in those figures. My own sigfig has a Bright Yellow face and Bright Yellow hands, and I don't see any major dissonance between that and my real-life (white) appearance. If I were black, I have a hard time believing I'd feel that same way…

You make a good point about the change being easier when it involves a totally new figure design. In that respect, it's comparable to how LEGO introduced the mini-doll with more true-to-life skin and eye colors than the classic minifigure.

But that just further calls into question whether LEGO still truly sees Bright Yellow faces in other non-licensed themes as a universal ideal that ensures "nobody is left out" (as this Customer Service page states), or an unfortunate drawback of what's since become one of their most widely beloved and recognizable icons.

After all, the decision to create the mini-doll was itself driven by mounting evidence of how many ways traditional minifigs failed to resonate with a lot of kids. The decision not to give them the same "racially neutral" yellow skin tone as minifigures was probably no coincidence.

MrShinyAndNew said:

If yellow is a neutral minifig skin colour representing no particular race or all races, then why was Lando brown in 2003's Cloud City? I've never really bought this idea - it seem far more likely that yellow minifigs read as any of a few lighter skin tones, but not the darker ones, and the likeliest explanation is that it was easier to make a bunch of "white" minifigs in yellow plastic back when it was acceptable for a set to contain only white minifigs.

It's easy to intend for a decision to be universal, only to later run into a situation where it clearly isn't. In this case, that situation was realizing that a Lando minifigure with Bright Yellow skin would not just look inaccurate, but downright insulting/offensive.

Before licensed themes, it probably wasn't really a big deal if minifigures represented EVERY real-world race — it was enough that they didn't represent ANY real-world race, but instead a unified race of "LEGO people", no matter what real-world society or culture they were inspired by.

But as soon as LEGO began dealing with figures that needed to represent specific non-LEGO people or characters, that approach was no longer sufficient. A bright yellow Luke Skywalker, on its own, is not obviously unfaithful to the original character — but a bright yellow Lando Calrissian is.

I think it's understandable that the most natural decision for LEGO Star Wars designers at the time was just to deal with this on a case-by-case basis, just as they had with alien and droid characters whenever other traditional minifig design standards like smooth cylindrical heads or chunky trapezoid bodies just wouldn't cut it. To them, the most important thing was keeping every character authentic and recognizable, and changing Lando's skin color was enough to fulfill that requirement.

By comparison, figuring out the best way to deal with the broader implications of this now unavoidable issue would no doubt require a longer, more difficult, wider-reaching process. I suspect that it probably would have taken even longer to roll out a change to minifig design standards across as many themes as we saw in 2004 if the NBA license hadn't already put those wheels into motion.

oldtodd33 said:

Why Darth Vader got his own light grey head I don't know either. Maybe they were out of yellow at the time or just decided to do the change then. 

I think Darth Vader's grey head was probably chosen for the same reason as the grey head of the Pharaoh's Mummy in LEGO Adventurers or zombies in the collectible minifigures — to reflect his deathly, pallid features.

Before the shift to realistically portraying characters' skin tones, it was normal for licensed themes to use skin color in a more symbolic, cartoonish way, just as earlier and subsequent non-licensed themes have often done.

The most blatant example is the original Snape minifigure's glow-in-the-dark head. Snape was never portrayed as any less of a normal human than other characters in the Harry Potter books and movies, so the glow-in-the-dark head was probably chosen to symbolize his spooky, unnerving demeanor rather than to reflect anything about his actual skin color.

jmeninno

"Why'd you have to bring color into this?"

MrShinyAndNew

Aanchir said:
Set #215-1 "Red Indians" used bright red as the skin tone for its figures, including a proto-minifigure as an infant. And the idea book #239-1 uses black bricks for for African Americans and bright red bricks for Native Americans in its ninth chapter, "We Build the New World" (beginning on page 79) — after using Bright Yellow bricks for European brick-built characters in earlier chapters.

But I'm still troubled by how many comments I've heard from black parents online and at fan conventions asking why there aren't any black people in most sets or MOCs. The notion that Bright Yellow minifigures represent everybody starts to feel awfully dismissive after seeing how many people understandably have a hard time seeing themselves in those figures. My own sigfig has a Bright Yellow face and Bright Yellow hands, and I don't see any major dissonance between that and my real-life (white) appearance. If I were black, I have a hard time believing I'd feel that same way…

Those red Native Americans really puts the lie to the notion that yellow != caucasian.

catwrangler

This raises another question: does it seem likely that there will ever come a time when they move entirely to realistic flesh colours?

Don't get me wrong - I would be very sad to see the yellow minifigs go, because it's such an iconic design, and a classic minifig with a basic smiley face is the best visual shorthand I can imagine for my childhood. But I've been thinking about that Jamie Berard interview where he mentioned that kids see those traditional minifigs as "zombie dudes" and don't really connect with their simple design, and realising that kids now are growing up in a different world than I did, and don't have all the same inherited assumptions.

I'm also very struck by @Aanchir's point about how, since yellow stands in for caucasian, the average Lego set (without minifigs representing real actors or athletes) ends up being way less racially diverse than reality, and some kids won't see a character like them in there. I know there's more than one way to identify with a character (I'm not a scientist or a superhero, after all, but I enjoy those figures a lot), but I also know that as a disabled woman I was really pleased when I noticed how much the gender balance within multi-minifig sets has improved, and I found it especially cool when wheelchair-using minifigs started turning up. 

I guess you could argue that the fewer specific characteristics a minifigure has, the more different people can identify with that character, but if you unpick that thinking it tends to involve the assumption that there's a default, and that the default is white, male, etc. I mean, it's not terribly surprising that a company that began many decades ago in a little town in Denmark would treat white as the default without thinking about it, but I do wonder what this means for the future in a more globalised world, for a brand that is trying to appeal to many different people and cultures...

560Heliport

I wondered if they could include several different colored heads per figure... but how many would be enough? Would, say, five shades be sufficient, that everyone could find one at least close to themself? But then many figures would need multiple hands as well: and they get loose if you swap them. I sure don't know what the answer is. I like the classic yellow smiley face, but they do look odd next to a newer, more realistic color. 

MrShinyAndNew

It's worse than needing to provide extra heads, and hands (which LEGO doesn't condone swapping), but also many many minifigure prints have the skin colour on the torso/arms/legs, and things like hair pieces with elf ears, etc. 

Of course if LEGO switches to racially diverse minifigures they'll have to constantly be on the lookout for problems like stereotyping, though they seem to have taken on that challenge with the Friends line, and they have botched that challenge with the "mafioso" names of the new City bad guys. shrug

catwrangler

Though at least they're very used to doing focus groups - I suppose it's a case of both bringing in different perspectives at the design stage (because we don't know what we don't know - I hadn't considered the stereotypical aspects of the Native American figures in the Western theme, for instance), and recognising that within any group represented there's going to be a range of views about what's good or harmful representation. You can never please everyone, but hopefully you can avoid some pitfalls.