|
Sunday 17 January, 2010
After dealing with the drug dealers I rode back to the Johnson house to begin my next mission. This next mission entailed the quartet of CJ, Big Smoke, Sweet, and Ryder simply pulling through a Cluckin' Bell drive through to order some food. A topic I would like to focus on in this portion of my playthrough is the portrayal of Big Smoke. While all the other characters in the car order a meal deal, Big Smoke orders more than one. If he had only ordered, say, two meal deals there would be little to discuss, but stating that Big Smoke ordered "more than one" meal deal is a bit of an understatement. Ordering "two number nines, a number nine large, a number six with extra dip, a number seven, two number forty fives, one with cheese, and a large soda" it becomes evident that Big Smoke loves to eat. However, Big Smoke's obsession with food doesn't end there. Soon CJ (myself) and company find themselves involved in a drive-by and I am instructed to chase the opposing gang car. While I drive Sweet and Ryder grab their submachine guns and begin to assault the enemy automobile. Big Smoke on the other hand continues to revel in his meal as he eats without bothering to open fire on the attacking vehicle. All through the mission CJ, Sweet, and Ryder attempt to convince Smoke to put down his food and start shooting, but by the time I complete the mission the trio are able to finish off the enemy before Big Smoke can act. It is probably safe to assume that this mission was intended only for comedic relief by Rockstar, but I find it important to analyze the character of Big Smoke as a stereotype. Portrayed as an African American who only loves to eat, it is probably safe to say that he fits into the category of a stereotype like the final piece in a puzzle. Even outside of Smoke being a stereotype, it was still troublesome for the player (me) as you are shown he cares more about stuffing his face then the well being of his comrades in arm. Is this derogatory representation of Smoke justified in any way? Of course a good book, film, or videogame always contains some form of comic relief to make the audience laugh a little, however, at the expense of strengthening the view of an African American as a glutton it is debatable whether the aforementioned mission was truly necessary to include in the game as it could arguably be promoting said stereotype. So, we could ask, was this scene moral to include in the game? A Utilitarian might argue that the mission spread a vast amount of pleasure throughout the various people playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas by making them laugh, as well as the fact it is only a game in which no one was truly hurt. But others, especially in the African American community, might argue that it is offensive to their race, ethnicity, and culture, and promotes an unfair and unwanted portrayal of an African American in the media. There is logical reasoning for both sides of the argument on the necessity of having this mission in the game, so the question of whether having "Drive-thru" included in the final release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas being suitably proper or not is, in my opinion at least, morally debatable.
Following on our discussion of stereotypes the following mission again reveals another negative stereotype of African Americans. This mission involves Big Smoke and CJ "strapping up" by going to visit the home of someone called Emmet to grad a few guns. While driving over to the objective point I had personally expected Emmet to be your stereotypical shady arms dealer, but I was sorely proven wrong. Emmet is, to put it slightly, not the brightest tool in the shed. As soon as I am introduced to Emmet through a cutscene his character becomes quite clear. Accidently misfiring a pistol, Emmet becomes startled as he mistakenly believes that he is under fire from someone else nearby. Turning around, Emmet, while holding a gun to Big Smoke and CJ, questions the two and accidently mistakes CJ for Brian claiming "Aren't you Beverly Johnson's boy?" to which CJ replies "that's right," and Emmet retorts "Brian, say, uh, ain, ain't you dead?" CJ responds by stating "No Emmet, the other one, Carl." "Obsh, Sorry 'bout Beverly," Emmet finishes. This portrayal of Emmet as an uneducated, grown, African American is nothing short of a stereotype. It can also be said that his character, much like the previous mission, was included for comedic purposes only without trying to offend anyone. We, the player, can once again question Emmet's inclusion in GTA: San Andreas as justified, or unnecessary. Again, this scene was sure to pick up a few laughs and giggles by the player as it was meant to, but some members of the African American community would surely argue that the inclusion of Emmet in the game only promotes the inescapable stereotype of African Americans being uneducated, slow, and dimwitted. So, was the inclusion of Emmet justified for comedic relief? Or, was his presence merely a trigger for promoting such a derogatory viewing of the black community around the world wherever Grand Theft Auto is played? Logically, there is reasoning for both sides of the argument, so whether Emmet's inclusion in the game is morally ethical could be considered debatable.
Finally, the last mission I managed to accomplish through my playthrough was "Drive-By." As the title of the next objective leaves little to the imagination, I found it rather obvious what my next task would entail. Simply put, the entire mission involved CJ (me) driving the quartet around Balla territory while continually gunning down Balla gang members. After killing all the gang members, the wanted level rose to two stars, meaning the police would send out more reinforcements than usual to arrest me. After frantically making my way to the next checkpoint the player was instructed to park the car into a spray shop to evade the police, and complete the objective by simply driving home. With this mission we are left to ask one gargantuan moral question, was our gunning down opposing gang members morally ethical? Using logic, our actions were really not justified in any sense. Seeing as how our lives were in absolutely zero danger, there appears to be little logical reasoning to support randomly hunting and gunning down Balla gang members when they provided no such incentive for us to do so. In short, this mission involved simply gunning down opposing gangsters for no logical reasoning, therefore our actions appear to be ethically immoral.
|
