![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
athelindEdit: Yes, this is a May Day post.
John Seavey is a contributor at the Mighty God King blog.1
He just posted an outline for the Captain America prologue story he'd like to write, putting young Steve Rogers' life into its historical context: a sickly, working-class 98-pound weakling who had enough patriotic fervor to try and enlist and to fight his 4F status passionately enough to get the notice of the archetypal Secret Government Project.
He's the son of working-class, Depression-era Irish immigrants, and he's politically-motivated. Seavey observes that his parents were likely union organizers, and quite possibly members of a party that wasn't quite so demonized in the '20s and '30s, though it still wasn't exactly respectable.
This is something that most people outside the fandom don't get about Captain America. They look at the flag-colored costume, the blond hair and blue eyes, and immediately equate him with jingoism and the "America: Love It Or Leave It" crowd. They think he's a right-wing icon, a government tool, a crypto-fascist.
Even the right wing thinks so.
And they are so wrong. Only someone who just looks at the pictures, and doesn't look too closely at them, could think so.2
Cap's a New Deal Democrat, and always has been. He was created by a couple of poor Jewish kids from New York, for the express purpose of punching Hitler in the snoot, almost a year before Pearl Harbor, in a period when a lot of "respectable" Americans were still pushing for isolationism.
He's not a symbol of "Love It Or Leave It": he's a symbol of "Love It and Fix It". That's what real patriotism is, dammit.
He's a left-wing icon, and we need to take him back, and claim him as our own.
1He's not MGK himself, who has a long line of similar posts delineating just why he should write Dr. Strange and The Legion of Super-Heroes. These guys really need to get off their butts and submit to Marvel and DC.
2I'm looking at you, you illiterate hack.
John Seavey is a contributor at the Mighty God King blog.1
He just posted an outline for the Captain America prologue story he'd like to write, putting young Steve Rogers' life into its historical context: a sickly, working-class 98-pound weakling who had enough patriotic fervor to try and enlist and to fight his 4F status passionately enough to get the notice of the archetypal Secret Government Project.
He's the son of working-class, Depression-era Irish immigrants, and he's politically-motivated. Seavey observes that his parents were likely union organizers, and quite possibly members of a party that wasn't quite so demonized in the '20s and '30s, though it still wasn't exactly respectable.
This is something that most people outside the fandom don't get about Captain America. They look at the flag-colored costume, the blond hair and blue eyes, and immediately equate him with jingoism and the "America: Love It Or Leave It" crowd. They think he's a right-wing icon, a government tool, a crypto-fascist.
Even the right wing thinks so.
And they are so wrong. Only someone who just looks at the pictures, and doesn't look too closely at them, could think so.2
Cap's a New Deal Democrat, and always has been. He was created by a couple of poor Jewish kids from New York, for the express purpose of punching Hitler in the snoot, almost a year before Pearl Harbor, in a period when a lot of "respectable" Americans were still pushing for isolationism.
He's not a symbol of "Love It Or Leave It": he's a symbol of "Love It and Fix It". That's what real patriotism is, dammit.
He's a left-wing icon, and we need to take him back, and claim him as our own.
1He's not MGK himself, who has a long line of similar posts delineating just why he should write Dr. Strange and The Legion of Super-Heroes. These guys really need to get off their butts and submit to Marvel and DC.
2I'm looking at you, you illiterate hack.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 06:08 pm (UTC)http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/lmfaolol0.jpg
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 06:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 10:24 pm (UTC)Which goes strongly into what Athelind was saying and we ought to "take him back". Well, for good or ill, in a capitalist system the best way to do that is to give Marvel the finger and not buy their products until they end this long Dork Age they're putting the MU through. But, in taking that stance, I am also aware that it might not work. If the changes prove to be popular, they could well be enduring.
(This is also addressed to Athe's concerns, but I know he'll read this post.)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 12:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 10:00 pm (UTC)Believe me, Civil War pissed me off, too. The political overtones were bad enough, but the narrative inconsistencies bothered me just as much: characters suddenly reversing long-held stands, devoted, compassionate family men like Reed suddenly turning into the worst "smart people are remote and scary and ethically unfathomable" stereotypes. I walked away from Marvel, and stated flat out that the Marvel Universe was dead to me now.
Civil War, however, was just one part of a much longer narrative. The broad strokes were planned out in advance, at the "story summit" Marvel had a few years ago: Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign and Siege are all part of a single, ambitious saga, and the overarching theme is not at all subtle:
When you pass laws and take actions that ignore the rights and protections upon which modern civil society is based, no matter how necessary you think your actions are, it is inevitable that those powers will pass into the hands of those who will abuse them for personal gain, and undo everything you thought you were fighting for.
Civil War showed characters we'd long considered "heroes" use a flimsy pretext to impose fascist measures on the metahuman populace and the public at large.
Secret Invasion reveals part of the real reason for this sea change: shape-shifting aliens have infiltrated the Earth, and the metahuman community in particular. Major characters are revealed to have been replaced by aliens, some a very long time ago. They're not the main ones responsible for the "Registration Act", though: there's a core group of conspirators who've paved this road with the best of intentions.
And we know where a road like that leads, right?
Dark Reign shows how it all blows up in their faces. The main architect of the Registration Act gets booted out of his position of power, after the aliens sabotage his technology and disable much of Earth's defenses in the process. A "reformed" supervillain, leading a squad of other reformed villains, is the hero of the day after taking out the alien command ship -- and gets put in charge instead.
The Bad Guys win, the Good Guys are on the run -- and they have only themselves to blame.
Do you need alien invasions and supervillain conspiracies to make these points? Probably not. But these are superhero comic books. These are firmly-established elements of the setting. They are the tools in the toolbox, and the instruction manual says right there on the first page: GO BIG OR GO HOME!!
No, Marvel couldn't tell this kind of story with Cap around, because Cap is the moral compass of the Marvel Universe. Things were bad when he was killed, but after his death, they went completely off the rails -- and his return was one of the big emotional beats in Siege, the Grand Finale of this four-year epic.
As for Cap's "Cowardly Surrender" to Stark... I haven't read those issues, since I was still pissed at Marvel at that point. I tend to agree with
no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 11:07 pm (UTC)You mentioned in couched terms Norman Osborn taking over the Thunderbolts. That was actually one of the specific incidents that drove me away from Marvel. Because, before that, the T-bolts was largely about redemption and the difficulties of redemption and then in a few Warren Ellis issues, all of that was dumped on its ass in precisely the kind of character breaking nonsense that did not stop at the Civil War, stripping all the characters of their hard fought dignity.
So, after years of Iron Man the Iron Fascist and Master of Assassins Scott Summers - after it seems every character in the MU has done things that would make the Midnighter blush - how is it reasonable for all of that to just be better because they learned a tough lesson?
I dunno. I mean, I'll look into more, but it's hard for me to swallow right now that I should be expected to just ignore the way the characters have behaved, en masse, for half a decade because it was part of a story. I mean, if you need to break so much character and defile so many characters all at once, maybe you need to really re-think how you're telling the story. But I'll look into it because I would like to get some of these dudes back.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-03 01:11 am (UTC)In the display case by the cash register at my store, we've got a small statue of Comic Book Guy, from The Simpsons. For a while, he was at the BACK of the case, faced toward the back, casting his disapproving sneer upon us as we worked the register. The subtext was clear: "DON'T BE THIS GUY. Don't hate everything."
If you're looking for stuff to dislike, yeah, you'll find plenty in these stories. If I weren't working in a comic book store and didn't have some small degree of obligation to my customers to read these stories, I wouldn't have read them. For the same reason, though, I've cultivated the ability to read them and say, "wow, they really turned this book around" and "I didn't like the way this was going at first, but now it's really grabbed me."
Assuming that any of those actually APPLY to a given book, that is. I'm more than capable of pointing something out and saying, "man, this book has really taken a nose-dive into the toilet." *cough*JSA*cough*
no subject
Date: 2010-05-03 03:07 am (UTC)Oh, I know any fan of comics has to ignore the parts they don't like about any character or team or book. I just rarely feel offended at something and I have felt offended at the shenanigans down at Marvel way. And there was a whole lot of it really fast.
I've been sitting here for twenty minutes, though, wondering to myself if I can forget these things and the answer is, "Sure, probably." I'm just not ready for it yet and certainly a fair bit does depend on what happens, next, in the MU. Right now I am sorta gun shy and I am thinking, "What will they do to top this?"
Regardless, I'm sure they will make do without me. ;)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-03 03:42 am (UTC)I dunno. To pick a smaller example from exactly the same place, the whole "One More Day/Brand New Day" plotline, where Peter Parker trades all memory of his marriage and all the happiness it brought him to frakkin' MEPHISTO after Aunt May gets taken down by a sniper was a TERRIBLE, AWFUL, VERY BAD IDEA. Critics hated it, fans hated it, and everyone agreed that it was egregiously out of character for Peter.
And yet ... everyone is also, grudgingly, agreeing that Amazing Spider-Man has been really damned good since that storyline wrapped up.
So, I dunno.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-03 03:58 am (UTC)So when you tell me it's now all over and things are back to as normal as they ever get, I . . . am thinking that Civil War and what came afterwards is the new normal.
But I will look into it . . . though all of this does create a question in my mind that goes back to the original post. If everything is over and my feelings are wrong - why do we need to take Cap back? Isn't he back? What's to take back if our New Deal Democrat Steve Rogers Captain America has returned?
And now we return to the original topic of the post!
Date: 2010-05-03 04:20 am (UTC)My original post was about people outside the fandom, about the perception the public at large has of Cap, about Captain America's role as an icon.
Taking back Cap as an icon of the Left goes hand-in-hand with taking back the Flag -- and Patriotism Itself, by damn -- from the fascist bastards who have somehow co-opted the concept.
Captain America is a symbol, a symbol of something vital and important, a symbol of what truly makes our nation great:
Punching Fascists in the Face.
Re: And now we return to the original topic of the post!
Date: 2010-05-03 04:32 am (UTC)As you pointed out, in 1940, the US was not strongly anti-Nazi. Indeed, large elements of our society were pro-Nazi. As the post you linked to said, Americans mythologize our past in order to avoid talking about unpleasant things - like how and who was pro-Nazi. The great legacy of the US is not really punching Nazis in the face. That's a fantasy, man, and always has been.
Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> is on TV, so this may be a bit florid.
Date: 2010-05-03 05:02 am (UTC)I know the history of this country. I'm no fool. I know the corruption and the compromises and the venality that we've dragged through the centuries. I know the smallpox-laden blankets and the Pinkertons breaking strikes by breaking heads.
And why does this all outrage me?
Because I am an American, and I hold that fantasy dear.
I am loyal, I am faithful, I am patriotic -- but not to the "nation", be it the geographical accident of modern times or to the ill-conceived cultural conglomeration of the Napoleons and the Bismarks. I am patriot to the concept and ideals expressed in our Constitution, to the principles we espouse, but far too seldom manage to manifest.
Being a Patriot is not holding that fantasy of America's virtue as a blinder to the past. It's holding it UP and FORWARD, as a goal to which to strive, as a standard by which we can and must measure our actions. When we fall short of that standard, we MUST not turn away.
And, yes, by your lights, I may be a "rational patriot". I believe those humanistic rights and protections we've struggled and stumbled to assert for ourselves should apply to ALL people, across the globe, in the Nation of Mankind -- but we've been pretty handily cocking that up over the years, haven't we?
And we'll keep cocking it up, until people understand that you can't REALLY be true to the ideals of the Revolution and the Enlightenment unless you're willing and able to see when you're FALSE to them.
Re: Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> is on TV, so this may be a bit florid.
Date: 2010-05-03 05:12 am (UTC)I assuredly think we should all try to be clear-sighted when we fail in our ideals, though I suspect I'm a little less enchanted of both the Revolution and Enlightenment than you might be. I mean, I don't think being a racist imperialist bastard is contrary to either the US Revolution or the Enlightenment at all. I feel we've moved a good distance from 18th century ideals. Screw the Enlightenment! ;)
Re: Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> is on TV, so this may be a bit florid.
Date: 2010-05-03 05:33 am (UTC)Re: Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> is on TV, so this may be a bit florid.
Date: 2010-05-03 05:52 am (UTC)And, y'know, Rupert Murdoch. He's fuckin' with us bigtime. Definitely. If Cap punched him in the head, I'd read it.
Boy, these paragraphs get narrow when they're indented this far.
Date: 2010-05-03 07:56 pm (UTC)Of course, that doesn't mean he won't take time out for a little fun:
Re: Boy, these paragraphs get narrow when they're indented this far.
Date: 2010-05-04 12:25 am (UTC)I mean, I don't like patriotism because it is rooted in nationalism, but I'm not a political quietist and I'm not anti-American . . . though sometimes I do get incredibly angry with the people who run it. But, at the end of the day, it's simply a reality that I'm American and as a member of this society, I definitely want to see a better America. A freer, saner, more tolerant, capitalism-less, anti-imperialist, more inclusive, honestly internationalist America. It is, after all, my home, and I want it to be a nice place both to live and visit.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 09:32 pm (UTC)And if they've been mishandling him, that's all the more reason to take him BACK.
Go ahead and follow the link. It's just a comic strip.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 09:21 pm (UTC)::sunglasses:: B)
... Wobbly.
YEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 03:59 pm (UTC)I think I would have preferred to have heard your portrayal of him back then... might have changed my mind on a few things.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-02 10:27 pm (UTC)