The Hoard Potato runs this up the flagpole to see who salutes.

[athelind]

Edit: 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.

---

Comments

Re: And now we return to the original topic of the post!

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

I don't think they have coopted any concept. Nationalism, the modern nationalism, was essentially defined by Napoleon, Bismarck and Hitler. Patriotism has always been used to justify terrible violence, both foreign and domestic, rationalized as being necessary to "the state". I think the cooption is in trying to change patriotism from its roots as an emotional orgy of destruction into something it was never meant to be and, perhaps, cannot be. A rational patriotism would not favor one's own state, believe in their own special national destiny or any kind of exceptionalism, it would expand into a general humanism, a benevolence towards everyone now alive and those yet unborn, IMO.

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.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Damned right it is.

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.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying we should run away. I'm just wondering who this "we" ought to be. Because "we", the USA, have cocked that stuff in a pretty big way in large part because we cling to that nationalist "we". I feel a connection to American culture because I'm American and I can't really be not American, any more than I can be not-white or not-male. But if I choose to identify with a group of people, it will be with humanity and not from the arrogant position of an American who has some special, unique cultural dispensation to freedom and justice - which is simply untrue, and insulting to everyone else. I just don't see any particular use to be had in nationalism, I suppose.

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.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, I took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Most of the bastards who need to be on the receiving end of Mr. Roger's Right Hook fall into the "domestic" category these days, though Rupert Murdoch's on my list, too.

Re: Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> is on TV, so this may be a bit florid.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Oh, I certainly believe that. I don't actually think that another nation is capable of threatening us, at this point in time. I expect that to change in my lifetime, but right now . . . who could threaten us in a serious sense? We are so powerful, as a country, the only people capable of threatening us are us.

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.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

I guess it comes down to the difference between a Captain America who fights for the country we've got, vs. a Cap who fights for the country we want.

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.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

And, when he's well-written, that's mostly what Cap does - fights for the country we should have.

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.