Steve Rogers. Shot dead.
People have been asking me to comment.
Understand that, if I were a fan, my reaction would be, “Yeah. Sh’right.”
As someone working for Marvel, you have to realize that I knew this was coming months ago. And I know what’s going to be happening over the next months.
So I can’t say anything.
What I will say is, “Dang. It HAD to be the same week as the latest issue of Friendly Neighborood Spider-Man…?”
PAD
• 
In Civil War: Initiative (also out this week) we are told – second hand, admittedly – he is alive and recuperating somewhere.
I don’t think it was a mistake. Two key things are true about that interchange (as I recall). First, I believe it was said they were trying to keep him alive, so that does not mean they were successful. More importantly, this is what Ms Marvel had been told by Stark (presumably). The way he is being written, it would be consistent that he would “lie” for the greater good. It is also possible Ms Marvel lied, but unlikely since it would completely undermine her trying to persuade the person she was talking to.
Bottom line, I am sure he is dead — for the moment. The way Marvel is currently being written, I don’t think they will do the quick cheat that he didn’t actually die. But we will see.
Iowa Jim
As someone working for Marvel, you have to realize that I knew this was coming months ago. And I know what’s going to be happening over the next months.
So I can’t say anything.
Intriguing…
OK, you’re too much a professional to take any bait trying to get you to disclose stuff, but let me try with this sorta oblique question…
It the stuff that’s going to be happen in the next few months in the wake of the Death of Captain America, better/more interesting/different from the stuff that happened with DC in the wake of the Death of Superman?
‘Cuz I recall that some of the immediate stories that came out of the Death of Superman were kinda interesting–what does a world that’s used to having Superman around do when it doesn’t have one anymore?
Anything similar/different/better coming down the pike with Cap’s death?
I think with Cap’s 70th anniversary coming in 2010, that he will be back either shortly before that or right on the Anniversary. We already lost Thor, if we lose Cap then what hope do we have of the Avengers ever returning to a team book that people like? The Avengers under Busiek, and then Johns was great. It was one of the few books that continuity still mattered in. I, myself, believe that the big shakeups are not necessary, and that there are still many more original tales to tell in the Marvel continuity universe. How about we shake things up by pretending the old runs didn’t end, and they pick up where they left off. I wouldn’t mind at least seeing a what if? try to handle Tony Stark still dealing with his betrayal of the Avengers in the young Stark body, or the Wasp dealing with being an insect.
Is it just me or has not a single news story used the it-begs-to-be-used headline: CAP CAPPED?
It’s too soon for me to laugh at that, but I can still smile faintly.
Then again, maybe I enjoy PAD’s work more because we are close to the same age and I’m just not getting these youngsters (actually, I have no idea how old any of the other writers are but I hope it’s very young).
Mark Millar b. 1969, Brian Michael Bendis b. 1967, Ed Brubaker b. 1966, Warren Ellis b. 1968, J. Michael Straczynski b. 1954, Paul Jenkins b. 1965, Joss Whedon b. 1964, Fabian Nicieza b.1961(although the only work he’s doing for Marvel right now is Zemo: Born Better). I also searched for info on the Knauf brothers, Dwayne McDuffie, Michael_Oeming, and Greg Pak and found everything except their birthdays. (Btw I never wound up thanking you for the explanation you provided in the George Takei comments, Bill, so I’ll thank you now.)
^signing agreement, all of the above statement^
Thanks. I presume this is the same cindercatz from comixfan.com. “Arrogantcur” here, man, nice ta see ya. ^_^
He has been one of my favorites for 20+ years. His death proves one thing, he is the only hero who is truly out of place. His death also proves patriotism is dead.
Do you mean that real patriots (as opposed to people who wave the flag real hard and brag about being American, but who forget what America is supposed to be about) are out of place in the present day? Or do you mean something else?
I would find it believable for Cap to look around at the world and say to himself “What has the world come to?” and shake his head sadly. I don’t find it believable at all that Cap could live in the present long enough for a member of the Power Pack to age from a child into a teenager and be completely oblivious to the world around him. According to “Civil War: Frontline” and Paul Jenkins (speaking through Sally Floyd) we are to believe he is not only oblivious to pop culture, but also to what people these days are like, how they think.
I just don’t buy that. Part of Cap’s job, part of what kept him alive for so long, is being aware of what’s going on around him. Jenkins’ assertion that Cap has just been merrily skipping along all these years blissfully unaware that the world has changed since the ’40s not only displays a profound level of ignorance about the character and all he has gone through since his return (seeing the ugly side of both the government and people on the street) but a profound lack of respect for the character. Portraying him as being that clueless is terrible and insulting, both to those who created and defined the character and to the fans. Following it up a couple weeks later with him being gunned down while he’s helpless, instead of in the heat of battle or as a result of self-sacrifice (think Doug Ramsey), is just too much.
One more thought.
I’m not reading Captain America and don’t plan to. However, when I become an evil overlord, one of my first decrees will be that if characters die in comics they stay dead.
Unless, of course said character is established as an immortal who “dies” for a few minutes before coming back to life.
Under my regime, comicbook companies will kill characters only if there’s a logical, in-story reason to do so; and not for the sake of short term hype.
Obviously, you can’t really kill Superman or Captain America because of the trademarks associated with those characters, as well as merchandising rights. So I would allow other characters to assume those identities, rather than permit the resurrection of Clark Kent or Steve Rogers.
What’s more, you’d get better stories that way. When done right, Superman can be a great character, even inspirational. Imagine if DC had had the courage to keep him dead and let Superboy step into fill his shoes. He’d have one hëll of a legacy to live up to- just like the successors of inspirational leaders in the real world.
I will, of course, allow the “if there’s no body then he’s not dead” rule to remain in effect. Also, it’s o.k. for characters in a particular comicbook universe to believe someone’s dead, but comicbook companies won’t be allowed to try to convince the general public that so and so is dead if he ain’t.
When I become an evil overlord, you’ll lead miserable lives, but at least you’ll have comicbook companies that don’t hold occasional “death stunts.” So remember to vote for me as your evil overlord; and vote early and vote often.
Rick
One more one more thought:
I liked the “Funeral for a Friend” and “Reign of the Supermen” storylines following the “death” of Kal-El. Several months went by as the characters in the DC Comics universe coped with their collective loss. They were good stories, but they’d have been even better if Kal-El had stayed dead.
Sorry, Supes. Nothing personal.
Rick
“I don’t know…except for PAD and a very few other writers, the Marvel Universe seems to be losing a lot of what made it great. It’s becoming an unpleasant mean place…with superheroes. Watchmen and Dark Knight were grim and dark but there was still that mythic quality. Too many writers seem to have no interest in even trying for that. Boy, will this stuff look dated in just a few years.”
A lot of comic writers, editors and fans seem to be forgetting something that is causing a lot of the comic book industry to grow unappealing and bleak. Comic books are allowed to be fun.
I liked Dark Knight and Watchmen as much as the next comic geek. I loved Sandman and Hellblazer to the point of annoying my friends with them. But the thing I enjoyed the most was the escapism qualities in a lot of the other books.
Yeah, Spider-Man had his teen angst problems, the Hulk had lots of hang ups and the FF went through lots of “family” issues, but there was a long time where the writers of those books and other books actually allowed their characters to be written actually enjoying their powers.
No one I know/knew that ever talked about the wish fulfillment topics of what powers they would like to have or what hero they would want to be so that they could be THAT miserable or that angst ridden. You would like to think that you might actually be able to have fun, get some $$$$, get the girl, etc. You would like to think that your favorite heroes would be enjoying their fictional little lives a bit more.
Yeah, you’ve got to ground the stories in the real world to give them some connection to the reader and you don’t want to make a hero’s life so perfect that he/she is boring as hëll. But you’ve also gotta give the reader something other then unrelenting angst, anger, depression, sorrow and pain.
I like flawed heroes and I do like multi-dimensional characters in my fiction, but I would like to see a little more “magic” and wish-fulfillment brought back into the comic book industry.
Random list of characters who are dead and shall undoubtedly remain so:
Gwen Stacy, Ned Leeds, Doug Ramsey, John Proudstar, Stan Carter, Ben Reilly, just about everybody killed by various Scourges of the Underworld, Colossus’ parents, Bill Foster, Destiny, Stonewall, Super Sabre, the real Uncle Ben, the Porcupine, Heinrich Zemo, Charcoal (Marvel couldn’t bring him back if they wanted to since they don’t own the rights), Graydon Creed, Sen. Robert Kelly, Genosha’s Genegineer, Bucky (oh wait, never mind).
“Random list of characters who are dead and shall undoubtedly remain so:”
Let us not forget that it turned out that Gwen Stacy had actually lived overseas with Norman Osborn making babies after her death…
What a disturbing image that is.
>Is it just me or has not a single news story used the it-begs-to-be-used headline: CAP CAPPED?
And if it were a big enough round, it might read CAP CAPPED, DECAPPED.
I don’t see them having tried the super soldier formula on blacks in WW II for the simple reason that, if it DID work well, would you really want to give that power to the member of a race you’d been systematically treating like dirt? Just might come back to bite you.
What surprises me is that nobody picked up on an unconscious need to kill Captain America. No matter who has drawn or written him over the decades, he’s still a reminder of Jack Kirby. According to Gerard Jones, there was a lot of resentment of Kirby when he returned to Marvel after the “Fourth World” DC years. In his slowness or refusal to adopt to the modern world and its modern morality, Cap was a strong reminder of his creator’s personality and beliefs. By killing Cap, is it possible that some people who resented living under the shadow of Kirby be trying to “kill” his influence?
I’m not sure that Jack Kirby is a big enough influence at marvel anymore to make such a thing plausable. I don’t think any of the current creators have any beef with the man or his legacy. But there’s no point in arguing over what people might be doing subconsciously.
Rob, thanks for the birthdates. Apparently a lot of creators are just a tad younger than I am. Frankly, I’m surprised.
But I believe that if Steve Rogers and Captain America existed in the real world, the government would have first experimented on Blacks (or Native Americans or any other non-White groups).
I don’t know, Rick, I’ve seen lots of footage of soldiers being deliberately exposed to nuclear radiation during above ground tests and there was nary a minority to be seen, at least on film.
I’m not overly bothered by the plotline since it brings attention to an important issue but it seems unlikely to me that they would be testing super soldier serums on discriminated members of society. The fact that the Tuskeegee study existed does not change that opinion; it isn’t like there was any liklihood that the victims of that study would have benefited from it.
I wouldn’t take the comparison with deliberate radiation exposure to the wives the Tuskegee subjects went home to, or their children who no one told them were born with syphilis.
I wouldn’t take the comparison with deliberate radiation exposure to the wives the Tuskegee subjects went home to, or their children who no one told them were born with syphilis.
Nor should you. The question was whether or not the government of that timne would expose non-minorities to dangerous,possibly deadly experimentation. They did.
Whether or not they would have exposed minorities to a fictional super soldier serum is, of course, unknowable, though a pretty good argument could be made that the last thing many in power at the time would have wanted would have been super powered Black men. But, as I said, it was good to get the issue out and quibbles about logic will only get you so far in any discussion of comics.
So I don’t know if the Black Captain America has ever been mentioned again.
Yes, he has; he’s not active himself these days (he’s suffering from a condition similar to Alzheimer’s), but his son Josiah was a character in the short-lived “The Crew,” and his grandson is Patriot in “Young Avengers.” His role in the Marvel Universe is as a semi-legendary figure in the African-American community who’s not really known in the mainstream.
a pretty good argument could be made that the last thing many in power at the time would have wanted would have been super powered Black men.
Super-powered black soldiers, don’t forget, who would presumably be more likely to follow the government line. (That was always a weak point in Luke Cage’s origin– testing the Super-Soldier Serum variant on convicts was a good idea why, exactly?) My memory is that it was also under fairly tightly-controlled conditions; when Isaiah Bradley was the only successful test subject (read: survivor), the government did its darnedest to keep him under wraps, not turn him loose to be a super-powered agitator.
(The existence of a human test subject before Steve Rogers is pretty likely if you read between the lines of his origin. The idea that the serum causes violent insanity wasn’t original to “The Truth.” Marvel long ago retconned the 1950’s anti-Communist Cap by having him (and his Bucky, who later became the second Nomad) as subjects of a later version of the formula, and they later turned up, well, violently insane. Steve Rogers didn’t suffer this effect because he was given radiation treatment to stabilize the formula–and why would anyone think to do this if he were the first human test subject, hmm?)
Captain America:
This is what I foresee happening. There will be four spin off books. In the first one Winter Soldier will put on a Cap costume and announce he is the new cap. Next the “cyborg” Deathlock will come back to the past to fill the void in the time line created when Cap died and will call himself Cap. Falcon with the help of Stark will put on a “steel’ suit of winged armor and change his name Eagle. Finally Hulk will return to earth when he hears of the death of his friend. He will call himself cap and no one will argue. Anyone who does will be “eradicated.”
This will go on for a few months until Cap returns from beyond the grave. The next thing that will happen however will be he gets split into three different caps Red State Cap, Blue State Cap and Independent Party Cap.
Killing Cap feels particularly cynical to me, because, yeah, it does feel a lot like “Death of Superman”, doesn’t it? Well, it is a business.
Killing major characters in mainstream comic books has become an empty cliche, because even for the few who do believe it, the story eventually loses its emotional punch because it’s undone. Though, admittedly, the best stories still retain the emotion, even if the character is brought back later.
It just seems like a lazy tactic for a comic writer (or editor) to take. If you know a large portion of your fan base won’t believe it, why not try to come up with something better?
I mean, I don’t envy writers who have to make fresh stories for a character who has been around since, say, 1938, but give the major character death a rest! We know you’re going to bring them back! Or to be fair to you, YOU may not bring them back, but some writer replacing you somewhere down the road WILL!
In fact, I don’t mind the resurrections (I feel they’re inevitable at this point) as much as I mind killing the characters in the first place BECAUSE of the inevitable resurrections!
I’d like to see a book where one or more major characters comes to the conclusion that nothing can kill them for good. (Though it may sure as hëll hurt a lot.) Hëll, Joss had Buffy realize this, more or less. In a fit of depression, Peter Parker cuts his wrists open. Then they suddenly heal by spontaneous mutation or by Beyonder (I dunno), or yet another Peter Parker shows up, looks at the body, and goes, yup, guess YOU were the clone. Worse, Doc Doom realizes this. “Do your worst, Richards! I’ll be back, and you know it!” But then he gets depressed, because he realizes that Reed is indestructable too. Meanwhile, a minor forgettable character realizes that to become unkillable, he has to become a major player. So, he “kills” a major character or just really memorably wrecks their lives for awhile. Hmmmmm…..
“It bothered me that Cap was created to fight evil men and yet it was made to be that he was created by evil men.”
I haven’t read this story. I’d like to eventually. It seems to me the idea was to show the duality between the great ideals of the US and the dark side of racism that actually existed at the time of WWII in the US. It reflects a modern attitude that sees things in a less idealized way, being aware of the dark side of history too. Some go too far, ignoring the noble ideals too. But it is not necessary.
For any such argument to be plausible, you would have to believe that someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study would not respond to “but we won’t be able to kill our first surviving black super-soldier” with “of course we can kill our first surviving black super-soldier” — if for no other reason than to see how much damage a super-soldier could take. You’d have to believe someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study would refrain from sacrificing 20 — or 200 — successful black super-soldiers in this manner, and not reserve the first super-soldier photo-op for someone who’d hit the newsreels like Lindbergh in Paris, in an attempt to frame his place in History in the most positive light.
The relationship between Captain America, the racism of his time, and the black Captain America fits a grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender triangle — an idea not all that modern — where the grail-champion fulfills the promise of, and redeems, the grail-king (A Jim-Crow-era America poised to intervene in WWII) by wedding the grail-king’s sterile ideology to a naturalism that borders on vulgarity (the minorities racism frames as vulgar).
Hoping for a “clean” Captain America origin is like hoping for Lancelot to have settled down with Galahad’s mother — it’s a hope when fulfilled that dilutes the impact of the character. I think a little dirt fits a character meant to embody the highest ideals of western civilization.
I continue to think there is a world of difference between letting men die from syphillus and giving them something that is designed to make them powerful–enough, at least, to cast doubt on the plausability of the plotline, though not enough to make the plotline unworthy.
Why not argue that an even more logical choice would be to have experimented on the Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the internment camps? It might seem foolish to empower people you are imprisoning but I guess you could always kill them later, right? Still seems unlikely to me.
But at any rate, this discussion is a bit pointless (even for comics fans) and, given everything else going on here, probably not worth pursuing.
Moon Man.
“Let us not forget that it turned out that Gwen Stacy had actually lived overseas with Norman Osborn making babies after her death…”
Actually, you must have forgotten the story or never read it. It turns out that BEFORE her death, Gwen Stacy was seduced by Norman Osborn and became pregnant by him. She even confronted him about the pregnancy, before having two children who would suffer from accelerated aging. Osborn killed Stacy after the children were born and raised them overseas.
Hi there Peter.My name is Jon.I´m writing from a little town called Vitoria (Isn´t Victoria,i havn´t win anything yet not even seven dollars haha) in Spain.
First of all sorry for my bad English cause is not my mother lenguage.Here we speak Basque.
Ican tell you that here you have a lot of fans like me,my father hummm my dog (eder) hummm i hve say my father?…It,s a joke
The last number of Spidey that I have read is FNSM 5 so you can imagine that we have a little diference between your edition and our.
I don´t know if these is the better place to talk you about these questions or not but I didn´t knew where to write you
By the way are you agree with the new powers of spidey?Aren´t they a bit…stranges?well it´s true that they give him a lot of posibilities(now he can do a pretty sweter with that things gets out of his hands)
I´m writer too.Now I´m working in a project called “The Branch”.What? You didn´t heard anything about my project yet? You will,you will.
To finish,go on making the things as you make them ,cause for me your one of the greatest of the writers of the world
Nothing else just thank you for read me
Good bye (gero arte in my lenguage)
A local shop around my parts had a huge stack of Captain America #25 laying out on Thursday…
of series 3.
Trying to lure curious people who heard about the hot new issue on the news to buy something that came out, what 10 years ago?
Yeah, that’s good for the business.
I just do not understand Marvel these days. They do stories like this, just so they can sell some more toys and more posters. I can not blame Joe Q, he works for the suits, and I think the suits wanted a story like this to drum up media interest, screw the loyal readers.
joe mac,
How do you know it is just to sell more toys and posters? Is it possible they sincerely felt it would be a good story? The news hit me like a ton of bricks on Wednesday. I had a reaction. So, obviously, have a lot of other people. People are talking about it and it is getting mainstream press attention. So obviously a lot of people have had strong reactions, which is what art is supposed to do in the forst place.
The business of comic books is to sell comic books. Is there a compelling story to be told? Perhaps. I know I’ll be peeking at CA for the next couple months to see what happens but at the end of the day from what I have seen the editorial choices that are ultimately made with a company like marvel will typically have less to do with the story and more to do with selling units.
“Back in Black” is a perfect example of this. Does Peter’s decision to put on a costume that has become synonymous in the public eye as the outfit of a murderous psychopathic monster make since to what the character would likely do? Or does it seem more plausible that Marvel wants to connect the comic book with the upcoming movie? Although come to think about it much like Britney Spears shaving her head this may simply be a cry for help from the web head. Ðámņ it is just struck me the missed opportunity Marvel had. The black costume could have been Spideys reaction to Cap but he began putting it on prior to the shooting ah well. Just my two cents.
Japanese in America don’t have the history of being silenced and intimidated comparable to blacks.
As victims of violent crimes are more likely to be attacked by someone who knows them rather than someone who doesn’t, having someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study overlook as subjects an ethnicity he can count on silencing and intimidating for an ethnicity with which he has no such assurance doesn’t seem logical at all.
Perhaps disinterest in the themes of marginalization and intimidation says more about the readership comics attracts than the inherent interest of those topics themselves.
My bad on the Gwen Stacy. I read it but didn’t remember all the details. I was thankful those issues had great art in them (sometimes a rarity nowadays). I hope that Brubaker storylines in Cap continue after this. He is a great writer, and was bringing back stories I found myself just wanting more and more. I hope he keeps with using the rogues gallery in the Cap issues if he does. It was one of the few Marvel issues I look forward to.
Since they are killing off Cap, perhaps we could all make an appeal to Marvel to ignore the last like ten plus years of the Hulk, and let Peter take over like nothing else happened from where he left off on the original run. And if we’re really good perhaps Angel Medina could do the art.
“But at any rate, this discussion is a bit pointless (even for comics fans) and, given everything else going on here, probably not worth pursuing.
Perhaps disinterest in the themes of marginalization and intimidation says more about the readership comics attracts than the inherent interest of those topics themselves.”
Another theory could be that the post you quoted — “everything else going on here” — was refering to the subject of the next thread, which seem to trivialize our attempts on second guessing the writers of a certain comic book, at least at the point, even if the comic was refering to significant historical event. I personaly think there is worth in touching on such serious subjects even in comics. But right now discussing comics storylines seems out of place. Perhaps some other time.
perhaps we could all make an appeal to Marvel to ignore the last like ten plus years of the Hulk, and let Peter take over like nothing else happened from where he left off on the original run.
PAD is penning a World War Hulk prolouge one-shot that I’m very much looking forward too. And I’ve been digging “Planet Hulk” alot, so this is an “event” I really want to read. I hope he does a WWH tie-in with it w/ either Friendly or X-Factor, but looking at the list presented of all the tie-ins, I don’t see any. Still, we are getting another PAD Hulk comic, so that’ll be sweet.
My reply was appropriate for the first half of the sentence I quoted, and the “everything else going on here” part you refer to was not submitted as a qualifier for it.
As far as “second guessing writers” goes, if anyone disagrees red, white and black is meant as an allegory for the Tuskegee study, they are welcome provide an explanation on how that disagreement isn’t obviously wrong.
I’ve been reading comic books long enough to know that the only people who stay dead are Bucky, Gwen Stacy, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben, an it seem the only ones who stayed dead (Gwen, and Uncle Ben) wouldn’t come back if you paid them to. So when Bucky came back, I protested by no longer reading Cap. So if he’s dead, i don’t care death means nothing anymore. An since Peter unmasked I stopped reading any Marvel. Maybe that seems petty, but I’m tired of paying my hard earned money for cheap stunts, and general disrespect towards characters I’ve grown up enjoying.
I’m one of the people that believe it is only temporary. (Hëll, Bucky just returned after being “dead” for almost 45 years. It might be a while but I expect Steve Rogers to return eventually.)
However, that being said – Captain America turns himself in at the end of Civil War to fight the registration act in the courts. In Cap’s very next story, he is killed so the court battle can be swept under the rug. It’s a huge cop-out.
cap wont stay dead and yes steve is cap i personaly found it funny that the return of magik was one of the house ads this week
“As far as “second guessing writers” goes, if anyone disagrees red, white and black is meant as an allegory for the Tuskegee study, they are welcome provide an explanation on how that disagreement isn’t obviously wrong.”
Red, White and Black was obviously inspired and refers to the Tuskegee Study. However, when we’re discussing whether it is logical for a black man to have the Super Serum injected to him by american scientists during WWII, we are not discussing Tuskegee or any real historical events, but a fictional story written by writers. We can do what the writers did and look back to history for inspiration, while we’re speculating the actions of fictional people in a fictional world. But ultematly we’re just second guessing the writers’ creative decisions, which may be entertaining, but pretty pointless. It felt a little strange to indulge in such creative speculation of fiction after the blog moved on to more serious and real subjects.
As for me — if I were writing this story, and trying to place myself in the minds of fictional people whose attitudes resemble those of real racist scientists during the real time period — I don’t think the Super Serum scientists would have hesitated to inject a black man with the serum because they feared him as a potential enemy. They would have expected him to be compliant. They might have hesitated to give it to Japanese Americans, who were considered enemies as well as racially inferior. But with blacks, they would probably have hesitated because they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy (the way some objected to allowing blacks to be pilots). I can imagine a scene in which a scientist assures a politicial or officer that the ‘real’ super soldier will be white. But that’s my speculation, which is, as was said, pointless.
As for me — if I were writing this story, and trying to place myself in the minds of fictional people whose attitudes resemble those of real racist scientists during the real time period — I don’t think the Super Serum scientists would have hesitated to inject a black man with the serum because they feared him as a potential enemy. They would have expected him to be compliant. They might have hesitated to give it to Japanese Americans, who were considered enemies as well as racially inferior. But with blacks, they would probably have hesitated because they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy (the way some objected to allowing blacks to be pilots).
As a point of fact, with respect to Japanese Americans, there were people who argued against the camps. There were people who argued FOR using them in the Pacific theatre (there was a partial victory in that they were used in intelligence). There were people who argued FOR using them in Europe (and they obviously won out).
The mistake is in trying to treat the government as a monolithic block–there were obviously many factions and which faction came out on top varied from situation to situation. Saying that such and such an event COULDN’T have happened is just not credible.
“The mistake is in trying to treat the government as a monolithic block.”
Roger, like I said, we are not engaging in a historical debate about the government’s attitude during WWII or about a specific policy. I do not say what could or could not have happened. We are talking about a fictional story that finds inspiration in real history. The people who wrote the Comic Red, white and Black — or arrogant people like myself who second guess their writing — persumably tried to imagine the attitudes of imaginary racist american scientists during WWII. And in order to do that they or I try to look at real historical events and people in order to get insight into that way of thinking. But we are talking about fictional racist characters who are imagined. I imagine, trying to get into the mind of a racist american circa 1942, that in this fictional story, if one character were to suggest giving a Japanese American the Super Soldier serum, someone else probably would object that there is a risk that this power would be turned against the US. And in the case of a black person, I imagine the objection would be mostly that blacks are unworthy of this power. I’m not saying anything about other conscientous people who would have acted otherwise. In the real world, as you know, there were people who were willing to let blacks serve as pilots, and let Japanese Americans serve in the US army (in both cases heroically). In the real world there may have been Americans who objected in real time to the Tuskegee Study, I don’t know. There were certainly people who would have spoken against it had they known. Perhaps someday somebody wil write a Captainn America comic that will deal with Japanese americans serving in the war, or with other incidents of racism in US history.
The idea that the scientists who sent first a dog, then a chimpanzee into space — and who provoked the ire of pilots by initially considering chimps to serve as astronauts exclusively — considered them lifeforms equal to humans seems obviously wrong.
Mike, you’re clearly a man with a chip on his shoulder. In fairness, however, I haven’t lived your life. Perhaps if I had your experiences I too would be full of hate like you.
Regardless, we can’t change our pasts. We are who we are, here and now. And you can’t defeat one kind of hate with another. You are blinded by your own brand of hate, which is directed not at a specific ethnicity but at any individual you find personally threatening. And for whatever reason, you find just about everyone else threatening. As a result, when you interact with others you see not the individuals but instead projections of your own feelings.
That’s just as pernicious as racially based hatred, which works by the same mechanism: rather than seeing the individual, racists see a construct of their own creation born of their own prejudice. Your own hatred is in no way more virtuous.
What comment by me are you referring to as hateful?
“The idea that the scientists who sent first a dog, then a chimpanzee into space — and who provoked the ire of pilots by initially considering chimps to serve as astronauts exclusively — considered them lifeforms equal to humans seems obviously wrong.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say and in what way it has anything to do with what I said.
It is also a very strange discussion because we are speculating about the attitudes of imaginary people in an imaginary situation. Ordinarily this discussion would have probably involved two or more creators shooting the breeze, speculating what kind of behavior seems appropriate for a certain fictional character in a certain setting. It could be quite fun. But your responses are not of a kind you’d expect in this kind of creative endevor. It is almost as if you do not understand the difference between fiction and the reality that inspired it, or you are engaged in some private argument with somebody else (perhaps yourself), and you forgot to tell me about it. Strange. It also makes the discussion even more pointless, since we are apparently not participating in the same discussion.
When you say “they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy” you seem to be referring to an agenda to deny the prospect of glory from a subject deemed inferior. That seems obviously wrong.
If the agenda to deny the prospect of glory from a subject deemed inferior determined who or what was eligible for dangerous opportunities for glory, then the reluctance to allow a dog and a chimp to precede man into space would have been as severe as the supposed reluctance to experiment on minorities considered expendable.
Unless the scientists who shot the dog and chimp into space consider them lifeform equal to humans, the Soviet and US space program have done that which disregards your reasoning.
Roger, like I said, we are not engaging in a historical debate about the government’s attitude during WWII or about a specific policy. I do not say what could or could not have happened. We are talking about a fictional story that finds inspiration in real history. The people who wrote the Comic Red, white and Black — or arrogant people like myself who second guess their writing — persumably tried to imagine the attitudes of imaginary racist american scientists during WWII. And in order to do that they or I try to look at real historical events and people in order to get insight into that way of thinking. But we are talking about fictional racist characters who are imagined. I imagine, trying to get into the mind of a racist american circa 1942, that in this fictional story, if one character were to suggest giving a Japanese American the Super Soldier serum, someone else probably would object that there is a risk that this power would be turned against the US. And in the case of a black person, I imagine the objection would be mostly that blacks are unworthy of this power. I’m not saying anything about other conscientous people who would have acted otherwise.
Sorry, I’m not just getting your point here.
In a fictional world, saying that this could not have happened seems to be an invalid reason when, in the real world, similar things DID happen. It still seems to me that you’re arguing that a monolithic response would occur, when in all likelihood, there would be several factions within the government, with different responses, all with varying degrees of racism. And these factions would embody that racism in various ways, some of which would be advocating diametrically opposite things–like using a super soldier formula on blacks. Some would consider it a waste, some would consider it a proper step before use on a “real” soldier, some would oppose it because blacks would not be worthy.
What would eventually occur is that one faction would gain ascendancy through political maneuvers…but the particular faction who’d do that is not cast in stone from the outset…
“In a fictional world, saying that this could not have happened seems to be an invalid reason when, in the real world, similar things DID happen. It still seems to me that you’re arguing that a monolithic response would occur, when in all likelihood, there would be several factions within the government, with different responses, all with varying degrees of racism. And these factions would embody that racism in various ways, some of which would be advocating diametrically opposite things–like using a super soldier formula on blacks. Some would consider it a waste, some would consider it a proper step before use on a “real” soldier, some would oppose it because blacks would not be worthy.”
Roger we do not have a difference of opinion here, you simply think I’m saying something else than what I’m actually saying.
a. I’m not saying something could or could not have happened.
b. I’m not saying there would be a monolithic response inside the government, since I’m not talking about the government, but about attitudes that might exist among some of the imaginary people involved in the imaginary super serum soldier project.
In fact I am saying pretty much the same thing you’re saying, that some of these hypothetical racist scientists or poiticians or officers involved in the project would object to giving the serum to a black man, because they would think him unworthy, while others, equally racist, would think it is justified in order to protect the lives of white soldiers, while a third perhaps would have calms about experimenting on a person without his concent. I am not making statements about a monolithic government, or that something could not happen. What we’re doing is trying to imagine the response of certain imaginary characters based on our knowledge of attitudes at the real historical time, which, as you state correctly, were not monolithic.
My original point was that I don’t think racist scientists around 1942 would hesitate to give the serum to a black person on the grounds that he might turn against them, since I think at that time the idea of blacks fighting for their rights was still underdeveloped. Althogh even here I’m not saying it couldn never have happened. If this comic’s writers included a scene in which somebody hesitated for this reason I would have found it anachronistic but not completely ubsurd.
Mike, you are very strange person.
“When you say “they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy””
I did not say “they did not want” to do anything, since we are talking about imaginary people in an imaginary story. What I’ve said is that we could imagine that some of the racist characters in this story — probably the officers or the politician — would have reacted in a similar way to the idea of giving a black man the super soldier serum, as real American pilots and politicians reacted to the idea of allowing blacks to be pilots, or the idea of sending animals (or today robots) into space, because the role of pilot and astronauts carries with it prestige. At which point, like I said, the equally racist scientists would probably have assured them that the black test subject will not enjoy the prestige, and that it will be reserved to the final, real super soldier who will be white.
That’s a scene I would have written if I were asked to write this comic. But I wasn’t and didn’t, so it is pointless. If you don’t like my scene you can imagine one of your own.
We should also note that the animals sent into space did enjoy prestige at real time, so this analogy probably not perfect, but we can still find inspiration in this story as we Imagine ourselves rewriting imaginary characters in an imaginary story.
By the way, the phrase, ‘we are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants’ was originally used in the 12th century by the theologian Bernard of Chartres (if I remeber correctly). The idea is that 12 century Chritian theologian are dwarfs compared to the great ancient pagan philosphers, but, by virtue of combining their ancient knowledge with Christian belief, they can see farther than the ancient pagans.
Whatever the comment by yourself you are referring to, I posted the following first:
As far as “At which point, like I said, the equally racist scientists would probably have assured them that the black test subject will not enjoy the prestige, and that it will be reserved to the final, real super soldier who will be white” agrees with my point — fine. Thank you.
The the earliest known writings of the grail employed as Christian symbol are from the late 12th century. It seems natural that a Christian theologian would feel free to acknowledge a pagan influence at that time.
“Thank you.”
You’re welcome Mike. Althogh only you can make ‘thank you’ sound hostile.
In any case, Bill made the first comment, that our imaginary super serum scientists would have hesitated to give the serum to an oppressed black man, supposedly because they would have feared it would be turned against them. I can imagine someone in our hypothetical story voicing such concern, so the point is not invalid. But in general I don’t think racist scientists at that time period would have considered a black man as a possible threat.
You said that there would not be a problem, because our imaginary scientists would be willing to kill a black super soldier if he prooved a threat. I can imagine a character in our co-written story saying something to that effect, that if he becomes dangerous, they could always kill him. But I don’t think they would have set out on the experiement using someone who they would have considered a threat, with the prelimenary intention of killing him for that reason. Your idea that they would have killed him as part of a test of his vulnerabilty, is a good and credible idea from a storytelling point of view. If we were writing together, I think we would have included it. But we’re not. I don’t think they would have killed him in order to guarentee that the prestige will not go to him, but that’s not important.
We are both in agreement that our imaginary racist scientists or politicians or officers would not have wanted a black man to have the prestige of being America’s Super Soldier. So we would probably have included a scene giving voice to that concern. But if we agree, why does it seem like you are arguing with me? I’m not certain. But hostility and an argumentative attitude are not very conductive to a collaberative creative process, even a completely hypothetical one. It is also not very helpful to internet discussions in general.
“The the earliest known writings of the grail employed as Christian symbol are from the late 12th century. It seems natural that a Christian theologian would feel free to acknowledge a pagan influence at that time.”
The pagan influence in this context is not of the grail story but that of writings by Greek and Roman writers like Plato and Cicero, some of which became available to Christian theologians in the 12th century.
The 12th century was a time of cultural renaissance in different and sometimes competing fields. One was academic culture. Another was chivalric culture and romances. A third was Christian mysticism. Another was the powers of the Church and of the State. The pagan motifs in chivalric romances and the influence of classical greek and roman pagans are two different things, although the product of the same society more or less. You might enjoy reading a book (fiction) called Baudolino by Umberto Eco, which is also about the grail. It is not great, but has some good things.
Posted by: Mike at March 12, 2007 10:13 PM
What comment by me are you referring to as hateful?
I am referring to your hostile attitude towards anyone with whom you disagree. Your past responses to people whose point-of-view differs from yours have included:
“What’s your problem?”
“Finger, meet nerve; nerve, meet finger.”
“Why write a check with your mouth that your butt can’t cash?”
I am also referring to your penchant for unfairly and illogically inferring racist motivations for others’ behavior. For example, late last year you repeatedly asserted that everyone who disagrees with you about the definition of a certain word is “sheltering a predatory agenda.”
I am referring as well to your swipes at people’s personal lives. You once asked if Bill Mulligan broke his ex-wife’s heart because his “smug macho pretense was ultimately more important to [him] than she was.” And you once so offended our host with a cruel remark about his family that he chose to delete the post and replace it with a stern warning. And yes, yes, I know you apologized to our host but you shouldn’t need to be told not to do such awful things.
I am referring to your choice to argue into the ground an assertion about a super-hero comic-book, and your inability to understand why others might find that trivial at a time when our host and many of his posters were discussing very real and very personal difficulties in another active thread.
Mike, you have succeeded in doing what no troll has done: you have elicited my sincerest sympathy. Your inability to let down your defenses and interact with other human beings in a healthy way is clearly costing you dearly on many levels. If at any point you decide to move past your hate, you will find me willing to forget the past and welcome you into the present. If you wish to continue your hateful ways, you will find me unwilling to respond in kind as I have in the past. I can no longer feel anger towards you. Instead, for you I only feel great sadness.