Board member ARYAN

[comicwiz]

Last time I'm asking because it is seemingly not coming forward with plain language - why would you be offended by a screen name and not material depicting the same symbol/wording/imagery?

 

Because the screen name is an endorsement of an ideology, and could be perceived (rightly) as a desire to aggrandize one's status through one's race.

 

And the other, regardless of how contentious and exploitative it may seem to the onlooker, is not.

 

But the boardie explained their reason? And on the second, Timely et al publishers should have found another way to monetize their comic business. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that it was "the times" - depicting racial policy, ideology or insensitivity towards ethnic groups was all about making money.

 

No question it was a moneymaking exercise in propaganda (of a sort), but it wasn't Nazi propaganda.

 

By all means don't buy the argument about the times and the mores of the era. At the end of the day, the comics are still a product of that era, regardless of the publisher's cynicism. And I would disagree that the comics were depicting "racial policy or ideology" through the caricatures, but rather a tawdry, admittedly grim way of belittling an enemy who, lest we forget, were in the process of committing genocide.

 

Call it insensitivity to ethnic groups if you will. Provided the images shown regularly on the GA forum are kept within that historical context and observed as such with respect to any Asian or German boardies, that they are a historical artifact that is not equable with the industrial, incalculable slaughter invoked by the name Aryan (regardless of whether the boardie in question denies it) then that is fine.

 

It's the reason no-one here has a screen name like Hitler, or Final Solution.

 

Propaganda or not, making money off tragedy just rubs me the wrong way.

 

The take away from this is we are assuming this position of tolerance because we are entrenched in a hobby and conditioned in a way which (right or wrongly) maintains interest in this material.

 

Taking this material external to the boards and in a non-comic collector context, I'm pretty certain we would see a very similar reaction play out as the one we saw towards the boardie's screen name choice.

[skypinkblu]

 

And on the second, Timely et al publishers should have found another way to monetize their comic business. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that it was "the times" - depicting racial policy, ideology or insensitivity towards ethnic groups was all about selling comic books.

 

I dunno, Joseph, I see those books in an entirely different light. I collect Hitler covers and Nazi' covers...why? Because I'm proud of the fact, that the JEWISH creators...(who were forced to change their names to hide their ethnicity) were showing people how bad the Nazis were, even before we got into the war and the comic book heroes were fighting them. .quite a few of those books were written or drawn pre Pearl Harbor.

 

As for the screen name,I was not offended but it just screamed AlleyBat to me...

 

If he's not Alleybat, then he he might just not have considered some people's reactions and he should start over...

[skypinkblu]

BTW, I was not proud of the silly way other races were drawn, just the idea about being anti Nazi.

[Sqeggs]

Last time I'm asking because it is seemingly not coming forward with plain language - why would you be offended by a screen name and not material depicting the same symbol/wording/imagery?

 

Because the screen name is an endorsement of an ideology, and could be perceived (rightly) as a desire to aggrandize one's status through one's race.

 

And the other, regardless of how contentious and exploitative it may seem to the onlooker, is not.

 

But the boardie explained their reason? Made up or not, there were some boardie's who made the same argument of it having a different meaning.

 

And on the second, Timely et al publishers should have found another way to monetize their comic business. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that it was "the times" - depicting racial policy, ideology or insensitivity towards ethnic groups was all about selling comic books.

 

Bearing in mind the horrific slaughter the Japanese and Germans were engaged in -- for instance, the truly abominable behavior of the Japanese army during the Rape of Nanking in 1937, to take one example that was widely publicized in the United States before U.S. entry into the war -- and the rage engendered by the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, I think it's a bit much to have expected publishers to have depicted the Germans and Japanese in an enlightened way. This is popular entertainment we are talking about.

 

Many people find the sex and violence in modern comic books objectionable, as, of course, Wertham and company strongly objected to the sex and violence of 1940s and 1950s pre-Code comics. You could make the same argument that current publishers are pandering to people's less than noble side to make a buck.

 

As adults reading comics, I think we have to accept them for what they are. People offended by how WW II was depicted in 1940s comics are free not to read or collect them. People offended by modern comics or 1950s horror comics, can easily avoid them.

 

I still say that drawing an equivalence between modern neo-Nazis and the stridently anti-Nazi GA covers is way off base.

[Dr. Balls]

Tough name to have without it inciting off-topic discussion. I'm pretty sure that if I changed my username to AL-QAEDA, I'd be spending more time talking about my name than about comics.

 

If I had to look at it on the level where the hobby has an equally troubling past in so far as artists choosing to depict the same kind of politically charged themes on front covers, the question I would ask is why is it less offensive to see a swastika on the cover of a comic than it is to see someone use it as a forum name?

 

Personally, the whole subject creeps me out way too much to want to own a comic depicting these themes, but is it my place to say people should stop collecting them or listing them for sale because the covers are offensive?

 

I'm a little late to the game with the response here, but anyways - I think using some of that imagery to tell a story, or frame the topic is appropriate (whether it's in comic books, movies, etc) because that imagery plays a role - even in modern comics. Ultimately, it's up to the reader to determine for themselves if it's some sort of hateful use, or whether it's to advance the plot visually.

 

Using something like that for a screen name doesn't really work the same way. A screen name is something irreverent or descriptive or uniquely suited to be stated within one or two words.

 

I do like this thread though, it covers a lot of old school GA topical stuff - so don't let my response derail that good reading.

[MODOK]

Thanks.I think what's missing here is that comics depicting Hitler were all about beating the ENEMY,not about glorifying an ideology in todays world.

 

+1

 

Precisely. It was a marketing tool to sell war bonds, enlisting new recruits, etc.

 

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Last time I'm asking because it is seemingly not coming forward with plain language - why would you be offended by a screen name and not material depicting the same symbol/wording/imagery?

 

Because the screen name is an endorsement of an ideology, and could be perceived (rightly) as a desire to aggrandize one's status through one's race.

 

And the other, regardless of how contentious and exploitative it may seem to the onlooker, is not.

 

But the boardie explained their reason? And on the second, Timely et al publishers should have found another way to monetize their comic business. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that it was "the times" - depicting racial policy, ideology or insensitivity towards ethnic groups was all about making money.

 

No question it was a moneymaking exercise in propaganda (of a sort), but it wasn't Nazi propaganda.

 

By all means don't buy the argument about the times and the mores of the era. At the end of the day, the comics are still a product of that era, regardless of the publisher's cynicism. And I would disagree that the comics were depicting "racial policy or ideology" through the caricatures, but rather a tawdry, admittedly grim way of belittling an enemy who, lest we forget, were in the process of committing genocide.

 

Call it insensitivity to ethnic groups if you will. Provided the images shown regularly on the GA forum are kept within that historical context and observed as such with respect to any Asian or German boardies, that they are a historical artifact that is not equable with the industrial, incalculable slaughter invoked by the name Aryan (regardless of whether the boardie in question denies it) then that is fine.

 

It's the reason no-one here has a screen name like Hitler, or Final Solution.

 

Propaganda or not, making money off tragedy just rubs me the wrong way.

 

The take away from this is we are assuming this position of tolerance because we are entrenched in a hobby and conditioned in a way which (right or wrongly) maintains interest in this material.

 

Taking this material external to the boards and in a non-comic collector context, I'm pretty certain we would see a very similar reaction play out as the one we saw towards the boardie's screen name choice.

 

Not a chance in the world. We are beating a dead horse at this point, I guess, but the number of people who would be offended if shown the cover of Cap 1 or the Sgt Fury cover you referred to earlier is negligible. In many years of reading and discussing comics, attending shows, seeing how comics are depicted in the (nonfan) media, you are literally the first person I have ever heard raise the issue.

[Beige]

If you got offended by that blokes name, try "reading" some of the newer 'Crossed'.

How that stuff gets to print is totally beyond me.

I have a very broad line when it comes to censorship - and a very low tolerance for people 'who get offended on behalf of other people who weren't offended in the first place'

But 'crossed' well good grief.

Who in their right mind would find drawing a man humping a dead vulture whilst others 'ahem' pleasure themselves - and passing it off as 'entertainment'?

Thats offensive - not some dude who deliberately chose his name to get this over-reaction.

 

What next?

Being offended over 'twenty dolla'?

[MODOK]

.

 

As adults reading comics, I think we have to accept them for what they are. People offended by how WW II was depicted in 1940s comics are free not to read or collect them. People offended by modern comics or 1950s horror comics, can easily avoid them.

 

 

+1

 

Absolutely the best passage of this entire thread up to now IMO.

 

[Dr. Balls]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the part of the discussion that talks about people being offended by the fictional character of Captain America - who is incapable of killing due to the fact that he is, indeed, a fictional character - beating up the historical character of Adolf Hitler, who was responsible for killing millions of people.

[MODOK]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the part of the discussion that talks about people being offended by the fictional character of Captain America - who is incapable of killing due to the fact that he is, indeed, a fictional character - beating up the historical character of Adolf Hitler, who was responsible for killing millions of people.

 

I know, it baffles the mind, doesn't it? I'm also not sure where that illogical rabid political correctness stance comes from either.

[comicwiz]

Last time I'm asking because it is seemingly not coming forward with plain language - why would you be offended by a screen name and not material depicting the same symbol/wording/imagery?

 

Because the screen name is an endorsement of an ideology, and could be perceived (rightly) as a desire to aggrandize one's status through one's race.

 

And the other, regardless of how contentious and exploitative it may seem to the onlooker, is not.

 

But the boardie explained their reason? And on the second, Timely et al publishers should have found another way to monetize their comic business. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that it was "the times" - depicting racial policy, ideology or insensitivity towards ethnic groups was all about making money.

 

No question it was a moneymaking exercise in propaganda (of a sort), but it wasn't Nazi propaganda.

 

By all means don't buy the argument about the times and the mores of the era. At the end of the day, the comics are still a product of that era, regardless of the publisher's cynicism. And I would disagree that the comics were depicting "racial policy or ideology" through the caricatures, but rather a tawdry, admittedly grim way of belittling an enemy who, lest we forget, were in the process of committing genocide.

 

Call it insensitivity to ethnic groups if you will. Provided the images shown regularly on the GA forum are kept within that historical context and observed as such with respect to any Asian or German boardies, that they are a historical artifact that is not equable with the industrial, incalculable slaughter invoked by the name Aryan (regardless of whether the boardie in question denies it) then that is fine.

 

It's the reason no-one here has a screen name like Hitler, or Final Solution.

 

Propaganda or not, making money off tragedy just rubs me the wrong way.

 

The take away from this is we are assuming this position of tolerance because we are entrenched in a hobby and conditioned in a way which (right or wrongly) maintains interest in this material.

 

Taking this material external to the boards and in a non-comic collector context, I'm pretty certain we would see a very similar reaction play out as the one we saw towards the boardie's screen name choice.

 

Not a chance in the world. We are beating a dead horse at this point, I guess, but the number of people who would be offended if shown the cover of Cap 1 or the Sgt Fury cover you referred to earlier is negligible. In many years of reading and discussing comics, attending shows, seeing how comics are depicted in the (nonfan) media, you are literally the first person I have ever heard raise the issue.

 

Funny how you were able to determine from a screen name that a boardie was a neo-Nazi, but haven't once wondered why people go out seeking material with this imagery.

[shrunkenhead]

Thanks.I think what's missing here is that comics depicting Hitler were all about beating the ENEMY,not about glorifying an ideology in todays world.

 

+1

 

Precisely. It was a marketing tool to sell war bonds, enlisting new recruits, etc.

 

 

 

This needs to be taken into consideration as a response to Comicwiz's concerns about making money off of tragic circumstances. I'd have a really hard time believing that Kirby's representations of Hitler are no more complex than a cash grab.

[Dr. Balls]

Last time I'm asking because it is seemingly not coming forward with plain language - why would you be offended by a screen name and not material depicting the same symbol/wording/imagery?

 

Because the screen name is an endorsement of an ideology, and could be perceived (rightly) as a desire to aggrandize one's status through one's race.

 

And the other, regardless of how contentious and exploitative it may seem to the onlooker, is not.

 

But the boardie explained their reason? And on the second, Timely et al publishers should have found another way to monetize their comic business. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that it was "the times" - depicting racial policy, ideology or insensitivity towards ethnic groups was all about making money.

 

No question it was a moneymaking exercise in propaganda (of a sort), but it wasn't Nazi propaganda.

 

By all means don't buy the argument about the times and the mores of the era. At the end of the day, the comics are still a product of that era, regardless of the publisher's cynicism. And I would disagree that the comics were depicting "racial policy or ideology" through the caricatures, but rather a tawdry, admittedly grim way of belittling an enemy who, lest we forget, were in the process of committing genocide.

 

Call it insensitivity to ethnic groups if you will. Provided the images shown regularly on the GA forum are kept within that historical context and observed as such with respect to any Asian or German boardies, that they are a historical artifact that is not equable with the industrial, incalculable slaughter invoked by the name Aryan (regardless of whether the boardie in question denies it) then that is fine.

 

It's the reason no-one here has a screen name like Hitler, or Final Solution.

 

Propaganda or not, making money off tragedy just rubs me the wrong way.

 

The take away from this is we are assuming this position of tolerance because we are entrenched in a hobby and conditioned in a way which (right or wrongly) maintains interest in this material.

 

Taking this material external to the boards and in a non-comic collector context, I'm pretty certain we would see a very similar reaction play out as the one we saw towards the boardie's screen name choice.

 

Not a chance in the world. We are beating a dead horse at this point, I guess, but the number of people who would be offended if shown the cover of Cap 1 or the Sgt Fury cover you referred to earlier is negligible. In many years of reading and discussing comics, attending shows, seeing how comics are depicted in the (nonfan) media, you are literally the first person I have ever heard raise the issue.

 

Funny how you were able to determine from a screen name that a boardie was a neo-Nazi, but haven't once wondered why people go out seeking material with this imagery.

 

I have determined that you are a "Comic Wizard" based on your screen name, why wouldn't I do the same for someone with the name "Aryan"? I mean, people think I'm a real Doctor.

[Speedy-D]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the part of the discussion that talks about people being offended by the fictional character of Captain America - who is incapable of killing due to the fact that he is, indeed, a fictional character - beating up the historical character of Adolf Hitler, who was responsible for killing millions of people.

 

I know, it baffles the mind, doesn't it? I'm also not sure where that illogical rabid political correctness stance comes from either.

Which one?

[shrunkenhead]

 

Funny how you were able to determine from a screen name that a boardie was a neo-Nazi, but haven't once wondered why people go out seeking material with this imagery.

 

How can you not at least suspect neo-nazi tendencies when someone names himself "Aryan?" Yes, I understand that the name has "other meanings." But really, let's not be naive about this.

 

WWII references aside, I'm going to assume you've heard of the "Aryan Brotherhood?" This is not some antiquated term from the first half of the twentieth century. Neo-nazis STILL proudly use the term "Aryan" as a way in which to identify themselves. In this half of the world, this is the most common usage of the term. I'm not going to apologize for noticing that.

[shrunkenhead]

 

Funny how you were able to determine from a screen name that a boardie was a neo-Nazi, but haven't once wondered why people go out seeking material with this imagery.

 

How can you not at least suspect neo-nazi tendencies when someone names himself "Aryan?" Yes, I understand that the name has "other meanings." But really, let's not be naive about this.

 

WWII references aside, I'm going to assume you've heard of the "Aryan Brotherhood?" This is not some antiquated term from the first half of the twentieth century. Neo-nazis STILL proudly use the term "Aryan" as a way in which to identify themselves. In this half of the world, this is the most common usage of the term. I'm not going to apologize for noticing that.

[comicwiz]

Last time I'm asking because it is seemingly not coming forward with plain language - why would you be offended by a screen name and not material depicting the same symbol/wording/imagery?

 

Because the screen name is an endorsement of an ideology, and could be perceived (rightly) as a desire to aggrandize one's status through one's race.

 

And the other, regardless of how contentious and exploitative it may seem to the onlooker, is not.

 

But the boardie explained their reason? And on the second, Timely et al publishers should have found another way to monetize their comic business. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that it was "the times" - depicting racial policy, ideology or insensitivity towards ethnic groups was all about making money.

 

No question it was a moneymaking exercise in propaganda (of a sort), but it wasn't Nazi propaganda.

 

By all means don't buy the argument about the times and the mores of the era. At the end of the day, the comics are still a product of that era, regardless of the publisher's cynicism. And I would disagree that the comics were depicting "racial policy or ideology" through the caricatures, but rather a tawdry, admittedly grim way of belittling an enemy who, lest we forget, were in the process of committing genocide.

 

Call it insensitivity to ethnic groups if you will. Provided the images shown regularly on the GA forum are kept within that historical context and observed as such with respect to any Asian or German boardies, that they are a historical artifact that is not equable with the industrial, incalculable slaughter invoked by the name Aryan (regardless of whether the boardie in question denies it) then that is fine.

 

It's the reason no-one here has a screen name like Hitler, or Final Solution.

 

Propaganda or not, making money off tragedy just rubs me the wrong way.

 

The take away from this is we are assuming this position of tolerance because we are entrenched in a hobby and conditioned in a way which (right or wrongly) maintains interest in this material.

 

Taking this material external to the boards and in a non-comic collector context, I'm pretty certain we would see a very similar reaction play out as the one we saw towards the boardie's screen name choice.

 

Not a chance in the world. We are beating a dead horse at this point, I guess, but the number of people who would be offended if shown the cover of Cap 1 or the Sgt Fury cover you referred to earlier is negligible. In many years of reading and discussing comics, attending shows, seeing how comics are depicted in the (nonfan) media, you are literally the first person I have ever heard raise the issue.

 

Funny how you were able to determine from a screen name that a boardie was a neo-Nazi, but haven't once wondered why people go out seeking material with this imagery.

 

I have determined that you are a "Comic Wizard" based on your screen name, why wouldn't I do the same for someone with the name "Aryan"? I mean, people think I'm a real Doctor.

 

[Dr. Balls]

 

Funny how you were able to determine from a screen name that a boardie was a neo-Nazi, but haven't once wondered why people go out seeking material with this imagery.

 

How can you not at least suspect neo-nazi tendencies when someone names himself "Aryan?" Yes, I understand that the name has "other meanings." But really, let's not be naive about this.

 

Well put.

[Calidream'n]

 

Funny how you were able to determine from a screen name that a boardie was a neo-Nazi, but haven't once wondered why people go out seeking material with this imagery.

 

How can you not at least suspect neo-nazi tendencies when someone names himself "Aryan?" Yes, I understand that the name has "other meanings." But really, let's not be naive about this.

 

WWII references aside, I'm going to assume you've heard of the "Aryan Brotherhood?" This is not some antiquated term from the first half of the twentieth century. Neo-nazis STILL proudly use the term "Aryan" as a way in which to identify themselves. In this half of the world, this is the most common usage of the term. I'm not going to apologize for noticing that.

what assumption do you make regarding the boardie "The Black Hand"?