Top 5 M-SHE-U Failures 4 4

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:31 PM, Artboy99 said:

All good comments and i like Zendaya.  

So it sounds like you would support the casting of Orlando Bloom as T'Challa as he demonstrated excellent chemistry with the lead actress and is a talented actor and is handsome.

No.  Your argument is falling very flat.  Therealsilvermane says exactly what needs to be said about that.  There are very very few Marvel characters that are truly defined by their ethnicity.  But Black Panther is one of those few.  He's a product of his times and was very intentionally made a black man. Maybe Black Goliath also is one of those characters?  I don't know.

Most of the Marvel characters are only white because when they were created when segregation was still in full effect.  If they'd been created in the present day, they might be anything because their ethnicity is immaterial to their characters real essence.  It is hard to come up with Marvel characters other than Black Panther who are defined by their ethnicity.  I don't think even Storm is based on the way she was portrayed in X-Men.  Her race was never really an issue. Could she be white and still be Storm the X-Man?  I think so. 

I'm ok with black Nick Fury. Heck, Nick Fury was crusading for civil rights in the 1960s so I'm sure Stan and Jack were or would be too.  Does that really bother you?   

[Artboy99]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:56 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Skin color exists, it’s part of our real world,  and it can be important to a story, especially if history or current events are involved. You can’t cast Orlando Bloom in the lead in a movie about Rodney King because King’s skin color and ethnicity are important to his story. The same with T’Challa, his African heritage as leader of a country cut off from European colonialism is important to the story, so T’Challa has to be black. Therefore you can’t cast Orlando Bloom as T’Challa. MJ on the other hand has no specific ethnic background which makes her special. The only thing that makes her character special is her beauty, personality, and courage. MJ could be portrayed by any actor, black white or brown. Her skin color isn’t important because it’s not important to MJ’s story.

take the concept further:

any character could be portrayed by any actor, black white or brown. Skin color isn’t important because it’s not important to any character's story since it is a made up universe. If Disney can change the history of Namor changing the culture it was originally based on to the Aztecs and change the name of the kingdom from Atlantis to Talokan, they can change Wakanda or anything else for that matter.

Interesting discussion.

[Artboy99]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:01 PM, sfcityduck said:

No.  Your argument is falling very flat.  Therealsilvermane says exactly what needs to be said about that.  There are very very few Marvel characters that are truly defined by their ethnicity.  But Black Panther is one of those few.  He's a product of his times and was very intentionally made a black man. Maybe Black Goliath also is one of those characters?  I don't know.

Most of the Marvel characters are only white because when they were created when segregation was still in full effect.  If they'd been created in the present day, they might be anything because their ethnicity is immaterial to their characters real essence.  It is hard to come up with Marvel characters other than Black Panther who are defined by their ethnicity.  I don't think even Storm is based on the way she was portrayed in X-Men.  Her race was never really an issue. Could she be white and still be Storm the X-Man?  I think so. 

I'm ok with black Nick Fury. Heck, Nick Fury was crusading for civil rights in the 1960s so I'm sure Stan and Jack were or would be too.  Does that really bother you?   

I just think it is far simpler to stay true to the characters as they were created than to reinvent the wheel.

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Artboy99

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:14 PM, Artboy99 said:

I just think it is far simpler to stay true to the characters as they were created than to reinvent the wheel.

 

If the creators are ok with the reinvention, why should you care?  

Moreover, a lot of Marvel characters were created white because they are a product of the era of segregation.  Why stay "true" to that?

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:56 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

The same with T’Challa, his African heritage as leader of a country cut off from European colonialism is important to the story, so T’Challa has to be black.

But Cecil Rhodes is deceased. Why isn't Wakanda striving to be more ethnically diverse like the rest of us enlightened nations? Why can't subsequent Black Panthers be - while by definition remaining tragically nationalistic - more diverse, such as a Wakandan of European, South American or Asian descent? 

As a nation, I think it's time Wakanda needs to stop being so ethnocentric and xenophobic. I find it dishearteningly regressive. 

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:33 PM, sfcityduck said:

If the creators are ok with the reinvention, why should you care?  

Moreover, a lot of Marvel characters were created white because they are a product of the era of segregation.  Why stay "true" to that?

Why's he not allowed to care? Those characters may be near and dear to his heart, and he'd like to see them look like the art he's read/seen for decades.

I think a lot of Marvel characters were white because their creators were white. People tend to put themselves in their creations. And most readers want to see themselves. America was near 90% white in the 60's, so that was the target audience. Based on the demographics of the time, I'd imagine most people wanted to see white, Christian heroes. Probably why Jewish writers/artists didn't create a lot of Jewish heroes. And why Matt Baker drew predominantly white women. Of course, like everything else, just conjecture.

 

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:23 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

Why's he not allowed to care? Those characters may be near and dear to his heart, and he'd like to see them look like the art he's read/seen for decades.

I think a lot of Marvel characters were white because their creators were white. People tend to put themselves in their creations. And most readers want to see themselves. America was near 90% white in the 60's, so that was the target audience. Based on the demographics of the time, I'd imagine most people wanted to see white, Christian heroes. Probably why Jewish writers/artists didn't create a lot of Jewish heroes. And why Matt Baker drew predominantly white women. Of course, like everything else, just conjecture.

 

You bring up a good point in that people by their nature often choose characters that are relatable.  On a superficial basis, this can include skin color and other immutable traits. This, however, seems to be something we should hope to move away from, but we always seem to circle back to it. 

It does seem strange that in the case of an Atlantean or even a Kryptonian, that they'd be either black or white! I think it made sense that Attuma was blue...  

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:17 PM, PopKulture said:

 

As a nation, I think it's time Wakanda needs to stop being so ethnocentric and xenophobic. I find it dishearteningly regressive. 

There is some irony in the notion of Wakanda as society of blacks who segregated themselves.  But, the key is that they "self segregated." There is no story about Wakanda mistreating whites. It is a more of a "hidden kingdom" story like Lothlorien. I believe Wakanda was inspired by Liberia - which was founded by freed black slaves transported from America by folks in the 1820s who believed blacks would face a better chance for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the U.S.  A very sad comment on the U.S. that Americans had that attitude about their own country.  Of course, they were probably right at that point in time.

Liberia is the oldest Republic in Africa, the national language is English, it was never colonized, and its capital is named Monrovia after U.S. President Monroe.  The first Liberian President was from Virginia.  Things started to go South for Liberia a few decades back.  But, in the 1960s, it was probably a good inspiration for Wakanda.

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:23 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

Probably why Jewish writers/artists didn't create a lot of Jewish heroes. And why Matt Baker drew predominantly white women. Of course, like everything else, just conjecture.

 

Yeah?  I think not.  Comics were generally segregated.  Baker did get to draw Negro Romances. (And S&S did create a Jewish superhero book.)  But most white publishers were afraid to offend readers in the South.   

EC's "Judgment Day" is one of the few stories to buck that trend.

Not sure why folks want to feel nostalgia for a segregated society.  It is certainly not a reason to perpetuate a racist past.

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:39 PM, sfcityduck said:

There is some irony in the notion of Wakanda as society of blacks who segregated themselves.  But, the key is that they "self segregated."

Wakanda's self-segregation could however be seen as staunchly protectionist, especially when hoarding a valuable resource like vibranium. Wakanda might as easily be seen as a nation that's trying to maintain a disproportionately high standard of living at the expense of neighbors far less fortunate. Race and identity often obfuscate what is the real inequity of our time - of all times actually, since before the pharaohs - the gap between the haves and the have-nots. 

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

Baker did get to draw Negro Romances.

I didn't know that title featured Baker art! I know it featured photo covers over its short run. In today's cover-focused collecting community, it would be very interesting to see how a Baker cover would affect the desirability and value of those issues. 

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:49 PM, PopKulture said:

Wakanda's self-segregation could however be seen as staunchly protectionist, especially when hoarding a valuable resource like vibranium. Wakanda might as easily be seen as a nation that's trying to maintain a disproportionately high standard of living at the expense of neighbors far less fortunate. Race and identity often obfuscate what is the real inequity of our time - of all times actually, since before the pharaohs - the gap between the haves and the have-nots. 

All true.  Make a great comic book. 

But irrelevant to whether there is something wrong with portraying a historically white character, like Gwen, as black.  Or a historically black character like Storm as white.  I'd be ok with either because their ethnicity is not material to their story.  

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

Yeah?  I think not.  Comics were generally segregated.  Baker did get to draw Negro Romances. (And S&S did create a Jewish superhero book.)  But most white publishers were afraid to offend readers in the South.   

EC's "Judgment Day" is one of the few stories to buck that trend.

Not sure why folks want to feel nostalgia for a segregated society.  It is certainly not a reason to perpetuate a racist past.

No one is debating that at that time, it was white artist/writers creating white, Christian heroes for a majority white public. That was the time. Doesn't change the fact that those characters are beloved. By white, black, everyone. Guess I'm not sure what you mean by segregated? Certainly, anyone could read the books, regardless of color, gender, etc. Do you mean in producing them? If so, that's pretty clear.

Who wants to feel "nostalgia" for a segregated society? I think we're just talking about history, trying to figure out how we got to here. 

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:55 PM, PopKulture said:

I didn't know that title featured Baker art! I know it featured photo covers over its short run. In today's cover-focused collecting community, it would be very interesting to see how a Baker cover would affect the desirability and value of those issues. 

Apparently you think the run is shorter than it really is.  This copy sold for around $7,000.  Hard to find a copy.  Baker art?  I hear it said that it is a self-portrait.  Verified?  I don't think so.  Leap of faith but decent prices paid.

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

Not sure why folks want to feel nostalgia for a segregated society. 

On 3/22/2023 at 9:55 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

Who wants to feel "nostalgia" for a segregated society? I think we're just talking about history, trying to figure out how we got to here. 

Lamentably, I believe in today's hyper-charged social environment, there is a recent taint associated with nostalgia, a sort of inexorable contagion if you will, wherein people ascribe or somehow affix the worst aspects of an era instead of the better aspects. For example, if you grew up in the 50's, it's no longer okay with some people to wax nostalgic. It's regrettable that you almost feel compelled to offer caveats - yes, I miss the cars, the music, the malt shop... but, I simultaneously and zealously condemn all the persistent racial animus, the McCarthyism of the era, the entrenched misogyny...

You shouldn't have to over-qualify everything. 

[Artboy99]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:08 PM, sfcityduck said:

Apparently you think the run is shorter than it really is.  This copy sold for around $7,000.  Hard to find a copy.  Baker art?  I hear it said that it is a self-portrait.  Verified?  I don't think so.  Leap of faith but decent prices paid.

Nice book, never seen it before.

[PopKulture]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:08 PM, sfcityduck said:

Apparently you think the run is shorter than it really is. 

I knew about the Charlton issue in addition to the three Fawcetts  but it's the attribution that was news to me. 

(I guess I did imply they were photo covers, though, but that was only the Fawcett run.)

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by PopKulture

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:55 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

No one is debating that at that time, it was white artist/writers creating white, Christian heroes for a majority white public. That was the time. Doesn't change the fact that those characters are beloved. By white, black, everyone. Guess I'm not sure what you mean by segregated? Certainly, anyone could read the books, regardless of color, gender, etc. Do you mean in producing them? If so, that's pretty clear.

 

Many things wrong here.

First, the comic industry was not segregated.  Being based in the North, in worldly NYC, it had prominent black (Matt Baker), asian (Bob Fuji), female (Lily Renee), Jewish (Siegel), etc. artists and writers.

Second, most comic heroes were of an unidentified religion. Was Superman Jewish?  He had Jewish influences. But who knew?  He was from Krypton!  I don't think religion was a thing for many comic characters. Hawkman being an exception.

Third, but vast portions of the U.S. were segregated.  If you don't know what that means I'd suggest you look it up.  Racism was prevalent in comics with many racist caricatures - an easy thing to fall into in a profession where caricature is a big part of the art form.  Blacks were generally characters in all Black comics or minor or supporting characters.  There are some pretty good books on this topic if you're interested.  

That was the time.  But we don't need to feel strait jacketed by that now.  Plenty of room to be creative and have a black Gwen and Spiderman in an interracial relationship in today's world.

[sfcityduck]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:13 PM, PopKulture said:

I knew about the Charlton issue in addition to the three Fawcetts  but it's the attribution that was news to me. 

(I guess I did imply they were photo covers, though, but that was only the Fawcett run.)

 

GCD views the Charlton issue as a continuation of the Charlton run as I guess Charlton picked up parts of Fawcett.  The attribution get mentioned on these boards every time one comes up for sale.  I can't say it is true.  GCD is silent. Sellers are making out well.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:05 PM, Artboy99 said:

take the concept further:

any character could be portrayed by any actor, black white or brown. Skin color isn’t important because it’s not important to any character's story since it is a made up universe. If Disney can change the history of Namor changing the culture it was originally based on to the Aztecs and change the name of the kingdom from Atlantis to Talokan, they can change Wakanda or anything else for that matter.

Interesting discussion.

Well let’s take a few steps back in discussing Atlantis and Talocan.

Stan Lee’s 1962 Marvel Comics revolution was creating a superhero world based in reality, where the heroes had real lives and real world problems. Part of that was making the heroes live in the real city of New York. While Doom’s Latveria and T’Challa’s Wakanda were fictional, they were still based on the real Earth areas of Eastern Europe and Africa.

The “real” Atlantis is just Greek mythology’s version of Sodom and Gomorrah, a city sunk by the gods for its immorality. That’s it. It’s not a place of mermaids neither is it Neptune’s kingdom. In the past 150 years, there have been dozens and dozens of different versions of the lost city of Atlantis in popular fiction. There are no rules to Atlantis and authors can do whatever they want with it. It’s the height of fantasy.

What made Namor and his underwater kingdom unique in Marvel is it was a place threatened by the doings of the surface world and he was a super-powered mutant king ready to defend it. Atlantis was just a name. Ryan Coogler stuck to that character essence in Wakanda Forever. Switching Namor’s kingdom to the Aztec mythology place Talocan changed absolutely nothing in that regard. At the same time, it made Namor more complex by tying his origins to the real history of Spanish colonialism. It made Namor more relatable to Wakanda. It freed the character from the pulp fiction cliche of Atlantis. And yes, it increased Marvel Studios’ global market reach by putting part of the MCU in Mexico.

Edited March 23, 2023 by @therealsilvermane