Are we allowed to Romanticize anything anymore?

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, but didn't he actually fight, like, Nazis in the comic?

Keep in mind, I'm not a Captain America reader per se. I have a bunch of Cap comics from the 80s and 890s though, mostly where they tied in with other characters (Spider-Man, other primary Avengers like Iron Man, etc)

It is my understanding that he hasn't fought Nazis in a long time. The original comics are from a way different period, and heroes were different then even if one ignores the propaganda of punching Hitler. note that propaganda doesn't mean it's wrong, but Cap served as a propaganda piece either way. So yes, he used to fight Nazis. But this is a character we're bringing to the present, and while his attitude towards the modern world is important to his character, explicitly fighting the Nazis is more of an artifact of a bygone time. Changing it so Hydra is the major threat as far as Cap is concerned makes sense to me in the same sense that Tony Stark shouldn't be captured in Vietnam. Hell, the Taliban or whoever got him in afghanistan will become dated eventually, but Hydra? Well, cut off one head, two more...Oh, you've heard the slogan.

I'd also note that the more recent media I've seen has done this same retcon to the story. Hydra is a big player inmost versions of Steve's origin now.

Anyway, I'm not sure they feared romanticising the Nazis all that much. I just think Hydra makes a better segway than Hitler.

Steve Rogers is already a tough act to keep contemporary. That was even the reason they killed him off a couple years back. Or, the reason they gave. I buy it, though. I don't think there's nowhere for his character to go, I just think that it's probably difficult writing that guy in the modern era of comics. It doesn't hurt that people's idea of what Cap is and should be is heavily divided to begin with.

That may be true, and it does seem likely, but I'd not want to presume. In any case it didn't seem to address the OP's actual question as much as just mock his, as you say, overly dramatic tone. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Keep in mind that the original post complains about one line (okay, I think it was said a couple times) in a Nostalgia Critic review. One line in which he then immediately goes on to praise it. Doug talked about how the series (and to a lesser extent, the film) worked. Within context of the romanticised bit. This makes it come off as not just overly dramatic, but incredibly whiny. You know those people who get offended if someone says "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" when they're in earshot? AKA my family? Or those people who react to Anita Sarkeesian so reflexively that if you mentioned she tied her shoes, they would start a diatribe against her stance on shoelaces vs velcro?

It sounds like the OP heard the word "romanticised" and went off on a tirade, even though there was no contextual ground to do so.

Given the notion that we can't do something because someone doesn't like it does seem like grounds for the above response.

Though maybe it was just mockery. I can't say for sure it wasn't. I can, however, add context. The original post comes off as petulance, rather than a serious and legitimate gripe. Bringing up Captain America only solidifies that in my mind.

And, I mean, the only reason I watched the Disneycember video in the first place is because Blip's autoplay was on, I was washing dishes, and the Santa video had just ended. I mean, is Doug Walker anti-romanticisation? After his adulation of various Santa Clauses in movies, I sincerely doubt it. But this was the starting poiint for a rant about cynicism and political correctness.

I think the ultimate answer is that as long as there is no legal prohibition, there is no prohibition. Even if some people don't like it.

Now, my response probably would have been more to Twilight and Transformers (both chosen because there's a Cullen involved. >.>) and how they are franchises despite complaints and hate. And you know what? I'm decidedly against both series. Well, to clarify, I'm against Bayformers. And all the criticism, all the anger, all the hate that Bay has destroyed Transformers and Meyers has ruined vampires and Obama is stealing Christmas doesn't change that.

But I think both approaches are aimed at the same endgoal here.

And on my last tangent, I'm just going to say I don't think it's all or nothing anyway. There's nothing wrong with romanticised media, but you can go too far. just like everything else. It's a tool or a method. I hate overly grim and dark material, too. History can be dry, realistic can be boring, etc. etc.

 

[Gorrath]

That may be true, and it does seem likely, but I'd not want to presume. In any case it didn't seem to address the OP's actual question as much as just mock his, as you say, overly dramatic tone. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Keep in mind that the original post complains about one line (okay, I think it was said a couple times) in a Nostalgia Critic review. One line in which he then immediately goes on to praise it. Doug talked about how the series (and to a lesser extent, the film) worked. Within context of the romanticised bit. This makes it come off as not just overly dramatic, but incredibly whiny. You know those people who get offended if someone says "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" when they're in earshot? AKA my family? Or those people who react to Anita Sarkeesian so reflexively that if you mentioned she tied her shoes, they would start a diatribe against her stance on shoelaces vs velcro?

It sounds like the OP heard the word "romanticised" and went off on a tirade, even though there was no contextual ground to do so.

Given the notion that we can't do something because someone doesn't like it does seem like grounds for the above response.

Though maybe it was just mockery. I can't say for sure it wasn't. I can, however, add context. The original post comes off as petulance, rather than a serious and legitimate gripe. Bringing up Captain America only solidifies that in my mind.

And, I mean, the only reason I watched the Disneycember video in the first place is because Blip's autoplay was on, I was washing dishes, and the Santa video had just ended. I mean, is Doug Walker anti-romanticisation? After his adulation of various Santa Clauses in movies, I sincerely doubt it. But this was the starting poiint for a rant about cynicism and political correctness.

I think the ultimate answer is that as long as there is no legal prohibition, there is no prohibition. Even if some people don't like it.

Now, my response probably would have been more to Twilight and Transformers (both chosen because there's a Cullen involved. >.>) and how they are franchises despite complaints and hate. And you know what? I'm decidedly against both series. Well, to clarify, I'm against Bayformers. And all the criticism, all the anger, all the hate that Bay has destroyed Transformers and Meyers has ruined vampires and Obama is stealing Christmas doesn't change that.

But I think both approaches are aimed at the same endgoal here.

And on my last tangent, I'm just going to say I don't think it's all or nothing anyway. There's nothing wrong with romanticised media, but you can go too far. just like everything else. It's a tool or a method. I hate overly grim and dark material, too. History can be dry, realistic can be boring, etc. etc.

Firstly, allow me to express my appreciation that you took the time to respond in such detail, and mention that I largely agree with you. The OP's way of going about his question, and the examples provided do seem to be a bit shaky, but I think the over all question he seemed to be asking has some merit. Specifically, why does there seem to be a backlash against romanticism in favor of cynicism and dark themes? I responded to the question a bit already, in that I think it has to do with the general feeling of weakness and helplessness of the times, mixed with what seems like a never ending barrage of bad news about ways everyone's getting screwed. It's hard to appreciate the fanciful and romantic when one feels punished simply for existing.

But, while I do agree that the examples he picked might not be the best (I've no knowledge of Nostalgia Critic and didn't see any great backlash against Captain America) I can say that there does seem to be a tremendous movement in media in general away from the romantic and toward the cynical and dark. The Bayformers you and I seem to mutually despise are a good example of this, along with DCs myriad of films, dark and gritty sci-fi, dark and gritty war movies, dark and gritty dramas, dark and gritty fantasy. That's not to say there is no romantic media being produce, but the preponderance certainly seems askew.

I'm not against all the dark and gritty myself, as I do like "realistic" or at least cynical takes on things. I consider myself a cynic and a romantic (believing the first, hoping for the second), and find that both can be appealing when done well. Until the third Iron Man movie I thought Marvel was doing a fine job a being more romantic than cynical, and I find myself appreciating it. I liked Pacific Rim more than I should have because it's much more lighthearted and more heroic than so much else of what's out there, and it's a movie about aliens from another dimension trying to wipe out humanity!

As to you points about things not being banned if not banned legally and that a thing can be a franchise despite an outcry and hate, I agree on both counts. However, I would add that censorship does not just come from government, but can come from anyone in a position of authority and power. Critics, editors, movie execs and, perhaps to the greatest degree, the all mighty dollar can do a lot to affect what media makes it to our eyes and ears. I feel I can say with some certainty that the deluge of dark and gritty being produced isn't simply because no one's making anything romantic. But again, I think it's because of the mood of the culture.

Lastly, I agree that it is never all or nothing. The cynical or romantic can become trite when it begins to border on propaganda or crushes our suspense of disbelief.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I think people still like romanticizing the past. It seems that romanticization of the past could be dangerous, though. We don't want to romanticize the wrong things, like slavery and nazism, nor should we let our romanticization of the past interfere with the present, as many conservatives pining for the 50's do. We should also stay aware of the reality of the times we romanticize too, I think[footnote]for instance: the allies in WWII weren't squeaky clean good guys. They did terrible shit too, just nothing so bad as what the Nazis and Imperial Japan did.[/footnote].

 

[Vale]

You are perfectly allowed to practice hero-worship and romanticize whatever historical misunderstandings you wish. But you will be criticized for it. That is inevitable. Accept it or stop trying to romanticize things. It really is an awful practice.

 

[Poppy JR.]

Of course we can! Pirates of the Caribbean and the most recent Assassin's Creed game romanticized pirates, for instance. Romanticized, well, romance, is in just about every teen flick, romantic comedy, etc. Space travel is romanticized constantly (except maybe Gravity).

 

[Rariow]

It's not that we're allowed to, we're actively expected to. The whole point of fiction is romanticizing things - unless you're making a super-realistic piece of fiction, the version of the real world you're presenting in your work is going to be romanticized in some way. Fiction is never the same as what it portrays, and if it's "better", then someone, somewhere, will perceive that as romanticizing it.

The criticism you're talking about comes from romanticizing things that to this day are issues. Django arguably romanticized racism (whether it did or not is a whole other discussion. I personally don't agree that it did, but let's assume it did for argument's sake), which is still a problem. Captain America apparently romanticized American militaristic nationalism (I wouldn't know, haven't seen the film), which some would consider to be a problem (myself included). You're allowed and even expected to make things look better than they are/were in fiction as long as you're not portraying something that is commonly accepted as negative in the real-world in a positive light.

 

[Olas]

I don't find romanticism to be condemned nearly as much as it used to be. If anything people seem to want more of it. Man of Steel tried to de-romanticize Superman in many ways and got tons of flack for it. I think it's only ideas that we consider outdated or backwards in the first place that we dislike romanticizing.

Has Romanticising things been banned by the UN or your own government?

If not, you're allowed to do it. People are allowed to condemn you for romanticising things.

Perhaps you should read more than just the thread title before posting. OP clearly explains that he's talking about whether romanticism is allowed from acultural perspective not a legal one.

 

[FalloutJack]

Of course you can romanticise. That's what movies are FOR.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't find romanticism to be condemned nearly as much as it used to be. If anything people seem to want more of it. Man of Steel tried to de-romanticize Superman in many ways and got tons of flack for it.

Being shit might also be a reason there, though. A darker Superman might have sold to a modern audience. A brighter Superman might have been written off as cornball. I mean, honestly.

 

[Aaron Boyd]

So I was just watching one of Nostalgia Critic's latest videos. He is doing Disneycember and this year is focusing on the live action films. The one I just finished watching it that of Davy Crocket. In his review/summary he says repeatedly that it is a romanticized version of the historical figure. It got me to thinking. Are we allowed to romanticize anything anymore?

Yes and no. True, we do live in a cynical, post-Vietnam, post-Iraq, post-Wikileaks age, but this isn't the first time it's happened. People were pretty cynical during the Depression, two World Wars, Nehuchadnezzer's destruction of the Second Temple, the black death, and at least four or five other sad things that happened in human history. But things change. As a species, we're incapable of holding any mood for too long.

I'm an English major at one of the best schools on the planet, and I'll tell you right now that all these trends and fads move like a pendulum; if it swings too far in one direction, it will right itself and swing in the opposite. There's countless examples of this, even in recent history. Compare the "Aw shucks, gee maw, it sure is swell not to know any Jewish folk!" naivety of the 1950's with the angry rebellion on the 60's, and then compare THAT to the staid conservatism of the 80's. And the neo-conservatism of the 2000's, which lead to the progress liberalism of Barack Obama in 2008.

Basically, societies tend to lurch awkwardly from one extreme to the other, and in the process, they sort of accidentally find a middle ground. It's not as bad as it sounds. Honest.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

Are you being serious? Because that sounds largely made up. It's certainly not in keeping with the reality of the origins of this thread (Or do you think the Nostalgia Critic is 'PC'?)

 

[Reiper]

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

Yeah, sorry, this is just flat-out wrong. In several ways.

First, that there is no such thing as a "PC crowd". Political Correctness is an accusation used to silence critics, a tool used by the right-wing to pretend that they can use their freedom of speech to say anything they want about anyone they want, but if anyone ever uses their freedom of speech to criticize, they're "the PC crowd", a bunch of bullies running roughshod over the world to prevent people from saying ... things. And the fact that all of these media properties romanticizing the past got made by Hollywood[/i], you know, that place that's always being accused of being the Basion of Liberal Thought, shows that this accusation of political correctness is false.

But your greater error is in claiming that a class of people hate America. While there may be a lot of people around the world who do dislike the American government's policy decisions and find American cultural trends towards guns and 64 oz. Big Gulps as quaintly amusing, again and again people around the world report in every poll I've seen that they like Americans. As for Americans themselves, don't make the fundamental flaw of assuming that just because someone criticizes an aspect of the country or demands a sincere remembrance of a dark time in the nation's past, that this means they dislike the country. Most people criticize because they wish to see the country become better.

Political correctness is definitely real. I lost 5% on a term paper because I used the word "mankind" instead of "humankind", a perfect example of political correctness run amok.

Also it is not wrong that some people have an illogical hate for America. It is not necessarily super prevalent, but in Canada I have often noticed an undercurrent of resentment and off-handed remarks that betray either disdain for Americans, and not just the American government either. It usually manifests in comments like "Americans are so stupid" or "God I hate Americans". Funny enough, it is usually people with a left-wing political affiliation that hold these views.

 

[Fox12]

Hmm... it depends. If it feels like the creators are trying to intentionally rewrite history, then yes, I would be angry. And yes, there are many examples of this. The most extreme version I can think of would be Birth of a Nation, which offered a romanticized view of the KKK. In that instance the creators were trying to sway peoples ideals through their emotions. It's good to be critical because it keeps you from being manipulated.

At the same time it's refreshing to watch something that's idealistic and straightforward. Les Mis was certainly dark, but I would consider it a romantic and idealistic film. The better versions of Superman and Captain America are good too. Of course America isn't perfect. I could spend all day talking about illegal undeclared wars, empire building, secret coups in South America and Iran, and many other things. That said, these characters are idealized versions of what America should strive to become, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

*snip*

*snip*

The "PC" crowd certainly do exist, and I am not talking about people who "criticize" speech they are overly sensitive about, that's protected by the first amendment, but people who want it banned or punished.

That sort of crowd does have in irrationally negative view of America and anything associated with it. If you fly an American flag outside your house, with no other indicator your political beliefs, many Americans will adopt a negative view of you based on the presence of the flag alone. They will think "He is probably some right wing, utra-patriot, tea-bagger".

I think it comes from people not being able to properly understand patriotism and American exceptionalism. There is nothing wrong with shouting "We're the best". Germans aren't narcissistic elitists for having "Deutschland Uber Alles" in their anthem.

But that's a good example of the PC crowd and how they work. You cant say that Coke tastes great because then you are insulting pepsi, and how dare you hurt Pepsi's feelings. You cant call anything great or exceptional. You can only say that everyone and everything is exactly of the same quality in every measurable aspect.

 

[Ryotknife]

These sort of remarks don't necessarily indicate true hatred of America as a whole, but rather a hatred of American government policy.

....that sounds like an attack against the American people specifically. If it was, "America is so stupid" or "God I hate America" that would be one thing.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/03/14/americas-image-in-the-world-findings-from-the-pew-global-attitudes-project/

Granted this article is from 2007, but it does show that there is (or was) worldwide disdain for the American people specifically and not just the government.

"A fourth feature of contemporary anti-Americanism is that it is no longer just the U.S. as a country that is perceived negatively, but increasingly the American people as well, a sign that anti-American opinions are deepening and becoming more entrenched. In countries such as Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, and Turkey, favorable views of Americans have declined significantly in recent years.

In 2005, we asked people around the world about the kinds of characteristics they associate with the American people, and we found a somewhat mixed picture. On the positive side, we are widely seen as hardworking and inventive. On the negative side, in most of the countries surveyed, fewer than half said Americans are honest, while majorities said we are greedy and violent. Significant numbers also considered Americans rude and immoral."

Course, hate is a pretty big step from disdain. But people in the US use the word hate a lot to mean anything that is even slightly unfavorable so no surprise there.

 

[Reiper]

Hi, I'm a teacher who has taught English among other places, at the University and High School levels. Your grade is not evidence of political correctness "run amok". Your reaction to it rather supports my position, that you're using the accusation of political correctness to try to invalidate and silence the criticism you received for your word choice.

"Mankind" is inappropriate for academic writing. I'm not going to debate the 5% reduction because I can't comment on it without knowing your teacher's rubric or grading scheme, but a penalty of some kind is appropriate. Just as it would be appropriate to reduce the grade of a student who uses the words, "asshole" or "fucking *****" in their paper or who ended every paragraph with, "like, ya'know?"

I'm sympathetic because I had an almost identical situation when I was an undergrad (only I lost IIRC a whole letter grade). The problem is that professors (or more likely, the TAs who do their grading for them) are not explaining why this is important properly. It wasn't until I became a university teacher myself that I began to understand that writing in academia isn't about expressing yourself. It's about distilling information down into a format that is most accessible to a community of scholars around the world with the goal of advancing human knowledge. That means all of these knit-picky deductions for formatting or non-inclusive language really do have a purpose, to train students to be able to participate in that discourse community. In my experience a lot of professors are terrible at explaining this, and students often get penalized without understanding why.

I am not sure how I am trying to "silence the criticism" of my word choice. I am simply saying that using words such as "mankind" should be a non-issue, and one that has never seen me penalized in an academic setting before. I do not think "mankind" is in any way comparable to "*****" or "asshole", since it has an established dictionary definition and is in no way slang or vulgar. I would also argue that because of its definition, that it is gender-neutral. Some people have just taken issue with it because it has "man" in it, and that somehow makes in non-inclusive.

Well, and "humankind" sounds really dumb.

Of course, I am getting too wrapped up in this specific incident, but in my mind that is what most people see political correctness as. It is changing language for the sake of it, simply because they perceive otherwise innocuous words to be offensive somehow. Another good example are the controversies surrounding the word "niggard". I guess I understand the idea of trying to reach as wide an audience as possible, and I don't like to offend people, but some of the new diction just seems silly.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Romanticizing things is so old. We're supposed to Impressionize things now.

 

[EternallyBored]

Hi, I'm a teacher who has taught English among other places, at the University and High School levels. Your grade is not evidence of political correctness "run amok". Your reaction to it rather supports my position, that you're using the accusation of political correctness to try to invalidate and silence the criticism you received for your word choice.

"Mankind" is inappropriate for academic writing. I'm not going to debate the 5% reduction because I can't comment on it without knowing your teacher's rubric or grading scheme, but a penalty of some kind is appropriate. Just as it would be appropriate to reduce the grade of a student who uses the words, "asshole" or "fucking *****" in their paper or who ended every paragraph with, "like, ya'know?"

I'm sympathetic because I had an almost identical situation when I was an undergrad (only I lost IIRC a whole letter grade). The problem is that professors (or more likely, the TAs who do their grading for them) are not explaining why this is important properly. It wasn't until I became a university teacher myself that I began to understand that writing in academia isn't about expressing yourself. It's about distilling information down into a format that is most accessible to a community of scholars around the world with the goal of advancing human knowledge. That means all of these knit-picky deductions for formatting or non-inclusive language really do have a purpose, to train students to be able to participate in that discourse community. In my experience a lot of professors are terrible at explaining this, and students often get penalized without understanding why.

I am not sure how I am trying to "silence the criticism" of my word choice. I am simply saying that using words such as "mankind" should be a non-issue, and one that has never seen me penalized in an academic setting before. I do not think "mankind" is in any way comparable to "*****" or "asshole", since it has an established dictionary definition and is in no way slang or vulgar. I would also argue that because of its definition, that it is gender-neutral. Some people have just taken issue with it because it has "man" in it, and that somehow makes in non-inclusive.

Well, and "humankind" sounds really dumb.

Of course, I am getting too wrapped up in this specific incident, but in my mind that is what most people see political correctness as. It is changing language for the sake of it, simply because they perceive otherwise innocuous words to be offensive somehow. Another good example are the controversies surrounding the word "niggard". I guess I understand the idea of trying to reach as wide an audience as possible, and I don't like to offend people, but some of the new diction just seems silly.

I think a closer comparison would be getting penalized for using Anno Domini or Year of our Lord, in an academic paper instead of AD or ACE, depending on the class. While not strictly wrong, it is considered imprecise language, and the issue I think DANGER is taking with your statement, is that rather than elaborate or actually attempt to learn why you were marked down, you immediately jumped to "political correctness run amok", in an academic setting, making assumptions like that casts a poorer light on you than it does the professor.

To some, (especially sociology and other humanities professors), this kind of nomenclature is important, it may seem anal to you, especially at the undergraduate level, but to an experienced educator it can become grating. To someone with a PhD in one of the various fields of human or cultural study, you're basically calling something a kitty, rather than a cat or feline, or using its more correct binomial nomenclature.

Kind of a minor thing to remove 5% for, but professors have their own little pet issues, and if you're at the undergrad level, they can be a bit oblivious that not everyone has the same precise consideration for their chosen field that they do. Still, that's no excuse to jump straight to "Blarg the PC brigade is out of control". it's a massive assumption on your part, and if you are a grad student, it is monumentally unprofessional as well.

 

[Dandark]

I'd say it depends on what the piece of media in question is trying to do. If someone wanted to make a gritty realistic depiction of WWII then it should be pretty awful and dirty and generally depressing. However not everything needs to be like this.

A lot of the time I love romanticized things, part of the reason I enjoy certain animes is that they are heavily romanticized. One piece is one of my favourite anime shows because I see it as a romanticized tale of pirates, it isn't in anyway realistic but it also still can be taken seriously when it needs to be.

There is nothing wrong with things being romanticized but not everything needs to be.