Captain America Vs. The Tyranny Of "Dark"

[RossaLincoln]

snip.

With all due respect, and I cannot stress enough I do not mean this personally, there is a vast historical record of what fascism was and is. And it isn't how you're describing it here. Socialists, communists, liberals and so on were the targets and enemies of fascists. Yes, even and especially in Nazi Germany. It's why Hitler was bent on destroying the USSR. Fascism is totalitarian system to be sure, and that means every aspect of the state is forced under the boot of the dictatorship. But totalitarianism isn't the exclusive domain of 20th century communism anymore than awful racism is the exclusive domain of economic right wingers. People suck, people are complicated. But Nazi Germany was not even remotely left wing, nor did liberals in the US support it.

It was, I'll add, completely batshit crazy and did things that made both ardent capitalists and ardent socialists develop migraines from confusion. Because it was batshit crazy and bent largely on eliminating every single undesirable person, first in Germany and then the rest of the world.

I will say this: You really need to know what Time's Man (now person) of the Year is. It's not "international man of the year" like some kind of award for best and most awesome person, it's an issue examining the most influential or newsworthy person in a given year. If you read the actual Hitler article you keep referring to (it's available online, I swear), it's impossible to come away from it thinking Time is lauding nazi germany. There are huge sections about what a nightmare it was for everyone who wasn't "aryan". It is, however, undeniable that in 1938, everyone was amazed that in less than 6 years Germany went from a pauper nation to the bully of Europe. That's why he made the issue.

As for the rest of your points about the Cap, like I said earlier, that ship has sailed. Captain America as more than just an ass kicker for freedom (and if you really read the original Captain America comics in the 40s, his stories are more often than not monster stories or mysteries, and he's kind of nice in those comics too) is almost as old as people who are now eligible to join the AARP.

Finally, "stop fighting about gay rights, we have terrorists to kick butt on, worry about that later." Dude, there wouldn't be a fight if people who oppose equality weren't such jerks about it. The fight didn't start because people who were being oppressed liked it, but one day they decided they didn't. Or more to the point, what you're saying is functionally equivalent to a bully coming up to you, punching you repeatedly, and then you swing back to make him stop and you both get suspended because your response "started" the fight. (Which, by the way, happened to me in 8th grade, until my math teacher intervened and tore the Vice Principal a new one.)

And for what it's worth, the issue where Cap comes out in favor of gay rights involves his old war buddy getting kidnapped by Baron Zemo and brainwashed into hating himself. Maybe you can argue that the story sucked or whatever, but at least they made it make sense in context.

On the subject of Captain America, you are correct as to the tone of his stories, and that is pretty much my point. He's not a character that is supposed to be used in the context of making serious political statements. When he does get involved it is as the so called "butt kicker for freedom" if your going to use him properly. A big part of my point is that the character was undermined by trying to bring him into left wing counter-culture as a way of being critical of the government and challenging policies that the writers happened to disagree with. In the big picture a guy who is basically a commando in a fancy costume acting literally as the strong right hand of the US military-industrial complex during a war, is not the kind of guy who is going to be freaking out over espionage, counter-intelligence, or black ops. Especially given that he was acting at a time when the US outright declared martial law and pretty much suspended civil liberties on a large scale, including the press, which was co-opted into a propaganda machine both to motivate people not to resist literally throwing everything into the war, but also to fight isolationist and anti-war sentiment. With increasing technology and such Captain America of all people, as a dude who was a commando at that time is not going to even bat an eye at things like wire tapping and informational surveillance especially when the bad guys are using the same technologies and the good guys need to play the game just as hard to have any chance. He might long for simpler days, but he wouldn't freak out about it. He most certainly wouldn't destroy a resource like three Helicarriers when it was made obvious control of them could be regained, especially in light of the clear and present dangers knocking around that particular world. More to the point even without the impending threat of alien invasion, he be one of the first people suggesting action (like sending him in to do stuff) in various real world hot spots, since that is exactly what he was created and trained for in the comics especially. In short my point is that he's not the kind of character that should be used to make politically correct statements, for example in the movies the Helicarriers were destroyed as a sort of meta-statement having nothing to do with the movie reality about real world government security, not only does this garbage not belong in movies like this (where there are in-universe problems that should trump this), but Captain America arguably stands for exactly the opposite attitude, this kind of thing is where he actually agrees with Nick Fury (they do have their disagreements about other things though... one point going on before The Civil War was when Nick and Cap were talking about how they knew who killed JFK, but themselves both agreed to cover it up for purposes of stability. This all happened during a storyline involving a "Super Sailor" created as a Navy equivalent to Captain America, and a complicated situation involving internal government one upsmanship... it's also noteworthy that during all of this Nick pulls rank on Cap and he backs down, even if they aren't exactly in the regular army any more).

I more or less agree with you that making Captain America more "grimdark" is not needed, but I do think he should be presented as a bit more patriotic and pro-government (or at least pro-military intervention) which doesn't need to make him darker. One does not need to be on the leftward side of all things to be a nice guy, and for this character it makes increasingly little sense.

When it comes down to your point about Captain America's gay friend, my argument was that the whole story never should have existed. The whole point of doing something like that is to use Captain America, and his inserted political leanings, to make a social statement that the writer wants to make. That's not the kind of story Cap should be in, despite being involved in them all the time. Punching out bad guys, solving mysteries, fighting monsters, that's all Captain America stuff. Likewise just as various super-heroes have a rogues gallery gimmick, like say Spider Man fighting largely animal themed villains, Captain America is supposed to fight and defeat enemies with a patriotic theme for countries that currently oppose the US. An example would be say North Korea sending a super-villain into the US to try and steal missile guidance systems, perhaps even succeeding, leading to Captain America ultimately having to chase the guy down and recover the technology. Cap generally does not belong in stories about divisive political issues, arguably one should be able to project onto Cap say being pro or anti-gay as they choose given how divided the nation is on an issue like that. What's more if you HAD to go there, Cap should be presented as himself being ambigious on the issue and listening to both sides, while ultimately himself never making a judgement. Later on down the road if you ever get a true majority, you could say "okay Cap thinks this", but when even states like California are waffling on things like gay marriage (it's legal today, not legal tomorrow, etc...) and the result of some of the dirtiest politics ever since a a big part of the problem and that waffling is that the guys who believe promoting gay rights "is the right thing" try and manipulate the system to force things through against huge opposition without the kind of support your supposed to have to make changes like that (ie the US was designed specifically to prevent major decisions and policies being made without a substantial majority behind them... whether you agree or disagree). Basically rather than being a sort of "National Avatar" he increasingly becomes a social propaganda tool... when really the only propaganda Cap is supposed to serve is a straightforward "go to war when America asks, isolationism is wrong, and sometimes wars are necessary despite people's instincts" I mean in a way that's what he's all about... leading our country to victory against it's enemies. Cap remains a nice guy because the critics are kind of right, he's supposed to be fairly shallow, and that's part of his charm, he's not about social issues and conflicts in America but about America's conflicts with others.

That said we can't really resolve anything because he's been used for a lot of things over the years. You have your opinion, I have mine. We'll apparently have to agree to disagree.

-

This is already long, but I'll just say that I disagree with you in the strongest possible way about the Nazis, but it will get increasingly off subject if we decide to hash that out. For example we're already getting into a classic argument about "why different socialist powers 'for the people' don't get along" in terms of Russia Vs. Germany at the time. That ultimately comes down to a pair of megalomaniacs who both wanted to rule the world disagreeing over who was going to be in charge. Russia basically did not want to share with The Third Reich, and knew it was pretty close to getting to the point where it could make an international power grab itself. The Nazis wanted their socialist party to rule everything "for the people" and Russia wanted it's to do the same thing. After all, at the end of the day no matter how you dress it up someone is still going to be in charge and better off than everyone else, and calling the shots. This is in part why when Germany was defeated, things almost immediately fell apart with the Russians because the allies and Russians both realized they were on a collision course for much the same reasons. Things like "Operation Paperclip" were justified because we realized that if we didn't give shelter to German scientists and grab up their research the Russians would. We actually wound up getting lucky since the level of technology developed during WW II (namely atomic weapons) ensured we only saw a cold war. Both World War II and The Cold War were fundamentally the US fighting "left wing" governments claiming to be "of the people" and "for the workers". As much as people try and dress it up and say the Nazis were not socialists, their very name makes it clear, and they fundamentally started out doing a lot of the same things the left wing in countries like the US wants to do. Sure you can bring facism and totalitarianism into it, that's fair, but also notice that those same accusations (this going along with big government, an all powerful federal one that controls everything) tend to show up hand in hand with socialism anyway.. which is a big deal with people opposing it.

I'm just going to let that drop though without getting into it further (and yes I will concede a few points), since it will get even further off subject, and we're certainly not going to come to an agreement on a "big issue" like that in an internet debate. The whole point of bringing up that the Nazis were left wing is largely to reinforce that the point can be made and we could argue about it for months and get nowhere. Simply by being that ambigious it's not something that should be so heavily tied to a character like Captain America. As I've said, he doesn't belong being involved in social issues, he belongs in more limited stories that don't get into things where the country is divided. He's there to represent the country, not to be a propaganda tool for one side or the other. The closest thing he has to a political "leaning" is "go go, US military" and beating down anyone that threatens the country and it's interests whether they be from other nations, other planets, or random super villains out to cause chaos.

We can agree to disagree. Fun coversation in any case. Next time we should swear more, however.

 

[HemalJB]

snip

GOOD GOD!! Are you trying to write a book regarding Hitler's ideologies and Captain America's intent and purposes?

On the topic of "authors should not change the character to match their personal ideologies", you're out of luck. It is the nature of comic books that one generation's interpretation of a character is going to be vastly different from another generation depending on the changing values of the times. For instance, once characters having homosexual tendencies was a sure sign of him/her being evil and deviant, but now even heroes can be gay and proud. I wont say it's all a good thing, but considering we must be a diverse people we most accept that in time, your favorite character will do something or have an opinion you don't like, and at that point you could either accept that change or stop reading altogether.
Also, what are your thoughts on the recent Winter Soldier movie? I'd like to hear what you thought about it.

 

[Jackhorse]

I haven't logged in in forever but I have to post my appreciation of this well done article. It does seem too often that people confuse darker with more mature, although most of us get through this phase in adolescence it looks like comic book writers get stuck there pretty often.
There is a lovely side to Batman shown in Batman R.I.P., where he saves an old person from being run over by a psychopathic fame obsessed killer, when he rolls down the window to ask if she's OK she tells him he has a kind face, which gets a character-breaking soft smile and teasing by Robin. I don't think even Batman wants to be Batman the whole time.
Thanks for the article, I look forward to reading more from you.

 

[CelestDaer]

I'm going to preface this with: The only Captain America canon I know is from the movies, and I'm absolutely terrible with history, so I'm going to skirt the historical implications, but, it seems to me that Captain America is supposed to be a physical embodiment of 'the American dream' at the height of America being a superpower. He and the team destroyed the helicarriers because

Spoiler

they didn't know how much of the system was corrupted by HYDRA, and had to be sure to level the whole damn system, just to be safe

At least, that was my understanding of the in context reasons for destroying them.
Now then, Captain America as a grim dark...? That would be horrible. I'm going to go on a tangent very briefly, so, hopefully, you'll stick with me through this for the moment... Sorry, I'm going to talk about Friendship is Magic.
So, the series, big, bright, beautiful, pretty damn optimistic world, in canon? Just looking at the town, you can tell it's meant to feel idyllic. And then, some fans came along and decided, "Hey, what if Pinkie Pie went over the cliff batshit insane and started baking and eating her friends, as the ultimate expression of her love for them?" Turned her blatantly grim dark, to see what happened... that's Cupcakes, and it is so massively out of left field when compared to the actual canon. It's massively disturbing to see something innocent destroyed like that.
And, well, suddenly, a lot of fans started making grim dark ponies, because they enjoyed the fanfic. What started as a 'what if' became the go to model for character building, and the original story is all but forgotten. And it ruined the series for me, I guess? It used to be "I'm going to watch this week's episode by the end of the day," now it's a resounding "Meh, I might see it on Netflix someday..." Grim dark is an expression of the world that I'm trying to get away from. Movies, especially superhero movies, are escapism, pure and simple. I don't want to be laden down with more depressing horrors, I WANT the hero to be morally just, within reason. That's what I like about the Marvel verse, they're bright and optimistic more often than not. Sure, there are pessimists, but they're often proven wrong.
So, yeah, what I'm trying to say is, I like to see a character who doesn't just adjust their morals immediately, without something massively life changing happening to force them to change.

 

[LordMonty]

The whole point was Captain America is a good man, thats his real super power, never comprimising, never surendering and always standing up for those who cannot defend themselves. I could go on about Captain Briton being a copy serving the UK the same purpose of a unbending figure of ideals but simply put YES I agree a dark gritty cap is not need in the age dark realism he is tragically warm figure reminding us that the world should not be the way it is and we should all just try and and make it a little bit better each day(although we'll probally fail but hey its a nice idea).

 

[Nazriel]

Ross, thank you for the article. Aside from my teenage-self preferring the Dark McBroodyPants characters back in the day, I've come to favor the versions of Cap and Superman who have ideals and stick to them. (I still lean towards thinking Gotham City should have instituted a death penalty long ago. I mean, if a psychopath kills thousands of people and keeps escaping an asylum to do, flipping DO SOMETHING ANYTHING ELSE)

Having said that, the practice of superheroes being conveyed as more human, full of faults and especially full of doom and gloom, has probably pushed me to prefer those "near-perfect" superheroes. Role-models for people to strive to follow, really.


That's how I viewed super-heroes when I was a kid a least. An ideal/example to emulate. The world is already gray enough. We need clear cut "good guys."

 

[Therumancer]

snip

GOOD GOD!! Are you trying to write a book regarding Hitler's ideologies and Captain America's intent and purposes?

On the topic of "authors should not change the character to match their personal ideologies", you're out of luck. It is the nature of comic books that one generation's interpretation of a character is going to be vastly different from another generation depending on the changing values of the times. For instance, once characters having homosexual tendencies was a sure sign of him/her being evil and deviant, but now even heroes can be gay and proud. I wont say it's all a good thing, but considering we must be a diverse people we most accept that in time, your favorite character will do something or have an opinion you don't like, and at that point you could either accept that change or stop reading altogether.
Also, what are your thoughts on the recent Winter Soldier movie? I'd like to hear what you thought about it.

Actually saying we must be a more diverse people is a matter of opinion, and something not everyone agrees with. Those that do agree of course don't always agree on what kinds of diversity we need or should accept.

What's more part of the issue is of course that society has not changed to embrace things like homosexuality. Indeed saying it has is political, and attempt by the left wing to try and create reality by screaming it enough through the media. In reality the population remains heavily divided, pretty much right down the middle, which is why those who are pro-gay push the media so hard, and try and bypass governmental systems and get laws in without the intended level of support. This is why even in states like California which lean heavily left overall, they have trouble getting things like gay marriage to stay in the books, and have had to resort to things like personal attacks outside of the system's function/voting to try and push things through, which has been making the news.

The point here is that Captain America, more so than just about any other character due to what he represents, is not supposed to be an avatar for a writer's viewpoints. His opinions and idealogy are those America already has, not those that people think America should have. He should not be pro-gay for example, until that is an opinion truly held by most Americans to the point of becoming part of the culture. He's supposed to be about where America does come together, and a reminder of where the ideologies meet, and one's duty to the country, not a champion of one idealogy or another. Once you change that, then you might as well not be writing Captain America.

As far as "Winter Soldier" goes, the movie itself was fine. I don't think some of Cap's specific comments to Nick Fury were in character, but the basic idea of SHIELD being subverted and needing to be brought down (in this case by Hydra) is an old one. Indeed there was a comic event largely based around this, "Nick Fury Vs. SHIELD" that was a bit more complicated (lead into for longer), and ultimately involved all of the big quasi-secret organizations (Hydra, AIM, Shield) and the LMD (Life Model Decoy) technology gaining self awareness. Nick Fury who in the real comics has abilities very similar to Cap's ran point on it though and ultimately resolved the situation, something the cinemaverse version couldn't likely have done anyway since they went with the "Ultimate Universe" version where Nick Fury is a comparative wimp (ie he doesn't have super powers, or access to the same levels of technology).

Really my biggest problem with the movie had to do with the ending, where the politics of the writers seemed to override common sense and in-universe logic. Namely when Captain America is told flat out that they Helicarriers can be disarmed and salvaged, but he decides to have them destroyed for no really valid reason. Sure giving them to a bunch of Nazis to fire on their enemies and take over the world is a bad idea, but once that was prevented from happening, the basic point of needing these things to fight supervillains and oh say, alien invasions, is a valid one in that universe. It's not even paranoid since we already had the alien invasion. The guys writing it however decided to try and insert some Edward Snowden like crack about Homeland Security (minus the other point of view being fairly expressed) so the destruction of the Helicarriers was supposed to be symbolic in a real world sense. Something which becomes even more eye-rolling when you consider this entire problem was stopped by black ops. and counter-intelligence services, sort of proving the point of why it was needed, and the guys doing the arrests are the CIA of all people who also at least publically seem to wind up absorbing a lot of previous SHIELD personnel. Of course going with the comics logic we can pretty much assume (especially in light of the TV tie ins) that Nick Fury's survival means he's probably going to activate redundencies he put into place in case SHIELD was destroyed and simply re-build the organization, perhaps without any kind of government accountability at all, something similar happened in the comics (well actually while they made a big deal about rebuilding, it eventually just returned to business as usual, most people don't even realize that Nick Fury fought and pretty much destroyed a corrupted SHIELD at one point... a prime example of Comic Book status quos being destroyed, and nobody of note ever really dying... or in this case an organization).

 

[Nuxxy]

My take on the heli-carrier destruction was that there was no one Cap trusted to prevent them being used for their intended purpose - eliminating threats to those in control of them, whether the threat is real or imagined, and whether those in control are 'good' or not.

If they had been 3x Avengers carriers, just with added repulsor tech, sure. But not orbital death machines with automated satellite targeting, DNA tracking and kill rates of thousands/minute.

 

[RossaLincoln]

My take on the heli-carrier destruction was that there was no one Cap trusted to prevent them being used for their intended purpose - eliminating threats to those in control of them, whether the threat is real or imagined, and whether those in control are 'good' or not.

If they had been 3x Avengers carriers, just with added repulsor tech, sure. But not orbital death machines with automated satellite targeting, DNA tracking and kill rates of thousands/minute.

Exactly. And remember that what Fury said was "try to salvage what we can." There was no guarantee they could, and Cap wasn't willing to risk their lives more than need be on the off chance what they saved wasn't hopelessly awful and potentially still usable by HYDRA.

 

[HemalJB]

snip

GOOD GOD!! Are you trying to write a book regarding Hitler's ideologies and Captain America's intent and purposes?

On the topic of "authors should not change the character to match their personal ideologies", you're out of luck. It is the nature of comic books that one generation's interpretation of a character is going to be vastly different from another generation depending on the changing values of the times. For instance, once characters having homosexual tendencies was a sure sign of him/her being evil and deviant, but now even heroes can be gay and proud. I wont say it's all a good thing, but considering we must be a diverse people we most accept that in time, your favorite character will do something or have an opinion you don't like, and at that point you could either accept that change or stop reading altogether.
Also, what are your thoughts on the recent Winter Soldier movie? I'd like to hear what you thought about it.

Actually saying we must be a more diverse people is a matter of opinion, and something not everyone agrees with. Those that do agree of course don't always agree on what kinds of diversity we need or should accept.

What's more part of the issue is of course that society has not changed to embrace things like homosexuality. Indeed saying it has is political, and attempt by the left wing to try and create reality by screaming it enough through the media. In reality the population remains heavily divided, pretty much right down the middle, which is why those who are pro-gay push the media so hard, and try and bypass governmental systems and get laws in without the intended level of support. This is why even in states like California which lean heavily left overall, they have trouble getting things like gay marriage to stay in the books, and have had to resort to things like personal attacks outside of the system's function/voting to try and push things through, which has been making the news.

The point here is that Captain America, more so than just about any other character due to what he represents, is not supposed to be an avatar for a writer's viewpoints. His opinions and idealogy are those America already has, not those that people think America should have. He should not be pro-gay for example, until that is an opinion truly held by most Americans to the point of becoming part of the culture. He's supposed to be about where America does come together, and a reminder of where the ideologies meet, and one's duty to the country, not a champion of one idealogy or another. Once you change that, then you might as well not be writing Captain America.

As far as "Winter Soldier" goes, the movie itself was fine. I don't think some of Cap's specific comments to Nick Fury were in character, but the basic idea of SHIELD being subverted and needing to be brought down (in this case by Hydra) is an old one. Indeed there was a comic event largely based around this, "Nick Fury Vs. SHIELD" that was a bit more complicated (lead into for longer), and ultimately involved all of the big quasi-secret organizations (Hydra, AIM, Shield) and the LMD (Life Model Decoy) technology gaining self awareness. Nick Fury who in the real comics has abilities very similar to Cap's ran point on it though and ultimately resolved the situation, something the cinemaverse version couldn't likely have done anyway since they went with the "Ultimate Universe" version where Nick Fury is a comparative wimp (ie he doesn't have super powers, or access to the same levels of technology).

Really my biggest problem with the movie had to do with the ending, where the politics of the writers seemed to override common sense and in-universe logic. Namely when Captain America is told flat out that they Helicarriers can be disarmed and salvaged, but he decides to have them destroyed for no really valid reason. Sure giving them to a bunch of Nazis to fire on their enemies and take over the world is a bad idea, but once that was prevented from happening, the basic point of needing these things to fight supervillains and oh say, alien invasions, is a valid one in that universe. It's not even paranoid since we already had the alien invasion. The guys writing it however decided to try and insert some Edward Snowden like crack about Homeland Security (minus the other point of view being fairly expressed) so the destruction of the Helicarriers was supposed to be symbolic in a real world sense. Something which becomes even more eye-rolling when you consider this entire problem was stopped by black ops. and counter-intelligence services, sort of proving the point of why it was needed, and the guys doing the arrests are the CIA of all people who also at least publically seem to wind up absorbing a lot of previous SHIELD personnel. Of course going with the comics logic we can pretty much assume (especially in light of the TV tie ins) that Nick Fury's survival means he's probably going to activate redundencies he put into place in case SHIELD was destroyed and simply re-build the organization, perhaps without any kind of government accountability at all, something similar happened in the comics (well actually while they made a big deal about rebuilding, it eventually just returned to business as usual, most people don't even realize that Nick Fury fought and pretty much destroyed a corrupted SHIELD at one point... a prime example of Comic Book status quos being destroyed, and nobody of note ever really dying... or in this case an organization).

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands

To be cynical, you forget that CA:TWS is not just an American film, but a movie with an international release in foreign markets. Most of the world looks at American super-surveillance and drone warfare not as security measures, but as tools of power that can be abused. The idea that HYDRA was working covertly to subjugate the world would resonate with those fears, and is marketable. As for just disabling the helicarriers, I'm pretty certain it wont be a satisfying climax, not just due to lack of explosions, but most people saying what's to stop another evil organisation from taking over the ships.

As for Captain America should not tackle issues on which the country is divided over, a brief history lesson. When Captain America was first published, America was not yet in the world war, and there was a group of people who were against it because they were Nazi supporters. Yes, before Pearl Harbor, there was support for the axis powers in America. By your logic, Captain America should not be fighting Nazis either.

And forget Nazis. Forget Gay rights. Stuff like racism, women's rights, capitalism - America still has various factions who oppose these ideals. Hell, remember Vietnam? Should we not have Cap fighting over there because half the country opposed it? You say Cap should fight for Ideals America already has, but America is still divided on the ideals it already has. Besides, he wouldn't be that popular a character if fighting cartoonishly evil villains is all he ever does.

But maybe your opinion is that Captain America is a Right Wing Superhero. Maybe you'd prefer stories like, say, Snowden was part of a HYDRA plot to weaken American defenses, or that HYDRA was behind a school shooting to oppose gun ownership laws and oppress the American public. After all, you seem to oppose Cap supporting Left wing politics but has not brought up any story where Cap holds some Right wing viewpoint.

Sorry, that last para was extra cynical. I'm pretty certain that the whole destruction of helicarriers will bite the heroes in the ass once Age of Ultron comes about.

 

[mjharper]

A well-written piece.

As I don't want to get involved in the wall-of-texts this thread has turned into, I'll just add this: the author cited at the beginning seems to think that we can only be inspired to to good by godlike beings, but not by ordinary humans who strive to be better. Doesn't that alone strip his argument of all credibility? Since we have at least 500 years of literature which do precisely that?

 

[Azahul]

This is already long, but I'll just say that I disagree with you in the strongest possible way about the Nazis, but it will get increasingly off subject if we decide to hash that out. For example we're already getting into a classic argument about "why different socialist powers 'for the people' don't get along" in terms of Russia Vs. Germany at the time. That ultimately comes down to a pair of megalomaniacs who both wanted to rule the world disagreeing over who was going to be in charge. Russia basically did not want to share with The Third Reich, and knew it was pretty close to getting to the point where it could make an international power grab itself. The Nazis wanted their socialist party to rule everything "for the people" and Russia wanted it's to do the same thing. After all, at the end of the day no matter how you dress it up someone is still going to be in charge and better off than everyone else, and calling the shots. This is in part why when Germany was defeated, things almost immediately fell apart with the Russians because the allies and Russians both realized they were on a collision course for much the same reasons. Things like "Operation Paperclip" were justified because we realized that if we didn't give shelter to German scientists and grab up their research the Russians would. We actually wound up getting lucky since the level of technology developed during WW II (namely atomic weapons) ensured we only saw a cold war. Both World War II and The Cold War were fundamentally the US fighting "left wing" governments claiming to be "of the people" and "for the workers". As much as people try and dress it up and say the Nazis were not socialists, their very name makes it clear, and they fundamentally started out doing a lot of the same things the left wing in countries like the US wants to do. Sure you can bring facism and totalitarianism into it, that's fair, but also notice that those same accusations (this going along with big government, an all powerful federal one that controls everything) tend to show up hand in hand with socialism anyway.. which is a big deal with people opposing it.

I know enough that getting into an argument with you will take up a lot of time and probably lead to nothing, but really, this myth that the "National Socialism" aspect of the Nazi party had anything to do with their actual political leanings is just that. A myth. "National Socialism" derived primarily from their intent to see the aristocracy abolished, allowing the land held by them to be given to the rest of the populace. There were a few other policies mixed in there as well that added to the name, proving nothing more than the fact that the world is a complicated place where political parties do not always sit neatly into "left" and "right" wings. Abolishing aristocracy is neither left nor right wing, it suits both economic policies without a problem. Well, unless you believe that Conservative policies are innately the province of the "right", which as the Nazis demonstrate is flat out wrong. Politics is far more complicated than these labels.

That said, the fundamental belief of the Nazis is a right wing one taken to a positively ludicrous extreme. They believed that some people were better than others, and by virtue of this deserved to flourish. Capitalism is not too dissimilar in principle, in that those who deserve it are meant to reap the benefits. The Nazis believed that Aryans were so innately superior, however, that competition on the free market wasn't a necessary part of their economic strategy. The world was divided into the deserving, the chosen race, and those who were not. This is not remotely a left-wing policy. The nationalisation of the economy was not being done for the betterment of the people, as it would in a theoretically left-wing state, but for the betterment of the nation. The nation in this case being supposedly synonymous with the Aryan people, allowing the Nazis to put the "deserving" at the top of the pile in the world. It's hard to wrap your head around at first, but the Nazis are considered extreme for a very good reason. Even from the perspective of those closest to them on the ideological spectrum, their policies look ludicrous.

The fact remains that the Nazis did not take power on their own, and that their support in terms of both voters and political alliances came from the far-right. Hitler attacked both left and right wing politics, declaring the Nazis superior to both. Their policies are left wing only from an utterly reductive standpoint in which nationalisation can only be a left wing policy. They didn't see themselves as left, they weren't regarded as left by their supporters or their allies, and history does not record them as left. This is why they're called right wing, but they're so far to the right I don't think anyone on the right should feel threatened by that association. They were extremists, first and foremost, and no one really needs to worry about it any more than that.

As my token reference to the article and to actually being on topic, I will say that I agree with the premise. Character flaws are absolutely necessary, but there's a difference between "not a perfect character" and "stinking cesspool of darkness and moral compromise". Good people have their flaws, but they don't have to be moral in nature.

 

[YodaUnleashed]

I too agree with the overall point this article is trying to make; just because a character is fundamentally a good, decent person doesn't make them inherently boring or dull; this is especially true in a genre dominated by broody, 'dark' superheroes, where anything that is at the other end of the spectrum is already at least different if not as compelling (though I think he is). Captain America is a personification of American values, values that aren't valuable because they're American but because they're worthwhile in of themselves, thus accounting for why he can be such a popular, global figure despite the Star Spangled Banner colours adorning his costume that would imply a strong sense of nationalism. His purity of goodness, what any critic of his might label as traits of a 'Mary Sue' type character, is, despite the consistency of his moral goodness, not one-note because he has to grapple with constant dilemmas between, as Ross says, his value system and the people giving him orders as a soldier. Thus his decency is always challenged in various ways and he has to face those challenges down. It's sad to see so many decry a character as morally good as Captain America as uninteresting for that very moral goodness and decency, when it?s what most of us could always do with possessing more of.

 

[Therumancer]

[

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands

To be cynical, you forget that CA:TWS is not just an American film, but a movie with an international release in foreign markets. Most of the world looks at American super-surveillance and drone warfare not as security measures, but as tools of power that can be abused. The idea that HYDRA was working covertly to subjugate the world would resonate with those fears, and is marketable. As for just disabling the helicarriers, I'm pretty certain it wont be a satisfying climax, not just due to lack of explosions, but most people saying what's to stop another evil organisation from taking over the ships.

As for Captain America should not tackle issues on which the country is divided over, a brief history lesson. When Captain America was first published, America was not yet in the world war, and there was a group of people who were against it because they were Nazi supporters. Yes, before Pearl Harbor, there was support for the axis powers in America. By your logic, Captain America should not be fighting Nazis either.

And forget Nazis. Forget Gay rights. Stuff like racism, women's rights, capitalism - America still has various factions who oppose these ideals. Hell, remember Vietnam? Should we not have Cap fighting over there because half the country opposed it? You say Cap should fight for Ideals America already has, but America is still divided on the ideals it already has. Besides, he wouldn't be that popular a character if fighting cartoonishly evil villains is all he ever does.

But maybe your opinion is that Captain America is a Right Wing Superhero. Maybe you'd prefer stories like, say, Snowden was part of a HYDRA plot to weaken American defenses, or that HYDRA was behind a school shooting to oppose gun ownership laws and oppress the American public. After all, you seem to oppose Cap supporting Left wing politics but has not brought up any story where Cap holds some Right wing viewpoint.

Sorry, that last para was extra cynical. I'm pretty certain that the whole destruction of helicarriers will bite the heroes in the ass once Age of Ultron comes about.

Ahh, but you see with the Nazis it was a military issue, not a social one. Indeed Captain America was designed as a sort of avatar of the US military industial complex and bringing people together to fight enemies like that. It's domestic policy (gay rights, etc...) that Cap should not be involved in, especially seeing as he properly shouldn't be involved in storylines where things like that come up. I already covered this in some of my posts.

As far as the international reaction to the US surveillance programs and such goes, that's kind of a joke, since largely these measures exist to protect us against them. What's more most countries, including ones the US is allied with, are already involved in far worse. Canada for example equips it's police with blank warrants (or did when I took criminal justice) and the UK has camera coverage on civilians almost as soon as they step outside of their homes (which a lot of people from the UK complain about). To be honest there is a lot of room between "OMG, this is like the Nazi secret police" and where we are now, and truthfully a lot of our allies already represent that middle ground. It's just that everyone likes to take the piss out of the US because we make ourselves easy targets. What's more, when it comes to China (trying to take over Japanese Islands, attacking Filipino fishermen, stealing classified US data, responsible for a lot of the reasons (but not all of them) that we need these measures) we really shouldn't give a flying rat's ass, given that they themselves engage in even worse domestic security.

Simply put the fact that we do things like this to sell to foreign markets, like say China, while they knock us in their propaganda all the time, is a big part of why we're international laughing stocks. What's more, in this case I don't really think this was done for the international audience, it was purely domestic anti-government commentary from people who don't believe in the existence of actual threats and don't like the inconvenience. The problem was that "Winter Soldier" was badly written, because as insane as the whole "pretending there are no threats out there" in real life is, in the movie reality we already had New York attacked by aliens so... you really can't deny it. Especially seeing as The Hellicarrier was one of the few things that was between the aliens and conquering earth (along with The Avengers, who themselves used it as a base and a central point of their defense).

Your quite correct, this will probably bite people in the butt come "Avengers 2", *BUT* that doesn't change that it was absolutely stupid behavior on Cap's part, and the writers trying to inject left wing politics into a movie where they really did not belong. They could easily have had the Helicarriers destroyed (say by Hydra) without having Cap be the one to make the call, and justify it with the logic he used.

 

[Therumancer]

This is already long, but I'll just say that I disagree with you in the strongest possible way about the Nazis, but it will get increasingly off subject if we decide to hash that out. For example we're already getting into a classic argument about "why different socialist powers 'for the people' don't get along" in terms of Russia Vs. Germany at the time. That ultimately comes down to a pair of megalomaniacs who both wanted to rule the world disagreeing over who was going to be in charge. Russia basically did not want to share with The Third Reich, and knew it was pretty close to getting to the point where it could make an international power grab itself. The Nazis wanted their socialist party to rule everything "for the people" and Russia wanted it's to do the same thing. After all, at the end of the day no matter how you dress it up someone is still going to be in charge and better off than everyone else, and calling the shots. This is in part why when Germany was defeated, things almost immediately fell apart with the Russians because the allies and Russians both realized they were on a collision course for much the same reasons. Things like "Operation Paperclip" were justified because we realized that if we didn't give shelter to German scientists and grab up their research the Russians would. We actually wound up getting lucky since the level of technology developed during WW II (namely atomic weapons) ensured we only saw a cold war. Both World War II and The Cold War were fundamentally the US fighting "left wing" governments claiming to be "of the people" and "for the workers". As much as people try and dress it up and say the Nazis were not socialists, their very name makes it clear, and they fundamentally started out doing a lot of the same things the left wing in countries like the US wants to do. Sure you can bring facism and totalitarianism into it, that's fair, but also notice that those same accusations (this going along with big government, an all powerful federal one that controls everything) tend to show up hand in hand with socialism anyway.. which is a big deal with people opposing it.

I know enough that getting into an argument with you will take up a lot of time and probably lead to nothing, but really, this myth that the "National Socialism" aspect of the Nazi party had anything to do with their actual political leanings is just that. A myth. "National Socialism" derived primarily from their intent to see the aristocracy abolished, allowing the land held by them to be given to the rest of the populace. There were a few other policies mixed in there as well that added to the name, proving nothing more than the fact that the world is a complicated place where political parties do not always sit neatly into "left" and "right" wings. Abolishing aristocracy is neither left nor right wing, it suits both economic policies without a problem. Well, unless you believe that Conservative policies are innately the province of the "right", which as the Nazis demonstrate is flat out wrong. Politics is far more complicated than these labels.

That said, the fundamental belief of the Nazis is a right wing one taken to a positively ludicrous extreme. They believed that some people were better than others, and by virtue of this deserved to flourish. Capitalism is not too dissimilar in principle, in that those who deserve it are meant to reap the benefits. The Nazis believed that Aryans were so innately superior, however, that competition on the free market wasn't a necessary part of their economic strategy. The world was divided into the deserving, the chosen race, and those who were not. This is not remotely a left-wing policy. The nationalisation of the economy was not being done for the betterment of the people, as it would in a theoretically left-wing state, but for the betterment of the nation. The nation in this case being supposedly synonymous with the Aryan people, allowing the Nazis to put the "deserving" at the top of the pile in the world. It's hard to wrap your head around at first, but the Nazis are considered extreme for a very good reason. Even from the perspective of those closest to them on the ideological spectrum, their policies look ludicrous.

The fact remains that the Nazis did not take power on their own, and that their support in terms of both voters and political alliances came from the far-right. Hitler attacked both left and right wing politics, declaring the Nazis superior to both. Their policies are left wing only from an utterly reductive standpoint in which nationalisation can only be a left wing policy. They didn't see themselves as left, they weren't regarded as left by their supporters or their allies, and history does not record them as left. This is why they're called right wing, but they're so far to the right I don't think anyone on the right should feel threatened by that association. They were extremists, first and foremost, and no one really needs to worry about it any more than that.

As my token reference to the article and to actually being on topic, I will say that I agree with the premise. Character flaws are absolutely necessary, but there's a difference between "not a perfect character" and "stinking cesspool of darkness and moral compromise". Good people have their flaws, but they don't have to be moral in nature.

... and you are entirely incorrect. The Nazis were very much a left wing phenomena based around the rights of the workers and laborers and the argument that they should be the driving force of society. Hitler rallied people by pretty much using a principle of seizing the property and wealth of the rich, and giving it back to the people. For example he brought Romania in largely due to promises of the "Re-Romanianization" of property. Key points of his promises were things like future where everyone would have a car "A Volkswagon".

Now, the racism aspect of what Hitler did was insane, but it largely came from the fact that Europe was heavily threatened by ethnic organized crime, largely syndicates run by Jews. Those syndicates went back in some cases centuries to a period of time when Jews were exclusively able to lend money, because other widely practiced religions prohibited it. This meant they were uncontested loan sharks for a very long time which brought all kinds of crime and scams with it, and allowed them to build up massive amounts of propery, wealth, and other things, and nobody could really compete with them even when they no longer had a monopoly on this. These Jewish syndicates also themselves had a "master race" philosophy which some people have pointed towards and said Hitler stole a lot of his rhetoric and even portions of his speeches from things these Jews themselves passed around internally. The Jews believed they were entitled to terrorize others because they were after all "God's chosen people". What's more they wouldn't agree to sell land or anything to anyone who wasn't also a Jew. Now it's important to understand that this was not something that applied to ALL Jews, as there were many poor Jews and those who weren't involved (the majority actually) sort of like how The Mafia doesn't include all Italians. However it had been going on for so long that it became easy to use Jews as a sort of target for the "corrupt upper class" and the way they gamed the system as an example of why it needed to be reformed. A lot of the Jewish conspiracy stuff comes down to the fact that a lot of these organizations were international as well. So as a result it was easy for Hitler to take his whole "Robin Hood with a gun and a tendency for mass murder" and gradually direct it towards his racist crusades. Other victims like Gypsies were also sold as threats to the every man, as these roving bands were hard to police, and when they arrived in places (camping on land they don't own) theft, prostitution, kidnapping, murder, and other things went through the roof. Argue that point any way you want, but the point was the average person was threatened, and as such Hitler also aimed at what was the lowest rung (basically vagabonds) along with the highest and decided he would just flat out get rid of these people for the every man.

The nationalistic aspects of the Nazis had little to do with the actual Nazi philosophy, which is incidently why a lot of people today try and make arguments that you need to separate the party from the leadership and the politics of the time. It had more to do with the treaties after "World War I" and how badly punished Germany was for the previous world war, while still being allowed to be a power. Pretty much when you kick dirt on a major industrial and military power like that it's not wise, they needed to either flat out destroy Germany, or take the surrender/treaties a lot more easily. This created a sort of desire for vengeance and payback, especially given how many people still believed Germany was in the right during "World War I", because nobody went around and rounded up those people or broke the culture (a mistake which was not made after World War II, Nazis were hunted for decades afterwards, even after mass slaughters in the final days of the war especially. Germany was also split in half... which the world did not have the willpower to stick with).

Right now you see echoes of the Nazis philosophy even in the left wing of the US. After all today liberals want to create a single, strong, federal government that controls everything. Free speech is to be limited against what the government decides to deem "hate speech" which taken to it's extreme makes dissent on anything the government decides is a social issue effectively a crime (this has yet to succeed however). Where the government can't act directly it works with private institutions (like the media) indirectly through deals with it's own regulation and favors to achieve the same effect. Being rich and successful is promoted to the every man as being a bad thing, with the government constantly trying to sell one idea after another for seizing people's personal fortunes through taxes, rules, regulations, and policies. The left wing also wants to disarm the population so if it decides to say send it's enforcers even if the people were to rally they would be powerless. They basically want to avoid situations like how the Feds were pretty
much ran off by a bunch of ranchers in Nevada when they were trying to charge money to use land for grazing the Feds have an ambigious claim to (and know very well what it's needed for) on top of all the taxes and regulations they put
on ranchers to begin with. The biggest difference between the left wing and the Nazis is that it hasn't moved towards an ethnic agenda yet, but then again the Nazis gradually built things up in that direction themselves.

Now, I'm not saying that it's a perfect analogy, just that you can see it if you look. I don't think the American left will go as far as the Nazis did, but they are VERY similar. The right wing is only similar to the Nazis for the most part in that it heavily believes in pushing a nationalist agenda and the US far more aggressively pursueing it's interests globally, up to and including the military. Simply put the right wing attitude on guns alone (ie a heavily armed populance) would prevent anything close to what the Nazis pulled with the secret police and such.

Either philosophy, taken to an extreme by a charismatic leader who manages to really a substantial majority of the population into a cult of personality, can be extremely bad of course. While not identical to the US left wing, the Nazis were very much a left wing philosophy, as was the USSR. A big part of this is "a powerful government is needed to ensure the rights of the people", and that's pretty much what the US left wing is pushing in a nutshell, they want the federal government being involved in everything, "purely to protect minorities, and reduce crime and violence of course"....


That said I lean more to the right wing in most areas that I feel are relevant now, namely because I am a militant and believe we need to be more assertive internationally, fight proper (very ugly) wars, and similar things. For all the global QQing about America being too aggressive, I think half the problem is we aren't aggressive at all really which is why we have people whining like that (and actually having an effect on the US by doing it) as opposed to viewing us with respect, fear, and caution. Right now the entire world is gobbling up the USA's sphere of influence because nobody fears retaliation... but that's an entirely separate discussion.

I do however agree with the left wing in terms of things like worker's rights and so on. I also feel that ultimately for humanity to survive we need a single world government and culture, the exact kind of homogenized "One World Government" or "New World Order" a lot of people are afraid of and see a an anathema. Which means that on a certain level I am a totalitarian, though I do believe that none of the current nations or cultures as they are now would be perfect to rule everything. The USA's philosophies (though now it's current form or practices) are the best case for forming a working global government when the smoke clears and once everyone is unified. Ultimatly though all nations including the USA would need to disband or be disbanded, forcibly or otherwise, and most cultures, including those of the west, would be eroded and dismantled into a whole. I see this as being necessary for serious space travel and exploration, and space travel and exploration as being needed for the survival of humanity. But again this is another entire discussion.

The point here being that on a lot of levels I'm offensive to either side. Me saying the Nazis are left wing isn't me really knocking the left wing. On some levels the left wing might even have the right ideas, but right now isn't the time or the place for it. Half the problem with the USA is that we've become too moral and enlightened (or are trying to be) in a world that isn't yet ready for it. We don't need Bush OR Obama, we pretty much need Ghengis Khan (so to speak).

 

[RossaLincoln]

Ahh, but you see with the Nazis it was a military issue, not a social one. Indeed Captain America was designed as a sort of avatar of the US military industial complex and bringing people together to fight enemies like that. It's domestic policy (gay rights, etc...) that Cap should not be involved in, especially seeing as he properly shouldn't be involved in storylines where things like that come up. I already covered this in some of my posts.

Captain America was created by two Jewish guys whose parents were refugees from anti semitic oppression in central Europe. Like Superman, Cap was not created as an Avatar of the military industrial complex, but as a symbol of the American dream. From his inception, he was the defender of the little guy, the outcast, and the like. That explains why he was easily able to be used to talk about the hot button issues of the day when the character was revived. The 1950s version, who was kind of a big dick, was a serious derivation from the original take, and Marvel thus retconned that out. And again, you really should read the original comics, they aren't quite what you think they are.

And really, you seem to have a problem with a fundamentally decent person having an opinion on things like persecution of gay people or racial minorities. That's your prerogative, but I can't help but think the best Americans are the ones who don't shy away from doing the right thing, domestic or foreign. Fundamentally decent people oppose bigotry and defend the little guy. I'm certain in your own life, you strive to do the same, so why not allow for a super hero who does? Especially when it's baked into the cake.

 

[deathbydeath]

Okay, first things first: Walls of text are okay but please people, snip your damn quotes. It's pretty silly.

OP: Captain America in The Winter Soldier is a shitty character and TWS is a bad movie, and both of these are because the writers didn't have any balls and even less ideas. The original Captain America Nixon Administration Identity Crisis Arc in the 70's worked because Cap actually changes and emerged from the story different than he had before. In TWS, Cap Is Always Right because to suggest otherwise requires balls Hollywood doesn't have and the "villains" are a walking punchline because they have no conviction to their cause and what Insight is preventing is never even explained.

In Summary: Captain America in The Winter Soldier isn't a bad character because he wasn't dark enough. He's a bad character because the writers are bad.

 

[bjj hero]

Captain America Vs. The Tyranny Of "Dark"

Is the Star Spangled Avenger too nice? Hell no. Wishing he was meaner is failure to grasp the concept.

Read Full Article

I really enjoyed your article, thank you. Id always written Cap off without giving him a chance, something to do with his start as a propaganda and how uninteresting his powers were compared to others. My only pre-movie exposure to him was civil war and ultimates.

Im a bit older now and dont need "cool and edgy" any more. A charecter works if he has relatable interests and desires with more to him or her than smashing villains. I quite like the soldier out of time story. These are the things that make him interesting and relatable. In someways it reminded me of my time living in America, the world was familiar (Lots of UK TV is American) but alien at the same time.


The one thing in Winter Soldier thant didnt sit right with me though...

Spoiler: What would Cap do?

When they get the hydra mole alone on the roof to question him and Widow kicks him off the highrise to gain information. I couldnt buy this version of Cap being OK with a mock execution, no matter how elaborate.

How did that sit with other people?

 

[Therumancer]

Ahh, but you see with the Nazis it was a military issue, not a social one. Indeed Captain America was designed as a sort of avatar of the US military industial complex and bringing people together to fight enemies like that. It's domestic policy (gay rights, etc...) that Cap should not be involved in, especially seeing as he properly shouldn't be involved in storylines where things like that come up. I already covered this in some of my posts.

Captain America was created by two Jewish guys whose parents were refugees from anti semitic oppression in central Europe. Like Superman, Cap was not created as an Avatar of the military industrial complex, but as a symbol of the American dream. From his inception, he was the defender of the little guy, the outcast, and the like. That explains why he was easily able to be used to talk about the hot button issues of the day when the character was revived. The 1950s version, who was kind of a big dick, was a serious derivation from the original take, and Marvel thus retconned that out. And again, you really should read the original comics, they aren't quite what you think they are.

And really, you seem to have a problem with a fundamentally decent person having an opinion on things like persecution of gay people or racial minorities. That's your prerogative, but I can't help but think the best Americans are the ones who don't shy away from doing the right thing, domestic or foreign. Fundamentally decent people oppose bigotry and defend the little guy. I'm certain in your own life, you strive to do the same, so why not allow for a super hero who does? Especially when it's baked into the cake.

Actually I'm fairly familiar with old school Captain America, and am aware of the retcon (including how the Retconned Bucky both wore the costume of Nomad and Scourge). I can also say quite a bit about a lot of Cap's old team mates in "The Invaders" ranging from Prince Namor (and how he waffles from villain to hero), the original Android "Human Torch", etc... including characters like "The Thin Man" and "Union Jack". Overall Captain America covered much the same niche as "Nick Fury and the Howling Commandos" but focused on more superhuman characters. Captain America was a nice guy, but was presented in the context of a commando who was pretty much doing stuff behind enemy lines, indeed the entire team name "The Invaders" kind of summarizes what their intended profile was. Cap was not intended as a champion of political underdogs or anything of the sort, though he was a nice guy, and copped that attitude when dealing with people who were not opposed to America and represented groups America considered to be friends, allies, or underdogs to be protected. When it came to enemies of America represented by everything from The Red Skull, to Warrior Woman, and a vintage rogues gallery (many of which were created later and re-inserted into World War II via past stories and such), Captain America isn't really that nice. Him, Nick Fury, and others threw around terms like "Krauts" quite frequently and weren't exactly out to invite Hitler and the SS over for tea to talk out their differences. Basically, he dehumanized the enemies he was fighting as a soldier would, sort of like calling an Asian "Gook" or "Charlie" in 'Nam, or a guy in the Middle East "Raghead", offensive yes, but pretty much how you dehumanize an enemy in your own mind (and others), admittedly it's not serious racism as long as your able to put it away when the war ends, which Cap has by and large been able to do.

When it comes to social issues, the thing is that 50% of the population doesn't agree that gays are underdog victims that need to be protected. My personal experiences which range from being sexually assaulted by an older boy when I was six, combined with later experiences working security where I engaged in surveillance (for Casinos) have hardly made me pro-gay. Indeed I tend to be right in the middle of that issue when you get down to it, with the serious anti-gay movements thinking I'm too soft, and of course the unquestioning left wing that is highly pro-gay finds me monsterous because I do not believe in the full gay rights agenda and unconditional social acceptance and protection. Do not get
me wrong however, I do not think "Captain America" would be a gay-basher or run around burning homosexuals at the stake or pushing to have them all rounded up in camps or anything either. I think rather Cap is the kind of guy who would be sort of centrist, but not the same way I am, meaning he'd listen to both sides, remain neutral, and more or less focus on the big picture. The idea being that Cap ultimately goes whichever way America does, he doesn't act as a mouthpiece for one side or the other, unless it's rallying against enemies of the country. When it comes to other minorities (such as arguments about ethnic equality) Cap of course is all for equal rights because that's the way America went. In World War II being what he was (a rallying point) he of course didn't promote racism or anything bvecause after all, at the time he was rallying readers to support war (or what happened previously in the way) and there was a drive to get minorities involved. In Cap's case it's less a matter of what's legal, but majority support. If Cap was going to weigh in on any political issues right now I'd imagine it would be over things like the recent decisions by democrats to change policies to prevent Republican filibusters allowing them to force through decisions on the budget, etc.. without the required majority behind them. A move very much towards a tyranny of the minority and a real threat to the intended checks and balances involved in the system. Cap isn't left or right wing, and would rightfully be calling either party for that kind of thing.

What's more there is also a matter of writing things appropriately. I'm not going to argue gay rights here as it would derail this beyond all belief. But consider for example that one big hot button issue involved in the discussion as to whether gay men are pre-disposed towards sexually assaulting children when they believed they can get away with it. The pro-gay movement will of course say this is not the case and "prove" it by pointing towards studies conducted by universities and private researchers. The problem is those studies and researchers don't have the resources or authority to perform proper research. In a society where it takes a judge to get a simple wiretap, these guys are not going to be able to anonymously follow around and spy on millions of homosexuals without their knowledge or awareness, digging into what they do when they think nobody is around. They don't even have the resources to get involved in surveillance if they did have the authority. Rather they have to focus on voluntary focus groups, people who know they are being observed, or are expected to answer questions truthfully, even if promised immunity a child molester is not going to say "oh yes, I dream about raping kids, and trade gay child porn with other people like me all the time". There is no motivation for them to be honest, after all even if they aren't immediately arrested the information gathered is going to be used to create policies that negatively impact what they are doing. In comparison people who do surveillance and/or investigations of one sort or another, come across a lot of data they can't use for what they are doing. For example in snooping for the Casinos it didn't matter if I found a whole crapload of kiddie porn in someone's suitcase, the casino was only concerned about it's own finances, what's more in going after something like that it would tip the hat that say casino security has been going through people's rooms (which as posted we have the right to do, at least where I worked, the laws are pretty much whatever the tribe said they were). Likewise when it comes to the police, federal agents, CIA, FBI, or whatever they come across this kind of information while pursueing other things. If they are say after some dude moving tons of cocaine, they don't care about the gay dudes molesting little boys that might expose their entire operation if revealed (and could quite probably be thrown out due to being beyond the scope of their permissions). People who do this kind of thing, tend to wind up becoming quite jaded, and the worst kind of bigots by the standards of people who don't do it. When I took Criminal Justice years ago I was warned about what this kind of thing did to you, once you put on those "colored glasses" and look behind the façade you can never see the world the same way again. At any rate the point I'm getting at here is let's look at the policies made by someone who wound up in government and had done this kind of thing on a large scale... Putin. Putin who is a guy I don't like very much was a KGB agent, and moved up to run the entire organization. The dude has about a million things on his plate, like say... invading former parts of the Soviet Union to re-absorb them, combined with horrible PR issues. He's not some guy who is going to chance gays around without reason for it, yet he himself makes it quite clear "gays attack kids, we keep a particular eye on them" even when it upsets the rest of the world. The odd thing is Putin is one of the few people in an actual position to have the information to make an unbiased statement on the fact. Universities don't have the resources, politicians like Obama don't generally have that kind of experience (if anything they get summarized bulletpoint reports from intelligence services). Who is more likely to be right? Personally as a one time victim and someone who has spied on people professionally (in a limited context admittedly) and what that did to my opinions... well you can guess where I personally side on this.

The point of that rant which probably has you (or others) frothing at the moment is not to argue gay rights, which I'm not going to do again on these forums, but simply to point out the other side of this whole "oppressed underdog" thing and why there are so many people on the other side of the fence to make it a divisive back and forth battle. Note that despite stereotypes used to fight the anti-gay supporters I did not mention God or religion once here (though I am a Christian). Many people dismiss this, but with roughly 50% of the population being on the anti-gay side, someone like Captain America really couldn't or wouldn't do that. America is not *firmly* on one side or the other. What's more entire issues like this don't really belong in comics that are meant to get away from it. Captain America should more or less remain silent on the issue because it's wrong to represent one side without the other, and honestly when your reading a bloody comic book your trying to get away from this kind of social issues garbage, thinking about stuff like that is for your non-comics time. As a guy who is supposed to be fairly open minded Cap would really have to weigh both ends of that and I really don't want to read a 32 page issue of Cap pondering child molestation. Furthermore, if you really wanted to be realistic about it, Cap, Nick Fury, and other "government agent" types with access to a lot of surveillance data (not just the target, but what you see staking out a target, and otherwise winds up passing through your net) would all probably be huge bigots on almost every subject, as that tends to happen to anyone in that position when they get a face full of reality. Not turning Captain America into Captain "OMG, I now hate the world I'm trying to protect", basically exactly the kind of cynical dickhead I agree with you that he should be, means that he needs to be kept away from. As a result things need to be kept away from this and getting into what Captain America would "Realistically" run into and experience, and turn out like. Sure, it's unlikely anyone nowadays wouldn't be on one side or the other of the gay rights debate, but being apart from that is exactly what allows Cap to be an optimistic super hero. You know having Cap realistically ponder if say Putin is more apt to judge social situations because of all that hardcore Russian spying and internal security that is otherwise criticized just isn't fun... having a guy dressed like The American Flag punch people threatening the US is fun however, to work as a sort of "nice guy, patriot" he needs to be divorced somewhat from reality.

 

[VikingKing]

It's might just be me, but I find a funny parallel between the 'DARKNESS! NO PARENTS!' nature of comic books in my life time with that of teenagers who are trying to be mature. Not learning to be mature. But pretending to have grasped the concepts and are therefore superior to their peers. Social conmen, in a sense.

But most of those who suffer from this are going to grow out of it. Captain America is the rare example of someone who never tried to be anything else than exactly what they wanted. Not what they think everyone else wants.