Captain America Vs. The Tyranny Of "Dark"

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
Therumancer said:
I agree with you to an extent, and your overall sentiment about there being nothing wrong with super heroes who are just plain out nice guys is spot on.

That said your point sort of falls apart when you start getting into specifics where your by and large equating left wing morality with "what's right" when 50% of the population disagrees with that just for a start..
I would argue that believing in fair play, equal rights, personal liberty, not being scared into submission by ominous national security paranoiacs, and not being an asshole are "what's right", unambiguously, and further, they aren't, or they shouldn't be the exclusive property of the left. If the other 50% believes otherwise, that says more about them than it does about the left.

I would also like you to describe some of these so called liberals who supported Hitler. Because in the US, the nazi sympathizers were all right wingers like Charles Lindberg who opposed things like unions, rights for minorities and equality for women. Sorry, but this is history. The leftists were, regrettably (and I am deliberately understating here) far far more likely to idealize Stalin's USSR precisely because communism and fascism were diametrically opposed to one another.

I'm sorry, but this is history. The nazis were right wing ideologues, not leftists. National Socialism was an artifact title that obscured the roots of the party having coopted an angry quasi-socialist organization and turned it into a xenophobic, anticommunist (which meant anything up to and including new deal style ideas), pro war and racist paramilitary group. They opposed liberals in their own country and once in power ruthlessly destroyed them, sending artists, gay people and dissenting intellectuals (some of whom to be fair were also conservatives) to death camps along with Roma and Jewish people. Liberals- like the ones in the US government at the time, were very much interesting in fighting hitler. The isolationists who also didn't like anything remotely commie-sounding, were the ones who wanted to stay out of it.

EDIT: just to be fair, let me note that I think that tied for worst president of the 20th century (and it's a three way tie for the country's history as a whole) is Woodrow Wilson. And not because of his attempt to create the League of Nations (because I support international cooperation and nations working together to prevent wars and so forth. I am no isolationist), but because he was a liar who gunned the country into going to war after campaigning on his record of keeping us out of WWI, he actually jailed or deported people for speaking out against the war (or for being socialist, and this was before the USSR so the only argument against was that he didn't like uppity workers), unconstitutionally limited freedom of assembly, he was opposed to women's suffrage, and was an enormous racist the likes of which hadn't been seen in the White House since before the Civil War. Just so we're clear I'm not reflexively team Democrat.
 

LysanderNemoinis

Noble and oppressed Kekistani
Nov 8, 2010
468
0
0
Therumancer said:
I agree with you to an extent, and your overall sentiment about there being nothing wrong with super heroes who are just plain out nice guys is spot on.

That said your point sort of falls apart when you start getting into specifics where your by and large equating left wing morality with "what's right" when 50% of the population disagrees with that just for a start. It should be noted that the big trick in a lot of cases to doing genuinely good characters is to have them be good without being stupid. This goes back to the old joke/point that "evil will always win, because good is dumb" in pointing out reality vs. fantasy, or more realistic fantasy situations that get ultra-dark because of it. For example in "Winter Soldier" part of what's wrong with Captain America is that the guy is by definition part of what started as a covert government program. World War II wasn't morally ambigious because of civil liberties issues at home, but because like most things we won largely by being the bigger bastards. We dropped more bombs and massacred more Germans than the Nazis did during the "horrors" they inflicted in London during "The Blitz" thanks to guys like Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who are the reason we won the war (like it or not), people who were decorated heavily by the US and Britan alike, yet were reviled as the same kinds of war criminals as the ones we tried and convicted by the other side. The winners get to write the history books. The purpose of Captain America was actually the opposite of what a lot of people here seem to think, he's a dude who ran around calling Nazis "Krauts" and other slurs that could make it into print to dehumanize them, and he did very much enter the military to act as a weapon against it's enemies. Conceptually he's sort of an answer to left wing isolationist sentiments at the time, and those in the US who were very pro-Nazi (Hitler was an international man
of the year).

Later generations of creators, especially after they retconned away from the whole "commie smasher" days by saying it was never *really* Captain America started using him as a social critic, and a way to attack those that didn't have a left wing idealogy. Forget the whole "William Burnside" thing, it becomes somewhat difficult to reconcile him with the character from World War II he's allegedly still supposed to be.

What's more look at what he did in say "Winter Soldier" where he destroys the three Helicarriers at the end. Okay, granted, maybe him being as pessimistic as Nick Fury doesn't work (they exist to play off each other to an extent, even in the comics, we have two separate characters for a reason), but when he wrecks these weapons as opposed to simply disabling them so Hydra can't use them, he goes from being "moral" to "stupid" especially in a world where things like Hydra exists, and the planet was already invaded by aliens once. It's a case where the writers lust for smacking down the US military/industrial complex trumped any kind of good writing for the character.

What's more while Captain America shouldn't be quite as jingoistic as he is in the "Ultimate" version, one point that version does make is that realistically Cap *would* be invading Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Russia, and other places opposed to the US. Indeed part of the point of Captain America, and him being "super" is specifically that he can be dropped behind the lines of places like that and say taken down Iranian nuclear programs, or thwart the schemes of the KGB or Kim Jong Un's tech divisions, without actually having to send in the military... and if they DO send in the military, he'd be right there with them. I mean let's not forget the whole "War On Terror" did start with an attack on US soil, against both military (The Pentagon) and Civilian targets. Properly Captain America would be critical of say The Bush administration for war profiteering, but he'd be just as critical of the left wing stupidity in how to conduct a war and not focusing on a practical method of winning... and yep, in wartime Cap would dehumanize his opponents, and start screaming racial and cultural epitats, not because he's racist, but because it gets under people's skin, and also makes it easier to brutalize people you dehumanize. If you think that doesn't sound like Captain America, then you don't know Captain America, as both him and Nick Fury used terms like "Krauts" and the like for the Germans for the same reason, he wasn't racist, he was just a warrior who knew what he was doing.

That said, the bottom line is that a character like Captain America was created largely for military-type stories and to focus on duels between nations and such. A lot of what causes the concept not to work is when you start involving him too much on a domestic level, which inevitably leads to the writers (currently dominated by the left wing) using him to make very one sided political points which don't always work for a character who is by definition the embodiment of America's military industrial complex, and using overwhelming force for the right reasons (with right being American principles, or the defense thereof).

In short Captain America should be a nice guy, but he shouldn't be dumb about it, and in writing this character in particular it's important that he doesn't become an embodiment of one side of the political spectrum, like he has been for the left wing. Right now Captain America has arguably become a parody equivalent to if he was say a defender of the upper 1% of American society, and spent all of his time punching people in the name of economic theory on behalf of bankers and corporations. Socially Captain America should be VERY militant, but he should also be someone who doesn't exactly act as a tool of the upper class either. When it comes to more social issues, gay rights, racism, etc... he doesn't belong there even if he's long since been used in those kinds of stories by those with an agenda. Those kinds of issues are things he as a super hero is supposed to exist above, as that is exactly the kind of garbage people read comics to get away from.

See, right now I think Captain America should be say punting Kim Jong Un and his ilk, much like his old "Hitler Punching Days", along with the regular super hero stuff. The problem is left wing writers and their "peace at any price" agenda prevents them from acknowledging any group as a real enemy of the US, and treating it that way, and honestly that kind of enemy (originally the Nazis) was what Cap was intended to fight, and arguably be a counterpoint/shaming influence on people like the current left wing who refused to accept those threats, or believed the US should stay out of such events and remain isolationist/it's their own business. Cap was designed as "the guy who goes to war" *NOT* as "the guy who whines about wars and tries to undermine them".
Wow... That is easily the smartest thing I've read on The Escapist in...a very long time indeed. For a long time, Captain America has been Captain Liberal America. Now granted, I'm not surprised the author of this article finds no fault in Cap only representing his side of the political spectrum. And while it was good to see Captain America kicking the hell out of nazis, I don't see why it was such a bad idea when he went against communists. More people have been killed in the name of communism than by the Nation Socialist German Workers Party by far. I mean, the nazis were pikers compared to the soviets and the communist Chinese, and they were our allies (sadly) in WWII. Most of the biggest mass murderers in the 20th century were communists. In the real word, there are evil people. Sometimes these lunatics lead countries and they warp the minds of their people. Why is it bad to point that out, and to have a superhero to fight against them in comic books?

On the other hand, I have to say that I agree when it comes to using comics (though in my case video games and anime more often) to escape from all the crap of the real world and all the issues and baggage it has, I think it's a good thing. Not everything needs to have politics injected into it. Not every game, book, movie, TV show, comic book, etc. needs to bash the viewer/reader/player over the head again and again with heavy-handed moralizing (mostly of the left-wing variety). Can't we just have at least a few things that are apolitical? And no, I'm not being hypocritical by asking to not have everything be political after talking about Cap's politics, because he's already being used for an agenda (like most superheroes).

And I'd like to at least congratulate Mr. Lincoln on not using any derogatory and offensive language this time around. I'm sure it was difficult for you not to insult people who don't believe the same things you do.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
LysanderNemoinis said:
Therumancer said:
I agree with you to an extent, and your overall sentiment about there being nothing wrong with super heroes who are just plain out nice guys is spot on.

That said your point sort of falls apart when you start getting into specifics where your by and large equating left wing morality with "what's right" when 50% of the population disagrees with that just for a start. It should be noted that the big trick in a lot of cases to doing genuinely good characters is to have them be good without being stupid. This goes back to the old joke/point that "evil will always win, because good is dumb" in pointing out reality vs. fantasy, or more realistic fantasy situations that get ultra-dark because of it. For example in "Winter Soldier" part of what's wrong with Captain America is that the guy is by definition part of what started as a covert government program. World War II wasn't morally ambigious because of civil liberties issues at home, but because like most things we won largely by being the bigger bastards. We dropped more bombs and massacred more Germans than the Nazis did during the "horrors" they inflicted in London during "The Blitz" thanks to guys like Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who are the reason we won the war (like it or not), people who were decorated heavily by the US and Britan alike, yet were reviled as the same kinds of war criminals as the ones we tried and convicted by the other side. The winners get to write the history books. The purpose of Captain America was actually the opposite of what a lot of people here seem to think, he's a dude who ran around calling Nazis "Krauts" and other slurs that could make it into print to dehumanize them, and he did very much enter the military to act as a weapon against it's enemies. Conceptually he's sort of an answer to left wing isolationist sentiments at the time, and those in the US who were very pro-Nazi (Hitler was an international man
of the year).

Later generations of creators, especially after they retconned away from the whole "commie smasher" days by saying it was never *really* Captain America started using him as a social critic, and a way to attack those that didn't have a left wing idealogy. Forget the whole "William Burnside" thing, it becomes somewhat difficult to reconcile him with the character from World War II he's allegedly still supposed to be.

What's more look at what he did in say "Winter Soldier" where he destroys the three Helicarriers at the end. Okay, granted, maybe him being as pessimistic as Nick Fury doesn't work (they exist to play off each other to an extent, even in the comics, we have two separate characters for a reason), but when he wrecks these weapons as opposed to simply disabling them so Hydra can't use them, he goes from being "moral" to "stupid" especially in a world where things like Hydra exists, and the planet was already invaded by aliens once. It's a case where the writers lust for smacking down the US military/industrial complex trumped any kind of good writing for the character.

What's more while Captain America shouldn't be quite as jingoistic as he is in the "Ultimate" version, one point that version does make is that realistically Cap *would* be invading Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Russia, and other places opposed to the US. Indeed part of the point of Captain America, and him being "super" is specifically that he can be dropped behind the lines of places like that and say taken down Iranian nuclear programs, or thwart the schemes of the KGB or Kim Jong Un's tech divisions, without actually having to send in the military... and if they DO send in the military, he'd be right there with them. I mean let's not forget the whole "War On Terror" did start with an attack on US soil, against both military (The Pentagon) and Civilian targets. Properly Captain America would be critical of say The Bush administration for war profiteering, but he'd be just as critical of the left wing stupidity in how to conduct a war and not focusing on a practical method of winning... and yep, in wartime Cap would dehumanize his opponents, and start screaming racial and cultural epitats, not because he's racist, but because it gets under people's skin, and also makes it easier to brutalize people you dehumanize. If you think that doesn't sound like Captain America, then you don't know Captain America, as both him and Nick Fury used terms like "Krauts" and the like for the Germans for the same reason, he wasn't racist, he was just a warrior who knew what he was doing.

That said, the bottom line is that a character like Captain America was created largely for military-type stories and to focus on duels between nations and such. A lot of what causes the concept not to work is when you start involving him too much on a domestic level, which inevitably leads to the writers (currently dominated by the left wing) using him to make very one sided political points which don't always work for a character who is by definition the embodiment of America's military industrial complex, and using overwhelming force for the right reasons (with right being American principles, or the defense thereof).

In short Captain America should be a nice guy, but he shouldn't be dumb about it, and in writing this character in particular it's important that he doesn't become an embodiment of one side of the political spectrum, like he has been for the left wing. Right now Captain America has arguably become a parody equivalent to if he was say a defender of the upper 1% of American society, and spent all of his time punching people in the name of economic theory on behalf of bankers and corporations. Socially Captain America should be VERY militant, but he should also be someone who doesn't exactly act as a tool of the upper class either. When it comes to more social issues, gay rights, racism, etc... he doesn't belong there even if he's long since been used in those kinds of stories by those with an agenda. Those kinds of issues are things he as a super hero is supposed to exist above, as that is exactly the kind of garbage people read comics to get away from.

See, right now I think Captain America should be say punting Kim Jong Un and his ilk, much like his old "Hitler Punching Days", along with the regular super hero stuff. The problem is left wing writers and their "peace at any price" agenda prevents them from acknowledging any group as a real enemy of the US, and treating it that way, and honestly that kind of enemy (originally the Nazis) was what Cap was intended to fight, and arguably be a counterpoint/shaming influence on people like the current left wing who refused to accept those threats, or believed the US should stay out of such events and remain isolationist/it's their own business. Cap was designed as "the guy who goes to war" *NOT* as "the guy who whines about wars and tries to undermine them".
Wow... That is easily the smartest thing I've read on The Escapist in...a very long time indeed. For a long time, Captain America has been Captain Liberal America. Now granted, I'm not surprised the author of this article finds no fault in Cap only representing his side of the political spectrum. And while it was good to see Captain America kicking the hell out of nazis, I don't see why it was such a bad idea when he went against communists. More people have been killed in the name of communism than by the Nation Socialist German Workers Party by far. I mean, the nazis were pikers compared to the soviets and the communist Chinese, and they were our allies (sadly) in WWII. Most of the biggest mass murderers in the 20th century were communists. In the real word, there are evil people. Sometimes these lunatics lead countries and they warp the minds of their people. Why is it bad to point that out, and to have a superhero to fight against them in comic books?

On the other hand, I have to say that I agree when it comes to using comics (though in my case video games and anime more often) to escape from all the crap of the real world and all the issues and baggage it has, I think it's a good thing. Not everything needs to have politics injected into it. Not every game, book, movie, TV show, comic book, etc. needs to bash the viewer/reader/player over the head again and again with heavy-handed moralizing (mostly of the left-wing variety). Can't we just have at least a few things that are apolitical? And no, I'm not being hypocritical by asking to not have everything be political after talking about Cap's politics, because he's already being used for an agenda (like most superheroes).

And I'd like to at least congratulate Mr. Lincoln on not using any derogatory and offensive language this time around. I'm sure it was difficult for you not to insult people who don't believe the same things you do.
In my defense, I did insult people who think Captain America should be an asshole - I compared them to Harry Potter slashfic writers after all. Also, I compared Batman to patchouli. That's pretty insulting.

I will say that if Captain America doesn't belong "there" with regard to racism, hatred of gays and the like, then what is he fighting for? Why bother caring about America if you don't want America to be a better place? Captain America is a symbol, but our country isn't, it's a real place.

Also, I should think we can all, right and left, agree that bigots are bad people, especially bigots who seek to codify their prejudice into law, right?

EDIT: I'll add that I can see the appeal of art that functions only as escapism. But I also would suggest that the majority comics readers would like the art they like to aspire to more than simple escapism. And so too do the creatives toiling behind the scenes. If you think comics *should* only be escapist, that's fine, and there are plenty of comics out there that do just that. But overall, comics have rarely been just that for the last 50 years. We live (as we always have) in interesting times, and it's often fun and enlightening to see how those interesting times play out in our entertainment. If we ignore the clear zeitgeists as they happen, we render whatever art we make as pointless as Lawrence Welk. Captain America is a perfectly cromulent vehicle for finding ways to discuss hot button issues of the day, and the comic has been for decades. What I mean to say is, that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I don't think having a character designed to be the embodiment of All That Is Right About America also be opposed to discrimination and dealing head-on with the big issues actually happening in America is particularly contradictory. It'd feel a bit weirder if, say, Ambush Bug had a storyline about Kony.
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
Abraham Riesman comes off as the worst "comic fan" you NEVER want in your local comic book store, in your convention hall, anywhere near your friends and family, or even in your life for a brief second. Anyone who honestly believes characters like Duke Nukem and Lobo are the pinnacle of characterization and demands that all characters should follow their lead should be immediately be placed in a psychiatric ward for the rest of their lives. It's that kind of antisocial douche-bag mindset that poisons and corrupts any form of entertainment, be it comics or movie or video games. Personally, the world can do with less Abraham Riesman's and more Steve Rogers. People who are kind, compassionate, and selfless are a rarity to meet in life. Also, it tends to make them more well-rounded as a person and as a character. Being a total douche-bag 24/7 only makes you as compelling as a rotting 2x4. But, anyone who survived the hellish experience of comics in the 90s can testify to that.

As for characters who act like dicks, allow me to introduce you to one dick in particular that stars in one of my favorite comics-Guy Gardner. Early in his career, during the Justice League International era (the one by Giffen, DeMatteis, and Maguire. Not the New 52 knock-off), he was the atypical jack-off no one on the team liked. He was sexist, rude, cocky as all hell, and worshiped Reagan and Rambo like they were Moses and Jesus. But a funny thing happened when he pushed the buttons of one Dark Knight too many times. Guy Gardner challenged Batman to a fair fight. No power ring, no gadgets. Just man-to-man fisticuffs. Batman agreed to the fight and the rules.

You wanna know how well that went?


And, for your viewing pleasure, here's that epic battle from a different angle.


And, for the record, I love JLI. Mostly because it remembers to add the one thing the New 52 comics tend to leave out... levity.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
Mr. Q said:
Abraham Riesman comes off as the worst "comic fan" you NEVER want in your local comic book store, in your convention hall, anywhere near your friends and family, or even in your life for a brief second. Anyone who honestly believes characters like Duke Nukem and Lobo are the pinnacle of characterization and demands that all characters should follow their lead should be immediately be placed in a psychiatric ward for the rest of their lives. It's that kind of antisocial douche-bag mindset that poisons and corrupts any form of entertainment, be it comics or movie or video games. Personally, the world can do with less Abraham Riesman's and more Steve Rogers. People who are kind, compassionate, and selfless are a rarity to meet in life. Also, it tends to make them more well-rounded as a person and as a character. Being a total douche-bag 24/7 only makes you as compelling as a rotting 2x4. But, anyone who survived the hellish experience of comics in the 90s can testify to that.

As for characters who act like dicks, allow me to introduce you to one dick in particular that stars in one of my favorite comics-Guy Gardner. Early in his career, during the Justice League International era (the one by Giffen, DeMatteis, and Maguire. Not the New 52 knock-off), he was the atypical jack-off no one on the team liked. He was sexist, rude, cocky as all hell, and worshiped Reagan and Rambo like they were Moses and Jesus. But a funny thing happened when he pushed the buttons of one Dark Knight too many times. Guy Gardner challenged Batman to a fair fight. No power ring, no gadgets. Just man-to-man fisticuffs. Batman agreed to the fight and the rules.

You wanna know how well that went?


And, for your viewing pleasure, here's that epic battle from a different angle.


I LOVE THIS MOMENT. Now i need to dig through my crates to find the issue.

And, for the record, I love JLI. Mostly because it remembers to add the one thing the New 52 comics tend to leave out... levity.
 

Anachronism

New member
Apr 9, 2009
1,842
0
0
Thoroughly enjoying the increasing coverage of comics on the site. It's also really gratifying to have high-quality written content that isn't Critical Intel, Experienced Points or Extra Punctuation; don't get me wrong, I like the videos on the Escapist, but I miss the days of weekly issues and lots of great articles to read. This seems to be a step back in the right direction to me.

Unsurprisingly, I wholeheartedly agree with this article. It's a lot of the reason why I love Kingdom Come so much: showing how much better stories can be when they're populated by actual heroes instead of just assholes who like fighting. It's pretty much the perfect example of how to make Superman work - even if that isn't anywhere near as hard as many would have you believe - by showing him, like Cap in The Winter Soldier, as a good man in a time when good men are considered weak because they refuse to kill the bad guy.

I love Watchmen (though I despise The Dark Knight Returns), but Kingdom Come coming along and repairing the damage the Dark Age inflicted on superhero comics was a wonderful thing.

RossaLincoln said:
No, I'm not evaluating these comics on an artistic basis - many of them are in fact extremely excellent, and remain so today. Definitely not Lobo, or The Punisher however.
Must disagree with you on that last point, I fear. Have you ever read Garth Ennis' run on the Punisher? Because it's phenomenal, undoubtedly the definitive version of the character. He's a horrible, horrible person, a bloodthirsty psychopath who simply enjoys killing people - but Ennis is aware of this.

The stories acknowledge that the Punisher's methods are abhorrent even if it's enjoyable to watch him murder sex traffickers, and the only reason he's not the villain of his own book is because the people he kills are even more evil than he is. The ending of The Slavers openly acknowledges that his way of fighting crime doesn't work. These stories actually deconstruct the concept of the violent vigilante in much the same way Kingdom Come did.

Maybe it doesn't make him a great character, but it makes for amazing stories. Punisher: Born, which chronicles his origin in the Vietnam War, is a war story worthy of being ranked alongside Platoon and Saving Private Ryan, in my opinion.
 

LysanderNemoinis

Noble and oppressed Kekistani
Nov 8, 2010
468
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
LysanderNemoinis said:
Therumancer said:
I agree with you to an extent, and your overall sentiment about there being nothing wrong with super heroes who are just plain out nice guys is spot on.

That said your point sort of falls apart when you start getting into specifics where your by and large equating left wing morality with "what's right" when 50% of the population disagrees with that just for a start. It should be noted that the big trick in a lot of cases to doing genuinely good characters is to have them be good without being stupid. This goes back to the old joke/point that "evil will always win, because good is dumb" in pointing out reality vs. fantasy, or more realistic fantasy situations that get ultra-dark because of it. For example in "Winter Soldier" part of what's wrong with Captain America is that the guy is by definition part of what started as a covert government program. World War II wasn't morally ambigious because of civil liberties issues at home, but because like most things we won largely by being the bigger bastards. We dropped more bombs and massacred more Germans than the Nazis did during the "horrors" they inflicted in London during "The Blitz" thanks to guys like Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who are the reason we won the war (like it or not), people who were decorated heavily by the US and Britan alike, yet were reviled as the same kinds of war criminals as the ones we tried and convicted by the other side. The winners get to write the history books. The purpose of Captain America was actually the opposite of what a lot of people here seem to think, he's a dude who ran around calling Nazis "Krauts" and other slurs that could make it into print to dehumanize them, and he did very much enter the military to act as a weapon against it's enemies. Conceptually he's sort of an answer to left wing isolationist sentiments at the time, and those in the US who were very pro-Nazi (Hitler was an international man
of the year).

Later generations of creators, especially after they retconned away from the whole "commie smasher" days by saying it was never *really* Captain America started using him as a social critic, and a way to attack those that didn't have a left wing idealogy. Forget the whole "William Burnside" thing, it becomes somewhat difficult to reconcile him with the character from World War II he's allegedly still supposed to be.

What's more look at what he did in say "Winter Soldier" where he destroys the three Helicarriers at the end. Okay, granted, maybe him being as pessimistic as Nick Fury doesn't work (they exist to play off each other to an extent, even in the comics, we have two separate characters for a reason), but when he wrecks these weapons as opposed to simply disabling them so Hydra can't use them, he goes from being "moral" to "stupid" especially in a world where things like Hydra exists, and the planet was already invaded by aliens once. It's a case where the writers lust for smacking down the US military/industrial complex trumped any kind of good writing for the character.

What's more while Captain America shouldn't be quite as jingoistic as he is in the "Ultimate" version, one point that version does make is that realistically Cap *would* be invading Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Russia, and other places opposed to the US. Indeed part of the point of Captain America, and him being "super" is specifically that he can be dropped behind the lines of places like that and say taken down Iranian nuclear programs, or thwart the schemes of the KGB or Kim Jong Un's tech divisions, without actually having to send in the military... and if they DO send in the military, he'd be right there with them. I mean let's not forget the whole "War On Terror" did start with an attack on US soil, against both military (The Pentagon) and Civilian targets. Properly Captain America would be critical of say The Bush administration for war profiteering, but he'd be just as critical of the left wing stupidity in how to conduct a war and not focusing on a practical method of winning... and yep, in wartime Cap would dehumanize his opponents, and start screaming racial and cultural epitats, not because he's racist, but because it gets under people's skin, and also makes it easier to brutalize people you dehumanize. If you think that doesn't sound like Captain America, then you don't know Captain America, as both him and Nick Fury used terms like "Krauts" and the like for the Germans for the same reason, he wasn't racist, he was just a warrior who knew what he was doing.

That said, the bottom line is that a character like Captain America was created largely for military-type stories and to focus on duels between nations and such. A lot of what causes the concept not to work is when you start involving him too much on a domestic level, which inevitably leads to the writers (currently dominated by the left wing) using him to make very one sided political points which don't always work for a character who is by definition the embodiment of America's military industrial complex, and using overwhelming force for the right reasons (with right being American principles, or the defense thereof).

In short Captain America should be a nice guy, but he shouldn't be dumb about it, and in writing this character in particular it's important that he doesn't become an embodiment of one side of the political spectrum, like he has been for the left wing. Right now Captain America has arguably become a parody equivalent to if he was say a defender of the upper 1% of American society, and spent all of his time punching people in the name of economic theory on behalf of bankers and corporations. Socially Captain America should be VERY militant, but he should also be someone who doesn't exactly act as a tool of the upper class either. When it comes to more social issues, gay rights, racism, etc... he doesn't belong there even if he's long since been used in those kinds of stories by those with an agenda. Those kinds of issues are things he as a super hero is supposed to exist above, as that is exactly the kind of garbage people read comics to get away from.

See, right now I think Captain America should be say punting Kim Jong Un and his ilk, much like his old "Hitler Punching Days", along with the regular super hero stuff. The problem is left wing writers and their "peace at any price" agenda prevents them from acknowledging any group as a real enemy of the US, and treating it that way, and honestly that kind of enemy (originally the Nazis) was what Cap was intended to fight, and arguably be a counterpoint/shaming influence on people like the current left wing who refused to accept those threats, or believed the US should stay out of such events and remain isolationist/it's their own business. Cap was designed as "the guy who goes to war" *NOT* as "the guy who whines about wars and tries to undermine them".
Wow... That is easily the smartest thing I've read on The Escapist in...a very long time indeed. For a long time, Captain America has been Captain Liberal America. Now granted, I'm not surprised the author of this article finds no fault in Cap only representing his side of the political spectrum. And while it was good to see Captain America kicking the hell out of nazis, I don't see why it was such a bad idea when he went against communists. More people have been killed in the name of communism than by the Nation Socialist German Workers Party by far. I mean, the nazis were pikers compared to the soviets and the communist Chinese, and they were our allies (sadly) in WWII. Most of the biggest mass murderers in the 20th century were communists. In the real word, there are evil people. Sometimes these lunatics lead countries and they warp the minds of their people. Why is it bad to point that out, and to have a superhero to fight against them in comic books?

On the other hand, I have to say that I agree when it comes to using comics (though in my case video games and anime more often) to escape from all the crap of the real world and all the issues and baggage it has, I think it's a good thing. Not everything needs to have politics injected into it. Not every game, book, movie, TV show, comic book, etc. needs to bash the viewer/reader/player over the head again and again with heavy-handed moralizing (mostly of the left-wing variety). Can't we just have at least a few things that are apolitical? And no, I'm not being hypocritical by asking to not have everything be political after talking about Cap's politics, because he's already being used for an agenda (like most superheroes).

And I'd like to at least congratulate Mr. Lincoln on not using any derogatory and offensive language this time around. I'm sure it was difficult for you not to insult people who don't believe the same things you do.
In my defense, I did insult people who think Captain America should be an asshole - I compared them to Harry Potter slashfic writers after all. Also, I compared Batman to patchouli. That's pretty insulting.

I will say that if Captain America doesn't belong "there" with regard to racism, hatred of gays and the like, then what is he fighting for? Why bother caring about America if you don't want America to be a better place? Captain America is a symbol, but our country isn't, it's a real place.

Also, I should think we can all, right and left, agree that bigots are bad people, especially bigots who seek to codify their prejudice into law, right?
We can certainly agree that bigotry is wrong, regardless of what side one is on politically, but it comes down more to who you call a bigot. Just about every conservative in politics (except for liberal republicans) are called bigots all the time, but very few say or do things that actually display a sense of hatred for people. But calling someone a racist is a good way of shutting down opposition. One example I can easily think of welfare. Anyone who wants welfare to be lessened or for there to be more efforts to get people out of work to find a job is automatically called a racist. Not implying you do it, but many liberals do. The vast majority of conservatives see welfare as necessary (at times) but not a good thing for people to use in the long term as it makes people dependent on government. Not everyone on welfare is just looking for a check, but it makes quite a few to make less of an effort to find a job, especially if the various food stamps, mediciad, unemployment and such combined allow them to live at or near the same level they were when working (mostly lower-middle class). It, like many issues, has nothing to do with race, but anyone who says such things will be called racist.

As for America being a better place, that's entirely subjective. Your version of a "better place" is most likely probably isn't the same as mine, or a lot of people. Not on The Escapist, mind you, but elsewhere in the country. For example, no one wants African Americans to be discriminated against, but my "better place" would be one where race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton go get real jobs and not continue to further inflame racial issues by always portraying white people as horrible individuals (and especially Sharpton with Jews) and causing riots. The KKK, the Westboro assholes, and the Black Panthers, these are people who need to go the hell away and stay the hell away. But I think that many of the perceived "bigots" are just people that have been impugned because they have a differing opinion.

As for the insulting remark, I meant more your use of the T-word in that post you wrote about the politician being slammed for his LARPing. And in case people are wondering why I won't say it, I just figure if victim groups can pick and choose which words they can ban and disallow people to say because they now find them offensive even if they didn't previously, then so can people like me.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
LysanderNemoinis said:
As for the insulting remark, I meant more your use of the T-word in that post you wrote about the politician being slammed for his LARPing.
I know. I was using self-deprecating humor.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
Well said. I think "darker and edgier" comics can be good if done right... but when it goes too far.l. well... just look at the comics of the 90s and see how well tat turned out. And it can be argued that the new DCU is going the same route.

That's why we need more heroes like Captain America. More optimism and less cynicism, if you catch my drift.
 

WaltIsFrozen

New member
Apr 11, 2014
22
0
0
Therumancer said:
That said your point sort of falls apart when you start getting into specifics where your by and large equating left wing morality with "what's right" when 50% of the population disagrees with that just for a start.
...
In short Captain America should be a nice guy, but he shouldn't be dumb about it, and in writing this character in particular it's important that he doesn't become an embodiment of one side of the political spectrum, like he has been for the left wing.
All-American values like equality, privacy, due process and personal freedom, don't automatically become "left wing morality" just because they're rejected by the the right. I think one would have to be pretty cynical to hear quotes like these and think only 50% of Americans would agree with them :

"This isn't freedom. This is fear."
"I thought the punishment usually came after the crime."
"I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from."

Therumancer said:
Right now Captain America has arguably become a parody equivalent to if he was say a defender of the upper 1% of American society, and spent all of his time punching people in the name of economic theory on behalf of bankers and corporations.
Actually a better example would be the Captain America that you describe above. One that "*would* be invading Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Russia" and "would dehumanize his opponents, and start screaming racial and cultural epitats". If you think a racist war-monger represents American values, then we can agree to disagree. Personally, I'm glad we get the Captain America we see in the Marvel movies and not some Captain "Stand Your Ground" who shoots first without any regard for who he's attacking or the consequences of his actions.

Therumancer said:
Properly Captain America would be critical of say The Bush administration for war profiteering, but he'd be just as critical of the left wing stupidity in how to conduct a war and not focusing on a practical method of winning...
Not focusing on a practical method of winning is an example of "left wing stupidity"? If we're going to have a conversation about recent history, try Googling the name "Donald Rumsfeld" sometime. Bush and co. conducted two wars and never gave more than a passing thought to "practical method of winning", which is why we've still got tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Therumancer said:
In short Captain America should be a nice guy, but he shouldn't be dumb about it...
...
The problem is left wing writers and their "peace at any price" agenda prevents them from acknowledging any group as a real enemy of the US, and treating it that way, and honestly that kind of enemy (originally the Nazis) was what Cap was intended to fight, and arguably be a counterpoint/shaming influence on people like the current left wing who refused to accept those threats, or believed the US should stay out of such events and remain isolationist/it's their own business.
To echo Ross's point, it was right wingers who were isolationists in WW2, not the left. Moreover, if you want to go back to your point about the war on terrorism, it was Bush Jr's administration who refused to take the threat of terrorism seriously pre-9/11. Only after 9/11 happened on their watch did they do anything and then they were "dumb about it" by redirecting resources away from the actual threat toward Iraq. You paint this straw man picture of the weak left versus the strong right when the reality is much different. The right is filled with war-hungry idiots who start wars and don't know how to finish them. For the left, it's not that we're anti-war in all situations. It's that we're against "dumb wars" (to quote Barack Obama). When there's a legitimate humanitarian threat that can only be resolved through military action, the left usually either falls in line or leads the charge (Rawanda).

Therumancer said:
When it comes to more social issues, gay rights, racism, etc... he doesn't belong there even if he's long since been used in those kinds of stories by those with an agenda. Those kinds of issues are things he as a super hero is supposed to exist above, as that is exactly the kind of garbage people read comics to get away from.
Jeez. You must have the most boring comics collection ever. Do yourself a favor and never read anything by Alan Moore. You'd hate his work. Also, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica? They're also "garbage".
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
Therumancer said:
I agree with you to an extent, and your overall sentiment about there being nothing wrong with super heroes who are just plain out nice guys is spot on.

That said your point sort of falls apart when you start getting into specifics where your by and large equating left wing morality with "what's right" when 50% of the population disagrees with that just for a start..
I would argue that believing in fair play, equal rights, personal liberty, not being scared into submission by ominous national security paranoiacs, and not being an asshole are "what's right", unambiguously, and further, they aren't, or they shouldn't be the exclusive property of the left. If the other 50% believes otherwise, that says more about them than it does about the left.

I would also like you to describe some of these so called liberals who supported Hitler. Because in the US, the nazi sympathizers were all right wingers like Charles Lindberg who opposed things like unions, rights for minorities and equality for women. Sorry, but this is history. The leftists were, regrettably (and I am deliberately understating here) far far more likely to idealize Stalin's USSR precisely because communism and fascism were diametrically opposed to one another.

I'm sorry, but this is history. The nazis were right wing ideologues, not leftists. National Socialism was an artifact title that obscured the roots of the party having coopted an angry quasi-socialist organization and turned it into a xenophobic, anticommunist (which meant anything up to and including new deal style ideas), pro war and racist paramilitary group. They opposed liberals in their own country and once in power ruthlessly destroyed them, sending artists, gay people and dissenting intellectuals (some of whom to be fair were also conservatives) to death camps along with Roma and Jewish people. Liberals- like the ones in the US government at the time, were very much interesting in fighting hitler. The isolationists who also didn't like anything remotely commie-sounding, were the ones who wanted to stay out of it.

EDIT: just to be fair, let me note that I think that tied for worst president of the 20th century (and it's a three way tie for the country's history as a whole) is Woodrow Wilson. And not because of his attempt to create the League of Nations (because I support international cooperation and nations working together to prevent wars and so forth. I am no isolationist), but because he was a liar who gunned the country into going to war after campaigning on his record of keeping us out of WWI, he actually jailed or deported people for speaking out against the war (or for being socialist, and this was before the USSR so the only argument against was that he didn't like uppity workers), unconstitutionally limited freedom of assembly, he was opposed to women's suffrage, and was an enormous racist the likes of which hadn't been seen in the White House since before the Civil War. Just so we're clear I'm not reflexively team Democrat.
Umm, no, not even close. The Nazis were a left wing movement based on workers rights and the forcible overthrow of the upper class. A lot of the anti-Jew bigotry came about due to a lot of the upper class happened to be Jewish, and extremely racist themselves, getting into that position largely due to an entire era where Jews had a monopoly on money lending due to Christian religions forbidding it. Not all Jews were involved or were the problem of course, but they did symbolize the upper class and top 1% of the day. Indeed when you get down to it a lot of liberals in the US right now are starting just like the Nazis, albeit without the racial overtones, demonizing the top 1% and working towards tearing it down. Indeed the reason why nations like Romania got in bed with the Nazis was specifically because Germany provided muscle to assist with the "Re-romanianization of property", namely they went in, killed a lot of the top 1% (many of whom were Jewish) and then gave the land and wealth to the people through the government.

Hitler was an international man of the year because of his economic theories and the way he presented himself as a man of the people, what was appealing about him was that he envisioned/promised days when every man could have a "Volkswagon" putting cars, which were still the stuff of the upper class, into the hands of the everyman.

Now to be fair with you, Hitler was right about a lot of things, indeed a lot of the areas I go left wing on are similar to some of the areas where Hitler leaned that way. I myself tend to be very big on worker's rights, unionized labor, and limiting how much power groups of businessmen can directly leverage in society. The thing was that those things Hitler wasn't right about were absolutely bug nuts crazy. This was a guy who turned strong handed reforms into ethnic genocide, and had an agenda literally based on the occult where he believed he was going to genetically restore a race of giant, blonde-haired, psionic supermen that he believed went extinct to become our leaders. The thing was though that he got to the point of being able to indulge that insanity because he was incredibly popular and charismatic on a global level, and very much following an extremely liberal agenda assuming you weren't say a Jew or a Gypsy and on one of his genocide lists. The guys who followed Hitler in the US were pretty much the everyman, the guys who liked the ideas presented by the dude who was telling them that he could build an economy which would let everyone have a car, along with greater equity between the rich and poor.

See the thing is Hitler has only been made out to be this monsterous nightmare dictator after the war ended due to propaganda. The scary thing about him is that he's the guy you like, the leader who tells you what you want to hear, and happens to be honest about most of it to the point where you kind of miss those insane little points that are going to snowball as time goes on. The funny thing about Godwin's law is how so many people like to compare leaders they don't like to Hitler, when really an appropriate comparison can only be made to a leader which the majority of people actually like. Someone like Hitler will almost always be a "people's champion" as he was. This also means that none of the leaders we have here in the US come close, we're seeing elections resolved by single digit percentages, both Obama and Bush were vehemently hated by too many people to really invite Hitler comparisons... but that's neither here nor there.


What we're actually talking about here is Captain America. On a lot of levels he personifies the idea that "The Price Of Freedom is eternal vigilance", he's about the might and will of the US compared to other ideologies and threats. He was created pretty much to show up the whole "peace at any price" crowd, and the guys with isolationist sentiments which were a big deal during "World War II". Captain America is the "enlist and do your duty" type of guy. As a character he's not really intended for peacetime, which is fine, because in comics your pretty much always dealing with one threat or another.

Your more or less "okay" with the whole "equal rights" and "personal liberty" bit. Your off kilter with "fair play" since Captain America is all about overwhelming military superiority and doing what you have to in order to win. After all the defining power of the character is that he's pretty much better than any human could ever be, he is a super soldier, the very manifestation of a special weapon, and one that proves itself superior to anything else thrown at it. The idea of a "super" anything is to be better than the other guy, not fight on an even playing field. What's more while Cap did lead troops in the trenches, he, like Nick Fury, was big on offensive operations behind enemy lines. Indeed Cap's WWII super team is called "The Invaders" because they invaded other countries for the US (stop and think about this).

Where the real problem is when your talking about people being "paranoid about security", Captain America is pretty much national security incarnate, that's what he's supposed to be about, albeit his approach is by definition pro-active. Indeed the entire point of him being a war time icon is to pretty much shut down the people who just want to sit on their butts, refuse to acknowledge threats, and have the US mind it's own business. Despite how history presents things now, even after Pearl Habour there were a lot of people that wanted to stay out of World War II, that event merely tipped things, to get our intervention through, and it was a constant effort by The War Department to produce propaganda and control the media to keep people on track and on target. Cap is pretty much a manifestation of that, who is also a very effective war machine. Indeed properly portrayed he would BE that paranoid for all intents and purposes. Especially seeing as the threats presented by Middle Eastern Muslims (long history of terrorism, betrayal, failed diplomacy, and of course the 9/11 attacks), North Korea (they are at least trying to build WMDs they can launch into the US), Russia (has now launched two invasions of independent states, has been threatening the US and it's allies), and of course China (massive human rights violations, theft of our copyrights, patents, and IPs, and a massive military build up followed by aggression against US allies like Japan and The Philippines), all of these threats exist, and arguably the left wing's attitude is very similar to that prior to World War II "we should stay out of this kind of thing, and mind our own business", and that is the anti-thesis of the point of Captain America.

Now granted, the thing about Cap is that he doesn't exist in the real world. Rather he's supposed to symbolically confront our enemies abroad. As I said, Cap's place is to be doing things like sticking a star spangled boot up the posterior of Putin or Kim Jong Un (much like he would have done to the Nazis), when he's not fighting more fantastic super villains of course. Granted in real life you can't so stuff like this, there are no real super heroes, but then again the guy is supposed to just point the finger at our enemies and the threat they present in his stories. He wasn't around IRL to almost single handedly turn the tide of "World War II" and floor Hitler with a haymaker either.

My point about the social issues other than that is that they are debatable, and that is why Captain America's stories should generally not involve them. When it comes to something like gay rights, Cap just shouldn't go there, as the nation is divided almost down the middle. His purpose is the big picture and dealing with threats, not to make social statements outside of that arena in order to symbolize one political philosophy or another. Properly used it just shouldn't come up (in either direction) Cap belongs kicking butt, not debating domestic social philosophy, people who use him for that miss the point, and that's the problem. He needs to be above that, standing for America, not your America, my America, his America or the other guy over their and his America. He's the guy who puts his boot up our butts and says "stop fighting about gay rights, we have terrorists to kick butt on, worry about that later", so to speak. He should always be doing something else as opposed to indulging a writer's domestic political axe grinding.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
Therumancer said:
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.
 

WaltIsFrozen

New member
Apr 11, 2014
22
0
0
Therumancer said:
My point about the social issues other than that is that they are debatable, and that is why Captain America's stories should generally not involve them.
Civil rights was a "social issue" that was "debatable" in the 1960's. Somebody should have told Stan Lee that introducing a black character like Falcon in 1969 was "left wing morality" that had no business in a Captain America comic. He should have been doing something more American like bombing the shit out of a Vietnamese village or something.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
I never understood why Ultimate Captain America seemed to have a problem with the French. Even as an asshole from his time period instead of the boy scout we all know and love, that just does not make sense given that American anti-French attitudes developed in the late 80s/early 90s. For hit time period, France should be close to the top of the list of countries he likes because of the long century and a half of good relations coupled with how many shared values there where between the two countries. Then again it is a universe where everyone is written as an asshole where logical actions are abnormal (ex: the fact that Cap is the ONLY person who has a problem with the incest couple on their team).
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
I salute you for writing this article. Captain America is by far my favorite Avenger, and after The Winter Solider, it is safe to say that he is now my favorite superhero movie character. I am so sick and tired of 'heroes' being nothing but angry, spoiled, and downright rotten. I remember in the Batman cartoon that Batman had a sense of humor, that he could be fun and enjoy life too, but now it's all anger and depression all the time. Same thing with everyone else.

Captain America is a breath of fresh air. I was so worried that he was going to compromise who he is in The Winter Soldier because of people who wrote that other article would complain. And I agree: people like him need to grow up. What about the guy whose head he cut off with his shield? Captain America can still be a 'bad ass' without compromising who he is. His speech at SHIELD HQ showed exactly who he his, what he stands for, and why that makes him so cool. It so much harder to stick to your guns, your morals, when everyone and everything around you is saying you're doing it wrong and you're wasting time.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
WaltIsFrozen said:
[

Jeez. You must have the most boring comics collection ever. Do yourself a favor and never read anything by Alan Moore. You'd hate his work. Also, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica? They're also "garbage".
I almost decided not to respond largely because you decided to get personal here. For the record I'm familiar with all of those things, and have probably read everything Alan Moore has written.

My advice right now is to go back, re-read what I wrote, what you've written, and what we're actually discussing. Then consider trying to respond on topic without turning it into an attack piece.

At it's core what we're discussing here is not some hypothetical "what I think Captain America should be like" but rather what Captain America actually is, and what he's been reinterpreted it by one sided political writers, especially when they have tried to insert the character out of context into things in order to reinforce their indirect political rants.

For example, when I talk about how Captain America should address people he's fighting, that comes directly from the comics. When Cap has fought in World War II, like most characters set in that time period he's resorted to mocking the Nazis by calling them Krauts and such. What's more the very name of his team "The Invaders" sort of make a statement about where he was coming from. This isn't my interpretation of the character, these are things that are actually established about him. The statements that you quoted from the movie, are an example of Cap behaving out of character and being modified to make a sort of political statement that just doesn't work within it's intended context.

I for the most part agree that Captain America does not work as a "grimdark" character, but at the same time he's not supposed to be counter-cultural either. The idea behind Cap is pretty much that the US is "good" and thus Captain America in promoting the country is also "good". He is by definition supposed to be a military patriot. Cap is supposed to in a lot of respects demonstrate why security is necessary, and of course he acts as the face of it which makes it a good thing because he holds the moral high ground so to speak.

It's really not a point you can argue. I suppose if your deeply into the left hand side of the political spectrum and are convinced that the US doesn't face any genuine threats, your of course going to like the whole schtick we have going on here, but that is both naïve and not what the character is supposed to stand for. What's more purely in a movie context, when you remove all of the real threats from the equasion, Captain America comes across as being an even bigger moron because where someone can say naively "Russia, China, and The Middle East are our friends and present no threat to us or our interests" since they haven't actually attacked us yet, the Marvel Cinematic universe had an alien invasion, a dark elven ship crashing into a major city, rampaging monsters like The Hulk, and even if he was revealed to be a farce, the threat of global terrorism shown to be possible through The Mandarin (ie what happens if a super villain like that actually does appear at some point and isn't a corporate toy). Needless to say having three Helicarriers around capable of precision targeting is not a bad thing if your going to potentially be fighting aliens coming through dimensional portals, which are now a known threat. Captain America had the option to just have them removed from Hydra control, but nope "we've got to destroy them because I'm stupid but it makes sense in terms of naive meta-politics that has nothing to do with the movie!".

Furthermore, a degree of militant nationalism is sort of what the country needs for a lot of reasons. While it goes outside the context of this argument, a big part of why is because due to political indoctrination people still seem to think what we tried during "The War On Terror" was a valid tactic with a chance of success. No it was not, anyone with a bit of brains knew it was going to fail. The only way to really defeat a culture is to break them, it's not nice, and you avoid going to war, but when you do it, you need to go all out. All this idea did was send a bunch of reserves overseas so we could fight a bunch of guys rifle to rifle in their back yard, and totally negate our tech advantage and invalidate the trillions of dollars we spent on weapons to ensure where if something like 9/11 happened we could break the culture of the offenders quickly and easily with minimal risk to American lives. In the end our anti-septic war turned into flushing billions of dollars down the proverbial toilet, while not even achieving one of the social goals used to justify this approach (like women's sufferage), heck both Iraq and Afghanistan drafted new constitutions specifying themselves to be Theocracies (Islamic states) meaning we didn't even plant the seeds for reform, and as
soon as we no longer have a gun to their heads it will be business as usual. Never mind the whole problem of bringing the troops back into an economy that's already in shambles, ideally we should have never put that many boots on the ground to begin with. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that a character like Captain America is a character that should be showing that a degree of militant patriotism is neither bad, nor does it need to make a character "grimdark".

That said I imagine from your tone we don't have a lot to discuss.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
So, I should make it clear that I haven't read any of the Captain America comics, nor have I read enough of Batman's to consider myself an authority on the subject. So, the following arguments are made regarding the cinematic portrayals of the characters (Or from the animated series, in the case of Superman), which, if what Bob says is true, are fairly accurate anyway.

To my mind, the issue is not that Captain America is a bad character, I don't think he is; he has coherent and relatable motivation for his actions and behaves in a manner consistent with human nature. The problem is that all those things amount to is a GOOD character, and comparing him to Batman is unfair, because Batman is a GREAT character.

While Steve Rodgers's philosophy and psychology are believable, Bruce Wayne's are profound; Batman's obsessive lawfulness, strict code of traditionally good but pragmatically questionable ethics, and deep seated psychological issues are not just believable motivation, they are arguably the only thing that allows him to do what he does.

Because Batman is just a mortal man, he NEEDS his obsession to drive him to be the best; he NEEDS his dogmatic and inflexible code of honor to prevent himself from becoming just like his enemies.

?You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain; I can do those things because I'm not a hero. I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be?

?He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector? A Dark Knight?

Batman's psychology and philosophy do not simply make him a believable human being, they are detailed and in depth enough to make his actions understandable for ANY human being; Batman is not merely a portrait of a person, he is a comment on human nature itself.

Batman's obsession is our obsession and his weakness is our weakness; these are the things required of him to do what he does, and would be from anyone who lived the life he chooses to live.

In the complex, indifferent and dark world we live in, Batman may be the closest thing to a hero we have. He makes his home in the dark because the closer you fly to the sun, the further you have to fall.

The greatest Batman stories don't try to justify the characters actions, because great works of fiction don't tell their audience what is right, they present a story in keeping with the way the world works, and allow the audience to come to their own conclusion. And in real life, good and evil are nothing more than constructs; the world is not designed so that every action or person falls into one camp or the other, and the more clearly you see the world and the more power you have over it, the more obvious that fact becomes.

If you will permit, I will make a comparison to a great character who bares more resemblance to Captain America; Eddard Stark.

POSSIBLE GAME OF THRONES SPOILERS AHAEAD: I will try not to refer to anything in detail, but if you're savvy or have not yet seen or are in the process of watching and/or the first season of the show or the first book, you might want to skip to the end.

In the violent and chaotic world of A Song of Ice and Fire, Ned may be the closest there is to a character that could be considered good. Oh, there are more minor characters (knights, children, commoners) that perform acts of kindness, but Ned is one of the very few people in positions of real power whose first concern is not himself or his ilk.

See, it's easy to do the right thing when your actions have few consequences; it's easy to be a nice person if you never seek to better the world. When the only actions available to you result in nothing more than saving or ending the life of one person, the right thing to do is clearer.

But if you only hold power over the lives of a few select people, you can't make any real progress or enact any change; you can prevent tiny injustices in the grand scheme of things, but you can't hope to stem their tide.

Power without justice is tyranny, but justice without power is impotence. And if you have the opportunity, the power, to change the lives of many for the better, is it not irresponsible to not do so? Is it not just as evil to allow others to suffer as it is to make them suffer?
?With great power comes great responsibility.?

Eddard Stark could not be called good if all he did was sit in his throne and keep his hands clean while the world burned down around him; however difficult and thankless an endeavor it may be, Ned Stark tries to wield power for good.

But doing this means that the lives of millions rest on his shoulders, and mistakes that would be merely disheartening or inconvenient for people with less responsibility, result in wide spread suffering on his part.

I will present an example: At one point, Eddard Stark must choose between allowing his best friend to be murdered with impunity (and thus allowing a cruel and unjust ruler to take the throne) or condemning two innocent children to death. There is no way to approach this situation whilst remaining an ideal hero, but turning away from it would just leave it up to chance, it wouldn't make things any better. (SPOILERS END HERE)

I once heard someone say that people too often use the concept of moral ambiguity to get out of taking the risk involved in doing the right thing, but I say that people too often use the concept of black and white morality to excuse themselves for not doing anything at all.

You can argue about how horrible the options are all you want, but the cold, hard truth is that refusing to choose one will cause even more suffering, and when you refuse to act, the only person you're helping is yourself; you're only concerned with feeling good about yourself, you're only concerned with remaining pure, you're not willing to compromise your integrity to prevent the suffering of others.

?If even one person has to die to save another that the trade isn't worth it sounds very heroic?, but the end result is still that somebody dies; ?Killing is making a choice; choose one life or the other?.

And this is why trying to make a wholly pure character with the power to change the world doesn't work; Superman may protect the status quo of things, but how often does he use his almost limitless power to better the world? Does he dismantle corrupt systems of government? Does he enforce change in unjust systems of law? When was the last time you saw Superman break someone OUT of prison or provide food for people who are starving?

True, power can corrupt, but again, tyranny VS impotence; you can't just sit around doing nothing because you don't trust your own judgment.

Captain America, Superman, Thor, The Jedi Order; all these people do is avoid doing horrific things, but they never do great things either. And yet, they are so often portrayed as paragons of infinite virtue.

Eddard Stark has blood on his hands, but he knows that injustice is not just the result of evil men doing terrible things; it's the result of good men doing nothing.

?It's not who you are inside, it's what you do that defines you?

What hold Captain America back from greatness and what cements Batman's place within it, is that Steve Rodgers is framed not as a perfect human being, but as an ideal hero rather than the flawed human being that he is.

Now, I do not think that Captain America's design is the problem, but rather how he is framed; his actions are just as ethically ambiguous as Batman's, but the world Batman inhabits acknowledges his imperfections and uses them to round out his character. Captain America's trials and tribulations are depicted, but his personal flaws are ignored.

Steve Rodgers is kind, he's compassionate, he's humble, he's brave, he is a fundamentally selfless person; he's also short sighted, naïve, dogmatic and impractical. The ingredients for a profound, complex figure are here, they just aren't all being brought into play.

Great characters are not pure hearted and ?Good?, because that's not how human beings are.

I should mention that I agree with many of the precepts of this article; Dark does equal profound and decent does not equal flawless. You can just as easily make a broad and one dimensional ?Evil? character as you can a good one.

But although many imitators copy the tone of The Dark Knight and Watchmen, the reason they are imitated at all is because they're so great, and if the situation was reversed, I would be making the opposite argument. But the fact that The Dark Knight and Watchmen deal with complex and uncomfortable issues is part of what makes them work, and the reason that I do not hold Captain America in as high esteem is because his character (Not necessarily the movie that surrounds him, but the man himself) does not address the myriad of moral quandaries that a man in his position would be faced with.

Steve Rodgers would probably end up a lot like Harvey Dent in the long run; all his righteousness would ultimately just make him unprepared and vulnerable when the chickens came home to roost.

As you said yourself Bob, being a good person is not easy, it is often a thankless endeavor; and although Steve Rodgers faces the physical adversity of a man trying to do the right thing in a world that doesn't care, he does not deal with the emotional and philosophical problems that truly heroic characters face, he never doubts if what he is doing IS, in fact, the right thing to do.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
Therumancer said:
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.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
WaltIsFrozen said:
Therumancer said:
My point about the social issues other than that is that they are debatable, and that is why Captain America's stories should generally not involve them.
Civil rights was a "social issue" that was "debatable" in the 1960's. Somebody should have told Stan Lee that introducing a black character like Falcon in 1969 was "left wing morality" that had no business in a Captain America comic. He should have been doing something more American like bombing the shit out of a Vietnamese village or something.
Not so much in this context, that issue was considered "resolved" as far as Captain America and his point was concerned given that during World War II a lot of effort was being made to get Blacks to enlist. As that was something the country had pretty much decided, it was something Captain America more or less agreed with, and simply going forward with an established personality trait. What's more in 1969 the issue was pretty much "over" at that point since there was a clear majority, more so than with many other social issues being dealt with.

That said, yes, a lot of mistakes were made with the character, as I've said before this character does not belong in these kinds of stories to begin with, whether he's been put there or not in the past (and obviously he has been) doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.

See, once society as a whole has largely gone one way or another, it's fine to have Captain America go with what the culture itself has decided. The problem is when Captain America becomes a propaganda tool used to try and sway decisions or make political statements about an issue that the nation is still heavily divided about. For example Captain America should not get involved in anything to do with the whole "gay rights" movement as long as the nation remains this heavily polarized about it, as opposed to being used by writers to voice their politics and try and force things in one direction or another. He should just stay out of it.

The exception to this though is when it comes to being militant. Captain America is supposed to pretty much embody things like military action, the need for service, and the US's obligation to go to war. He exists specifically to counter "peace at any price" sentiments, isolationism, and similar things. The idea was sort of to counter a lot of the anti-war sentiment around the time of World War II, and sell the idea of military intervention, as well as the need for things like tight internal security... I mean remember during World War II the US declared martial law, and the government pretty much took over the press and communications, and The War Department started seriously churning out propaganda to demonize the Nazis, counter Hitler's popularity, and bring the US into the war despite a lot of people simply wanting to stay out of it. When you get down to it, this is the core identity of the character. The point of Cap is that you can be a militant, and aggressively patriotic, without being a jerk. On a lot of levels that's exactly what the US needs right now, given the tendency for patriotism to generally be associated with jerkiness (so to speak). The point of Cap is that sometimes that kind of behavior is warranted. He's the guy who should be making the point that when the US puts down a red line, and someone steps over it, we need to act... and say be promoting putting guys like Kim Jong Un in their place involving comics where he puts a star spangled boot up North Korean butts... if your going to get involved in real issues that's a "Cap issue". If you can't bring yourself to do that he belongs defending the US against Aliens or whatever, not say stupidly disarming us (which really the one big moment that annoys me in "Winter Soldier", it was otherwise a great movie, but that moment just made me go WTF as it seemed to be the writers trying to make a real-world meta statement that had no place in the movie's reality).
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
sumanoskae said:
So, I should make it clear that I haven't read any of the Captain America comics, nor have I read enough of Batman's to consider myself an authority on the subject. So, the following arguments are made regarding the cinematic portrayals of the characters (Or from the animated series, in the case of Superman), which, if what Bob says is true, are fairly accurate anyway.

To my mind, the issue is not that Captain America is a bad character, I don't think he is; he has coherent and relatable motivation for his actions and behaves in a manner consistent with human nature. The problem is that all those things amount to is a GOOD character, and comparing him to Batman is unfair, because Batman is a GREAT character.

While Steve Rodgers's philosophy and psychology are believable, Bruce Wayne's are profound; Batman's obsessive lawfulness, strict code of traditionally good but pragmatically questionable ethics, and deep seated psychological issues are not just believable motivation, they are arguably the only thing that allows him to do what he does.

Because Batman is just a mortal man, he NEEDS his obsession to drive him to be the best; he NEEDS his dogmatic and inflexible code of honor to prevent himself from becoming just like his enemies.

?You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain; I can do those things because I'm not a hero. I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be?

?He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector? A Dark Knight?

Batman's psychology and philosophy do not simply make him a believable human being, they are detailed and in depth enough to make his actions understandable for ANY human being; Batman is not merely a portrait of a person, he is a comment on human nature itself.

Batman's obsession is our obsession and his weakness is our weakness; these are the things required of him to do what he does, and would be from anyone who lived the life he chooses to live.

In the complex, indifferent and dark world we live in, Batman may be the closest thing to a hero we have. He makes his home in the dark because the closer you fly to the sun, the further you have to fall.

The greatest Batman stories don't try to justify the characters actions, because great works of fiction don't tell their audience what is right, they present a story in keeping with the way the world works, and allow the audience to come to their own conclusion. And in real life, good and evil are nothing more than constructs; the world is not designed so that every action or person falls into one camp or the other, and the more clearly you see the world and the more power you have over it, the more obvious that fact becomes.

If you will permit, I will make a comparison to a great character who bares more resemblance to Captain America; Eddard Stark.

POSSIBLE GAME OF THRONES SPOILERS AHAEAD: I will try not to refer to anything in detail, but if you're savvy or have not yet seen or are in the process of watching and/or the first season of the show or the first book, you might want to skip to the end.

In the violent and chaotic world of A Song of Ice and Fire, Ned may be the closest there is to a character that could be considered good. Oh, there are more minor characters (knights, children, commoners) that perform acts of kindness, but Ned is one of the very few people in positions of real power whose first concern is not himself or his ilk.

See, it's easy to do the right thing when your actions have few consequences; it's easy to be a nice person if you never seek to better the world. When the only actions available to you result in nothing more than saving or ending the life of one person, the right thing to do is clearer.

But if you only hold power over the lives of a few select people, you can't make any real progress or enact any change; you can prevent tiny injustices in the grand scheme of things, but you can't hope to stem their tide.

Power without justice is tyranny, but justice without power is impotence. And if you have the opportunity, the power, to change the lives of many for the better, is it not irresponsible to not do so? Is it not just as evil to allow others to suffer as it is to make them suffer?
?With great power comes great responsibility.?

Eddard Stark could not be called good if all he did was sit in his throne and keep his hands clean while the world burned down around him; however difficult and thankless an endeavor it may be, Ned Stark tries to wield power for good.

But doing this means that the lives of millions rest on his shoulders, and mistakes that would be merely disheartening or inconvenient for people with less responsibility, result in wide spread suffering on his part.

I will present an example: At one point, Eddard Stark must choose between allowing his best friend to be murdered with impunity (and thus allowing a cruel and unjust ruler to take the throne) or condemning two innocent children to death. There is no way to approach this situation whilst remaining an ideal hero, but turning away from it would just leave it up to chance, it wouldn't make things any better. (SPOILERS END HERE)

I once heard someone say that people too often use the concept of moral ambiguity to get out of taking the risk involved in doing the right thing, but I say that people too often use the concept of black and white morality to excuse themselves for not doing anything at all.

You can argue about how horrible the options are all you want, but the cold, hard truth is that refusing to choose one will cause even more suffering, and when you refuse to act, the only person you're helping is yourself; you're only concerned with feeling good about yourself, you're only concerned with remaining pure, you're not willing to compromise your integrity to prevent the suffering of others.

?If even one person has to die to save another that the trade isn't worth it sounds very heroic?, but the end result is still that somebody dies; ?Killing is making a choice; choose one life or the other?.

And this is why trying to make a wholly pure character with the power to change the world doesn't work; Superman may protect the status quo of things, but how often does he use his almost limitless power to better the world? Does he dismantle corrupt systems of government? Does he enforce change in unjust systems of law? When was the last time you saw Superman break someone OUT of prison or provide food for people who are starving?

True, power can corrupt, but again, tyranny VS impotence; you can't just sit around doing nothing because you don't trust your own judgment.

Captain America, Superman, Thor, The Jedi Order; all these people do is avoid doing horrific things, but they never do great things either. And yet, they are so often portrayed as paragons of infinite virtue.

Eddard Stark has blood on his hands, but he knows that injustice is not just the result of evil men doing terrible things; it's the result of good men doing nothing.

?It's not who you are inside, it's what you do that defines you?

What hold Captain America back from greatness and what cements Batman's place within it, is that Steve Rodgers is framed not as a perfect human being, but as an ideal hero rather than the flawed human being that he is.

Now, I do not think that Captain America's design is the problem, but rather how he is framed; his actions are just as ethically ambiguous as Batman's, but the world Batman inhabits acknowledges his imperfections and uses them to round out his character. Captain America's trials and tribulations are depicted, but his personal flaws are ignored.

Steve Rodgers is kind, he's compassionate, he's humble, he's brave, he is a fundamentally selfless person; he's also short sighted, naïve, dogmatic and impractical. The ingredients for a profound, complex figure are here, they just aren't all being brought into play.

Great characters are not pure hearted and ?Good?, because that's not how human beings are.

I should mention that I agree with many of the precepts of this article; Dark does equal profound and decent does not equal flawless. You can just as easily make a broad and one dimensional ?Evil? character as you can a good one.

But although many imitators copy the tone of The Dark Knight and Watchmen, the reason they are imitated at all is because they're so great, and if the situation was reversed, I would be making the opposite argument. But the fact that The Dark Knight and Watchmen deal with complex and uncomfortable issues is part of what makes them work, and the reason that I do not hold Captain America in as high esteem is because his character (Not necessarily the movie that surrounds him, but the man himself) does not address the myriad of moral quandaries that a man in his position would be faced with.

Steve Rodgers would probably end up a lot like Harvey Dent in the long run; all his righteousness would ultimately just make him unprepared and vulnerable when the chickens came home to roost.

As you said yourself Bob, being a good person is not easy, it is often a thankless endeavor; and although Steve Rodgers faces the physical adversity of a man trying to do the right thing in a world that doesn't care, he does not deal with the emotional and philosophical problems that truly heroic characters face, he never doubts if what he is doing IS, in fact, the right thing to do.
To clarify, its the legacy of batman, the darker interpretation's influence I am decrying. As I said in the intro, I like bwtman. Honest.