What Are Marvel Editors Really 'Critiquing' About the X-Men?

[krisis]

Related reading for Marvel's editorial team and their new approach to treating the X-Men like any other kind of superhero:

Psychology Today: Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism - A colorblind approach allows us to deny uncomfortable cultural differences.

Research has shown that hearing colorblind messages predict negative outcomes among Whites, such as greater racial bias and negative affect; likewise colorblind messages cause stress in ethnic minorities, resulting in decreased cognitive performance (Holoien et al., 2011). Given how much is at stake, we can no longer afford to be blind. It's time for change and growth. It's time to see.

The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences. It recognizes that each tradition has something valuable to offer. It is not afraid to see how others have suffered as a result of racial conflict or differences.

So, how do we become multicultural? The following suggestions would make a good start (McCabe, 2011):

1. Recognizing and valuing differences,
2. Teaching and learning about differences, and
3. Fostering personal friendships and organizational alliances

Moving from colorblindness to multiculturalism is a process of change, and change is never easy, but we can't afford to stay the same.

I guess Uncanny Avengers counts as an organizational alliance?

[remydat]

As I've said before, no it wouldn't. All it would require is a change in the Phoenix Force, or a manifestation of some aspect of it that we haven't seen before.

Frankly, I think this paragraph is nonsense. The MU over the past 50 years has contained so many conditions both extraordinary and, at times, contradictory that any conceivable storyline is possible. The mere fact that some characters possess the power to control others' minds renders any concept of immutable human nature void. The mere existence of cosmic entities representing abstract concepts itself makes almost anything possible.

Is the PF going to rewrite 50 years of comics? It doesn't matter if you change the PF, the MU is still a base human society still killing each other and still hateful of those they deem different from them (see mutants). Unless you want a similar fallout that the creators of Mass Effect saw when their original endings for that trilogy did not fit with all the previous history the games had established, retconning the PF as having the power to suddenly transform the entire planet into kumbaya hippies would be bull. We already have concepts of gods in our reality and we have always justified them letting us wallow in our own base desires and humanity as a result of their desire to give us free will. There really is no difference from the MU in that respect. Now all of a sudden, you want the PF to scurry along and after eating a few presumably sentient planets along the way suddenly decide that oh yeah let me give these guys Utopia? Again, I liken it to Mass Effect with suddenly out of the blow a Ghost in the Machine appeared and tried to convince the player that the Reapers were not some evil sentient robotic race but merely a method of bring order to the chaos by wiping out advanced civilisations. The fans went apeshit. Likewise, you suggestion does not follow from all the preceding history.

I think you are assuming what you've set out to prove here. First of all, there is a distinction between a Utopian project and actual Utopia. Second of all, it is conceivable that a material Utopia could be achieved, without the enforcement of one entity's will over another, and STILL have some people oppose it. For example, if the P5's actions (outside of Magik's Limbo prison and Namor's drowning of Wakanda - BTW, I always thought Wakanda was pretty much landlocked) could be described as attempting to achieve material Utopia in terms of eliminating immediate, material causes of suffering in the world such as famine, poverty, war, disease, etc., then it would still be correct to call the project Utopian even though others oppose it. Normally the opposition would be called "villains."

Third of all, there is another possibility: what if an all-powerful being came to Earth eliminated all forms of suffering and unhappiness, AND instantly changed our natural distrust of a perfect society? Are you saying that this society is not Utopian because it required a forced change to the makeup of the human mind, even if technically no one opposed it?

This is semantics. Any project can be called a Utopian project. In the end who cares. Communism was a Utopian project. That doesn't change the fact that it doomed from the start of creating an actual Utopia because of its overly optimistic view of human nature.

If an all powerful entity eliminated all suffering and unhapiness then why would it need to also screw with our minds? If you are telling me the people will not accept the absence of sufferring and unhappiness of their own free will then I am telling you yes it is not a Utopia. The minute you start altering someone's mind what you are in effect doing is imposing your lack of distruct of a perfect society on them. Just because you may be doing it for good reasons doesn't change the fact you have in effect made them slaves to your desire. That is no different than Sinister trying to create a world of clones except instead of cloning yourself you have just inserted one aspect of personality (the lack of distrust of a perfect society) into everyone else.

I think you are romanticizing choice, and your idea that choice operates the same way under duress is, frankly, frightening. Furthermore, most of North Korea's control over its subjects isn't established through fear, but through education. Culture matters, and human beings, while far from blank slates, are also far from being the universal "freedom fighters" just waiting for a spark to ignite a revolution.

Finally, we don't know how people would react if a society really did provide for all of the material needs of its citizens. It may be possible that if a society ever existed that really did fully provide for all of the needs of its citizens, without providing any cultural impetus to think they needed anything more than they had, all opposition to such a society would cease to exist.

It doesn't matter how you exert control over the masses ie through fear, culture, education, etc., it is still down to choice whether someone chooses to accept it or rebel against it. The lack of free will would be like a computer or AI that has to respond in a certain way based on it's programming. If North Korea, Iran, Cuba had living robots, they would not rebel. The However, there is a sizeable portion of citizens in those countries that rebel or try to escape which is evidence that collectively they did have free will. They just choose to remain oppressed because as I said they preferred that subjugation to outright death. That is certainly a horrific and difficult choice to make but it is still fundamentally a choice.

And I agree we don't know how people would react if all their needs were met. The issue is if the methods employed (ie screwing with people's minds) are dubious then rebellion will break out before you can get to the finish line. Unlike the Magento's and seeming Cyclops' of the world, I am a firm believe that the means matter sometimes more than the ends. That is the view expressed in the story halla reference and the Brothers Karamazov. I find it a tenuous argument that you can effectively end suffering and grant everyone happiness by ultimately inflicting suffering and unhappiness on a sizeable portion of humanity.

The people who argue for removing free will are usually the people who imagine that they are exempt from being subject to said removal because they are the ones doing it. They are the ones who possess the nobility, the righteous heart and mind to watch over the lobotomised masses. Find me someone who argues for the removal or restriction of free will that is also the first in line to be subject to that removal or restriction. The bourgeoisie in a Communist Society was generally the leaders of the Communist Party. They lived the good life while extolling the virtues of Communism while their people starved.