Ethnicity Change for DC's Uncle Sam in New 52

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Agreed & co-signd with d bold....bcuz those who choose 2 claim d n-word tend 2 4get dat der r plenty were dat came frm. R dey also gonna claim those as well?

By d way, chek dis out when u hv d chance:

Versus hiphop debate: Does hiphop enhance society or degrade it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3-7Y0xG89Q

Unless I get really pulled in, I'll probably watch it in 20-30 minute intervals. That debate's almost 2 hours long.

Did u chek out Priest's run of BP/Black Panther?

I read the first 3 issues a long time ago, and don't remember liking it. I know Priest's run was pretty popular, so I assume it got better as it went along.

Is there a particular part of Priest's run which is seen as better than the rest? If so, I'll try to get the tpb or collect back-issues of that particular segment.

I do remember trying out one or two of the Hudlin issues (The third ongoing Black Panther series), but remember the artwork being so unpalatable to my taste buds that I couldn't enjoy reading it.

Why does race matter so much to people when it comes to comic, I ask this as a black man who read comics.

Sure more black characters can be used, but I can care less as long as a character is cool. And that is why Magneto is favorite character, ok the guys a badass but i'm sure y'all understand what i am saying.

It doesn't matter all that much. A lot of people prefer not having original characters changed up to such extremes where they're suddenly of a different ethnic background......Hell, to a lesser degree, when Daniel Craig was first cast as James Bond, my first reaction was, "A blond Bond? What's this?" ......Of course, Casino Royale turned out to be such a good reboot of the Bond franchise that I couldn't have cared less what color his hair was.

Also, if you remember the TV show Heroes, I always felt a part of the show's charm was the ethnically diverse cast. It made the show more fun to watch.....I'd say the same about the early part of Claremont's run on Uncanny X-Men. That had to have been the most ethnically diverse group of characters in comic books up to that point. Granted, that's not the only reason Uncanny X-Men was popular back then, but it was certainly one of its strong points.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Why would I buy aa book I have no interest in simply in order to "support" minority heroes? I'm not a minority. I just want to read about the characters I happen to like, regardless of what colour they are. I'd buy a Black Panther book because I like the Panther. I wouldn't buy the Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle because he's not 'my' Blue Beetle and I don't care about him-I just resent DC for killing off Ted Kord in order to create him. Simple.

If Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle ended up having a quality creative team putting out a great book, you still wouldn't check it out due to preferring Ted Kord? If so, you'd end up missing out.

For example, I don't know if you read Gillen's run on Journey Into Mystery, but if someone refused to read Gillen's JiM run because a child version of Loki isn't "their" Loki, then they missed out on a fantastic series.

[the4thpip]

No. Because those original characters were not "errors".

However, their comicbook universes were deeply flawed because they came out of deeply flawed societies and desperately wanted fixing.

[tony ingram]

If Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle ended up having a quality creative team putting out a great book, you still wouldn't check it out due to preferring Ted Kord? If so, you'd end up missing out.

On something I have no interest in.

For example, I don't know if you read Gillen's run on Journey Into Mystery, but if someone refused to read Gillen's JiM run because a child version of Loki isn't "their" Loki, then they missed out on a fantastic series.

Loki is still Loki. His backstory is still intact.

However, their comicbook universes were deeply flawed because they came out of deeply flawed societies and desperately wanted fixing.

In your opinion. To me, they were fine the way they were.

[bobbyraw]

How is it "punishing" straight, white males by having characters of other ethnicities, orientations or the opposite sex? I ask as a straight, white male who enjoys reading all kinds of characters.

It's not "having characters of other enthnicities, orientations or the opposite sex" that is "punishing" straight white males. Noone denies that having minority characters is a good thing. It's the CHANGING of straight white males into minorities, and the fact that this is seen as acceptable or even desirable, that implies that a character being straight or white is a bad thing (or at least undesirable). It implies that the character is somehow "better" for not being white or straight (after all, you don't makes changes to a character if you think that those changes make them worse).

This is unacceptable.

[shadow knight]

Are you suggesting that the Straight White Male is a disadvantaged group and it is being punished?

Why do I have to explain everything like I'm dealing with a bunch of retards. OK, here it is. White males have had an unfair advantage in promotions, jobs, medical care, social connections and portrayal compared to blacks, Hispanics, women or gays. So how do you correct that situation ? Oprah who I'm not a fan off said it best, you don't fire people who's given you loyal service but when in opening comes you give preference to one of the disadvantage minority.

As for your statement let me give you a true life example. I remember reading over 10 yrs ago in article in a newspaper about an eminently qualified Fireman would applied for a post as Captain of a State Fire forestry service dept either in CA or WA. I'm sorry it was yrs ago so the details are little sketchy, but the gist of the story was even though he scored extremely well on the test he was never given the job because the state had reserved the position for a minority even though none had ever taken the test.

My Point is reverse discrimination is just as bad as the original discrimination because unlike the original discrimination there's isn't a built in sympathy factor for the person suffering from reverse discrimination and most times it's a lot harder to prove.


Finally stop trying to find deep social commentary in my post. My main point is obvious you don't change or kill a white male character to be PC. Create a gay, Hispanic, Black or women character that catches with the public, that is original, compelling and it will sell regardless of ethnicity or sexuality. Dallas and JR Ewing change TV forever by creating a main character that was immoral, womanizing, lying and backstabbing. The opposite of the leads previous to the show and unlike previous bad guys he kept getting away with it week after week, month after month, year after year guess what the public love it. Why because he was original, compelling, interesting and totally different from everything that had ever came out before. By the way he wasn't PC. What CBS didn't do is change Kojak into JR Ewing a new character was created.


What is so hard to understand? Create a new character that's compelling and interesting and it will sell, stop with the PC. Spawn whose lead was Black sold great no one cared that he was black or an anti- hero only that was interesting, different and compelling.

[Poe1809]

However, their comicbook universes were deeply flawed because they came out of deeply flawed societies and desperately wanted fixing.

Things are "deeply flawed" right now. So you want to "fix" one "deeply flawed" comic universe to come in line with current beliefs which are themselves "deeply flawed?"

And just for reference, I don't find the era in question "deeply flawed."

[glennsim]

Your missing the point by a mile, my point isn't about diversity it's about changing an established character for the sake of Political Correctness. The original Cap Mar-vell at Marvel was killed by cancer to create a Black female Cap Marvel approximately 9 mth later. Question was killed by cancer at DC to create a Gay female Hispanic version less than 6 mth later, Ron Raymond Firestorm was killed by a magic sword something he could have easily survived to create a Black male version of him less than a yr later, Blue Beetle was killed and a Mexican American version of him was created less than a yr later. Do you see a pattern yet? White males being killed to create a culturally diverse comic world. Where the opposite being done there would be shows on 60 minutes, Nightline, CNBC or how unfair, bias and how can Marvel and DC kill off 30-40 yrs of comic book history for the sake of a temporary bump in sales. Yet because of PC nothing is said when it's done to a white male.

Do you know the really sad thing the female Black Cap Marvel at Marvel has had her name changed to Pulsar and Photon she stuck in comic book limbo and now her original name is give to a white female heroine hip, hip, hooray for diversity. I could go on about the female Question no one knows or cares enough about in the NDCU to recreate her or for all we know she no longer exist even her Pre-Question identity. How about that the Mexican American BB can't keep a series or in the NDCU they finally bought back Ron Raymond to life. But it would probably go over your head. That diversity for diversity sake is a losing proposition if you have nothing else to back it up with.

As for your response, let me see if I get your logic straight, it's ok to turn a straight black male into a a white gay female for the sake of diversity. But creating a gay white female character is wrong because no one would buy it. How about Batwoman?

How about this instead stop trying to shovel diversity agenda down my throat, stop preaching to me. Not everyone who's against abortion is a bomb thrower, not everyone who's against gay marriage is a gay basher, not everyone who buys guns drink Coors barely has a high school education and is a serial killer. Yet if you watch popular media that basically all you get.

Diversity is an admirable trait but you don't correct one disadvantage group by punishing another. You want me to say there should have been more diversity in the 40's,50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's in the comic book landscape sure. Everyone short of Stevie Wonder can see that. The correct solution is creating new heroes and heroines who are minorities not retroactively changing their ethnicity, sex or their sexual preference.

A lot of those characters were not killed IN ORDER TO bring in a more diverse character. They were killed off because nobody wanted to read about them any more and the best use of them at that point was to kill them. Then, later, since DC owns the trademarks and needs to use them, a new, hopefully more interesting version was brought in with the same name, and since there was now an opportunity to correct the errors of the past, they did.

No, you can't do it the other way around, because the goal is to better reflect the real population. Making a black character white would be going in the wrong direction. That's like saying "I can't believe you want them to take the green sky they've always shown and make it blue. What would happen if they tried to take the green grass and make it blue?"

Yes, there's Batwoman (who isn't really a new character, but I'll allow it). There's also Batwing, who is on the verge of cancellation. Sure, DC can create new characters (although they have a really hard time being successful) but there's also absolutely nothing sacred about an existing character's race, gender, sexual preference, or any of those things.

What's funny to me is people are all "why don't they create new characters", and yet most of the characters DC is making these changes to are not the A-list characters. A character who has a relatively small fanbase isn't all that much more "sacred" than a new character. If nobody was reading the character in their old incarnation, then sorry, you can't complain when changes get made.

Diversity is very much an admirable trait, and something that good people should be encouraging in their media. Correcting an error of the past isn't "preaching to you". You ought to already be in the congregation, and if you're not, that's your problem.

[tony ingram]

And just for reference, I don't find the era in question "deeply flawed."

Neither did I. Unless wonderful and imaginative is deeply flawed.

[glennsim]

It's not "having characters of other enthnicities, orientations or the opposite sex" that is "punishing" straight white males. Noone denies that having minority characters is a good thing. It's the CHANGING of straight white males into minorities, and the fact that this is seen as acceptable or even desirable, that implies that a character being straight or white is a bad thing (or at least undesirable). It implies that the character is somehow "better" for not being white or straight (after all, you don't makes changes to a character if you think that those changes make them worse).

This is unacceptable.

White straight people will get over it. I'm a white straight person and I get over it just fine.

[tony ingram]

A lot of those characters were not killed IN ORDER TO bring in a more diverse character. They were killed off because nobody wanted to read about them any more and the best use of them at that point was to kill them. Then, later, since DC owns the trademarks and needs to use them, a new, hopefully more interesting version was brought in with the same name, and since there was now an opportunity to correct the errors of the past, they did.

No, you can't do it the other way around, because the goal is to better reflect the real population. Making a black character white would be going in the wrong direction. That's like saying "I can't believe you want them to take the green sky they've always shown and make it blue. What would happen if they tried to take the green grass and make it blue?"

Yes, there's Batwoman (who isn't really a new character, but I'll allow it). There's also Batwing, who is on the verge of cancellation. Sure, DC can create new characters (although they have a really hard time being successful) but there's also absolutely nothing sacred about an existing character's race, gender, sexual preference, or any of those things.

What's funny to me is people are all "why don't they create new characters", and yet most of the characters DC is making these changes to are not the A-list characters. A character who has a relatively small fanbase isn't all that much more "sacred" than a new character. If nobody was reading the character in their old incarnation, then sorry, you can't complain when changes get made.

Diversity is very much an admirable trait, and something that good people should be encouraging in their media. Correcting an error of the past isn't "preaching to you". You ought to already be in the congregation, and if you're not, that's your problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone has the same priorities in life as you, or is under any obligation to have them?

[glennsim]

Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone has the same priorities in life as you, or is under any obligation to have them?

Yes, I'm aware there are bad people in the world.

[CaptCleghorn]

A lot of those characters were not killed IN ORDER TO bring in a more diverse character. They were killed off because nobody wanted to read about them any more and the best use of them at that point was to kill them. Then, later, since DC owns the trademarks and needs to use them, a new, hopefully more interesting version was brought in with the same name, and since there was now an opportunity to correct the errors of the past, they did.

No, you can't do it the other way around, because the goal is to better reflect the real population. Making a black character white would be going in the wrong direction. That's like saying "I can't believe you want them to take the green sky they've always shown and make it blue. What would happen if they tried to take the green grass and make it blue?"

Yes, there's Batwoman (who isn't really a new character, but I'll allow it). There's also Batwing, who is on the verge of cancellation. Sure, DC can create new characters (although they have a really hard time being successful) but there's also absolutely nothing sacred about an existing character's race, gender, sexual preference, or any of those things.

What's funny to me is people are all "why don't they create new characters", and yet most of the characters DC is making these changes to are not the A-list characters. A character who has a relatively small fanbase isn't all that much more "sacred" than a new character. If nobody was reading the character in their old incarnation, then sorry, you can't complain when changes get made.

Diversity is very much an admirable trait, and something that good people should be encouraging in their media. Correcting an error of the past isn't "preaching to you". You ought to already be in the congregation, and if you're not, that's your problem.

Yeah, and if DC was "better reflecting the real population", you'd have a point. In my world we have older folks, larger bodies, differently-abled people, married people, and people with children. All five of these groups were depopulated as a result of the nu52. Cherry-picking minorities isn't diversity. Is your congregation getting all of the message?

[Jeff Brady]

Why do I have to explain everything like I'm dealing with a bunch of retards. OK, here it is. White males have had an unfair advantage in promotions, jobs, medical care, social connections and portrayal compared to blacks, Hispanics, women or gays. So how do you correct that situation ? Oprah who I'm not a fan off said it best, you don't fire people who's given you loyal service but when in opening comes you give preference to one of the disadvantage minority.

Probably because you keep using words like "retards".

So with the New52, DC had an opening, if you will, to make their universe reflect reality. So that solves your little problem.

Things are "deeply flawed" right now. So you want to "fix" one "deeply flawed" comic universe to come in line with current beliefs which are themselves "deeply flawed?"

And just for reference, I don't find the era in question "deeply flawed."

You don't find an era defined by discrimination to be flawed?

Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone has the same priorities in life as you, or is under any obligation to have them?

Yes, and those people are dying off while the rest are evolving.

Yeah, and if DC was "better reflecting the real population", you'd have a point. In my world we have older folks, larger bodies, differently-abled people, married people, and people with children. All five of these groups were depopulated as a result of the nu52. Cherry-picking minorities isn't diversity. Is your congregation getting all of the message?

Indeed, removing Oracle was the wrong direction. But that's just how it goes. I hope they'll correct that someday, but arguing about it is futile.

Older folks? Older folks like you, Poe & Tony who are just fine with racial and sexual marginalization? Yeah, we can do without that.

[glennsim]

Cherry-picking minorities isn't diversity.

It's a lot easier to have someone become older, larger, differently-abled, married, or parents within the normal course of events. To make a character gay or a different race, you pretty much need to have a reality-shifting event. Give them time, and some of those things might come back.