Minority readers (all minority readers)...

[Voss]

I also wonder why minorities hanging out with their own race is such a bad thing to comic book fans.

Being in the military, I see it all the time ESPECIALLY while deployed and no one knows each other. It might not even be verbal, it can be standing next to someone else that you can relate to. I've passively found myself in the middle of a minority group many times, people I didn't know but for some reason we just congregate around each other. That might strike some conversations which naturally lead to networking. The only ethnic group that doesn't seem to do that are light skinned orientals like chinese, korean, whatever. It's a weird thing to take note of but it's interesting that it happens.

Edit: Lol just now thinking about it I found myself in that situation today. During our 2 mile run everyone can run at their own pace. Coincidentally I find myself running with a black chick and a filipino dude(didn't know either of them). We didn't say a word to each other, just the 3 of us stuck together and ran the same pace the whole way out. Probably not the best example but it is funny given the topic.

[zarrarzeez]

I don't know of any Pakistani/Indian heroes, lol

[Juggernaut Punch]

I don't know of any Pakistani/Indian heroes, lol

Omega Sentinel, Thunderbird (Neal Shaara), Vesper, Faiza Hussain, Kavita Rao, Indra.

More here http://marvel.wikia.com/Category:Indians

[Kieran_Frost]

No the trope activates when ever you kill the Black Guy First. Why or how much research said writer does not matter. Now if there was more then one in the comic yeah leeway but when there is only one and u do it first. No leeway whatsoever. Lack of Research is his fault and means he is not really doing his job.

Well now I know it's a fake interview (and ergo he must have known Mettle was black) there is little excuse. I do agree somewhat with Swashbuckler that you shouldn't not kill the gay or black or Asian character first "just because" they are gay or black or Asian if the story leads that; because that is treating them differently based purely on their minority status (and that is wrong)... but... I also see why it's best not to. Not just to avoid the trope, but because there are much fewer minority heroes than straight white heroes; and when you kill one off, it limits an already smaller group. But it's a tough one. I see both sides; and don't know how to feel about it.

Er, isn't Peter Parker, or at least the teen version of Peter Parker, THE skinny, geeky male?

Yes and no. He's thin not skinny. He has a killer body and is still drawn as good looking as every other hero.

Google found it for me:
http://www.theouthousers.com/forum/t...na-t90514.html
The interview was fictionnal.

Ah, thank-you.

Please do. You'll see that I don't give a shit. I think it happened in X-Statix.

It happened four times in X-Statix, to be precise.

Ill remember this when the first gay character gets killed unceremoniously.

Why do you always go for the gay angle, to prove inequality? Do you really think LGBT characters aren't killed unceremoniously (because I have a list to dispute that).

It can be a slippery slope. I think that folks fight against the idea of one's personality being influenced by their race or culture in media because of stereotypical portrayals.
When the sassy one is always black. Or the meek one is always Asian it becomes a problem.

The gay one is always fem, etc. Agreed. It's hard because obviously all these stereotypes do exist; but you need the range to show it's not out of ignorance. I like that Cam in Modern Family is quite fem, but also played football and kicks ass and dresses as a clown; it nicely balances out the love of musical theatre and hand gestures.

[Leocomix]

You know, I always wonder when I'm going to see a character that is all wrapped up in their race/gender/sexuality. Instead of just, you know, bad writing. Using caricatures and racial stereotypes fits in the bad writing area. Among other things.

I also wonder why minorities hanging out with their own race is such a bad thing to comic book fans.

Maybe for the same reason you consider majorities "hanging out with their own race" is...
To add more to it: racism is 1) the belief that mankind is divided into different races 2) the belief that these so-called races shouldn't mix and that some races may be superior to others.
As far as I'm concerned racism starts at point 1. It's demonstrably false. Humanity is just one race. Any talk of race is racist. Too many people disbelieve 2 but believe 1. But it starts at 1.

[Hambone]

I'm part Roma gypsy, the only gypsy Marvel characters I can think of are Dr. Doom (supervillain) and the Scarlet Witch (crazy), granted Dr. Doom is usually thinking 12 steps ahead of everyone, and Scarlet Witch can wipe characters by uttering a few words, so yes?

I wouldn't mind Marvel introducing a few more gypsy heroes into the MU. But new characters, not taking existing heroes like Spidey or Wolverine and replacing them with gypsy versions.

[murdershewrote]

Maybe for the same reason you consider majorities "hanging out with their own race" is...
To add more to it: racism is 1) the belief that mankind is divided into different races 2) the belief that these so-called races shouldn't mix and that some races may be superior to others.
As far as I'm concerned racism starts at point 1. It's demonstrably false. Humanity is just one race. Any talk of race is racist. Too many people disbelieve 2 but believe 1. But it starts at 1.

I fundamentally disagree. Believing/acknowledging differences in people, races, or objects is not in it of itself harmful, nor is it unreasonable. The entire reason categories like these exist is due to psychology - every day, your brain is bombarded with so many different stimulants that it has to separate it in easily digestible factors (like skin color, gender, etc).

For example - you can possibly get away with claiming 'race' is unimportant and we're all fundamentally the same seeing as by and large, race is a human construct (but there ARE physiological differences between the races, by the by - that go beyond skin color. So they are in fact different), but that is just not true about gender. Women are different than men, period. Acknowledging this is not negative, and it is not a gateway into being sexist. Using your logic, even using gendered pronouns like 'he' and 'she' (any talk of race = any talk of gender) would mean that you're being sexist.

The danger is believing that these differences mean that one sect is superior to another. That's the crux of racism, and all sorts of bigotry, and that's what it's all about.

[Kieran_Frost]

I'm part Roma gypsy, the only gypsy Marvel characters I can think of are Dr. Doom (supervillain) and the Scarlet Witch (crazy), granted Dr. Doom is usually thinking 12 steps ahead of everyone, and Scarlet Witch can wipe characters by uttering a few words, so yes?
I wouldn't mind Marvel introducing a few more gypsy heroes into the MU. But new characters, not taking existing heroes like Spidey or Wolverine and replacing them with gypsy versions.

Skein of the Thunderbolts was a Romanian gypsy. Last seen in Avengers: the Initiative attacking Asgard during Siege.

[Leocomix]

Ah yes... The one MLK jr. quote that people use to ignore the rest of his life. And the rest of the Civil Right Movement.

Sorry buddy, he even knew that that dream isn't a reality. Not even close. So stop acting like it's already come.

But you know what. I'll let Edward Rhymes handle this one.

It's either the reality you strive forward or it isn't, "buddy".
If the minority viewpoint is to rest on a "I'm different" discourse then it's a bad path toward equality (different but equal is what gave us apartheid by the way). I think the discourse "we"re the same" is a better discourse. Look at a kindergarten with children of all colors. It doesn't matter to any child which color they are. Are you saying these children should grow up by learning to make a difference between them according to their skin color in order to become fair? That a white boy, rather than just considering a black boy like his equal and his friend, should treat him as a member of a minority race? Absurd! Nowhere am I saying there is total equality but I'm saying you and Edward Rhymes are promoting a counter-productive discourse.
And I'm not ignoring the rest of MLK's life or the Civil Right Movement either. Keep your bad accusations to yourself. Just respond with your own civil arguments (or those of Rhymes if you wish).
MLK's vision has done more to improve things and if there is a slowdown it's because the minority discourse and lobbyism sets it back. One needs to reinforce the prime postulate, not attack it.

[Leocomix]

I fundamentally disagree. Believing/acknowledging differences in people, races, or objects is not in it of itself harmful, nor is it unreasonable. The entire reason categories like these exist is due to psychology - every day, your brain is bombarded with so many different stimulants that it has to separate it in easily digestible factors (like skin color, gender, etc).

For example - you can possibly get away with claiming 'race' is unimportant and we're all fundamentally the same seeing as by and large, race is a human construct (but there ARE physiological differences between the races, by the by - that go beyond skin color. So they are in fact different), but that is just not true about gender. Women are different than men, period. Acknowledging this is not negative, and it is not a gateway into being sexist. Using your logic, even using gendered pronouns like 'he' and 'she' (any talk of race = any talk of gender) would mean that you're being sexist.

The danger is believing that these differences mean that one sect is superior to another. That's the crux of racism, and all sorts of bigotry, and that's what it's all about.

Your reasoning is hard to follow. You state (justly) that race isn't like gender but you then use a gender analogy to dismiss my race argument?? So which is which?

[Kid Kamikaze10]

You picked the wrong guy to dispute something like this.

Are we still talking about the same MLK who in the Letter from Birmingham Jail said that white ministers and moderates were “more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice,” and said they were more a obstacle to equality to black people than the Klan?

Oh, and here's a MLK quote.

“Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.”

That's from Why We Can't Wait. That doesn't sound like the colorblind fellow you think you're talking about.

Here's another

“A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”

That's from "Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community?"

And one more, from 1965 in a Playboy interview.

“…for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages–potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation.”

So again, who are we talking about again? Martin Luther King jr., or the MLK jr. you idealized in your head?

[RolandJP]

Why do you always go for the gay angle, to prove inequality? Do you really think LGBT characters aren't killed unceremoniously (because I have a list to dispute that).

because being gay is not an angle. I use gay in substitute of a racial minority to show the double standard--racial minorities get.

As I said earlier if a writer killed off gay characters and replaced them with women...and said..my book is diverse..see I have women in it. It does not deal with the lack of gay characters..

In contrast to what you have stated by saying the lack of black characters offset by the addition of gay or female characters makes a book suitable diverse. And that Minorities ( RE: blacks) should stop complaining.

Is abhorrent.

[Kasper Cole]

It's either the reality you strive forward or it isn't, "buddy".
If the minority viewpoint is to rest on a "I'm different" discourse then it's a bad path toward equality (different but equal is what gave us apartheid by the way). I think the discourse "we"re the same" is a better discourse. Look at a kindergarten with children of all colors. It doesn't matter to any child which color they are. Are you saying these children should grow up by learning to make a difference between them according to their skin color in order to become fair? That a white boy, rather than just considering a black boy like his equal and his friend, should treat him as a member of a minority race? Absurd! Nowhere am I saying there is total equality but I'm saying you and Edward Rhymes are promoting a counter-productive discourse.
And I'm not ignoring the rest of MLK's life or the Civil Right Movement either. Keep your bad accusations to yourself. Just respond with your own civil arguments (or those of Rhymes if you wish).
MLK's vision has done more to improve things and if there is a slowdown it's because the minority discourse and lobbyism sets it back. One needs to reinforce the prime postulate, not attack it.

Don't sit there and talk about "MLK's vision" when you clearly have no idea what that actually is. Martin Luther King Jr did NOT subscribe to teachings of colorblindness, and anybody that's actually read the man's writings or listened to his speeches in full would know that.

Also ignoring race does absolutely nothing to address systemic racism that still plagues us today. Just because you as an individual decide to ignore race doesn't mean society will. so called "colorblindness" also does take into account implicit racial bias' that most people have.

[murdershewrote]

Your reasoning is hard to follow. You state (justly) that race isn't like gender but you then use a gender analogy to dismiss my race argument?? So which is which?

Extending your logic to both race and gender is a rhetorical device on my part to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument. On a thread about diversity and it's acknowledgement (or on your part, the lack thereof), it's a reasonable extension to make.

You say race doesn't exist (which, if you notice I pointed out that it does it does) and that we were all one people. Seeing as 'race' is only a subdivision of 'human', it's not a stretch to apply the same equivalency to gender - as 'gender' is only a subdivision of 'human' as well. Similarly, racism is the discrimination based on race, just as sexism is the discrimination based on gender. Like for like.

Not sure how you can justify having it both ways. Why is acknowledging race tantamount to racism to you, when acknowledging gender is not sexism?

[Kasper Cole]

You picked the wrong guy to dispute something like this.

Are we still talking about the same MLK who in the Letter from Birmingham Jail said that white ministers and moderates were “more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice,” and said they were more a obstacle to equality to black people than the Klan?

Oh, and here's a MLK quote.



That's from Why We Can't Wait. That doesn't sound like the colorblind fellow you think you're talking about.

Here's another



That's from "Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community?"

And one more, from 1965 in a Playboy interview.




So again, who are we talking about again? Martin Luther King jr., or the MLK jr. you idealized in your head?

*daps*

I get so sick of people babbling about what they think Martin Luther King Jr promoted/believed because they can remember a few seconds of a nearly 30 minute speech.