I thought Captain America was a fictional character
I remembered seeing this old thread once on Newsarama from September 2003 that talked about the attention that JLA #83 got for its very awkward political, if metaphorical, statement on the war in Iraq. But as weak as that issue was, however you look upon it, that's not what I found ridiculous about it. No, what was ridiculous about this article was how they described the situation surrounding Michael Medved's argument on Marvel's degradation of Captain America, and you are not going to believe how they put it here, or maybe you are:
First, what exactly do they mean when they say that Marvel "allowed" Steve Rogers to question the battle against an evil that even the Star-Spangled Avenger would find abhorrent? Is he a real person, and presumably was being hypnotized into being a 100-percent obedient slave, not on what the guv'ment would tell or make him do, but rather, on what Marvel themselves would?
This reminds me of an argument I was having once regarding Identity Crisis on a forum I no longer visit with a man who sounded like a moonbat, to whom I was trying to explain that, as I put it then, "I have never known Dr. Light to be a sodomist." And what did he say in reply to that? In a very cynical, contemptuous and nasty tone, he said, "neither did Wally West [The Flash]."
In other words, he indicated, and only then, that he'd already made up his mind about where he stood on the whole subject, and that being that he bought into what the miniseries published in 2004 claimed, NOT what the Justice League of America adventure from 1962 in which Dr. Light first appeared established. Well in that case, why'd he ever insist on arguing and upholding DC's dumb little controversy-baiting act in the first place?
That aside, this is exactly the problem that some of those who upheld Marvel's actions without rhyme or reason seemed to have, which was blurring the differences between reality and fiction. And if that's how they're going to argue, then simply put, they have no argument.
Second, there's the way that they refer to the war on terrorism, by putting it in between quotation marks. That, IMO, smacks of the notion of denying that terrorism exists, that there's a war that's got to be led against it, or that we even are at war with the nightmare at all. And considering where I live just now, that's one more reason why I find it offensive, and definately insulting.
In April, conservative commentator Michael Medved took Marvel Comics to task for allowing Captain America to question the United States' role and culpability in the "war on terror."The problem here is two-fold:
First, what exactly do they mean when they say that Marvel "allowed" Steve Rogers to question the battle against an evil that even the Star-Spangled Avenger would find abhorrent? Is he a real person, and presumably was being hypnotized into being a 100-percent obedient slave, not on what the guv'ment would tell or make him do, but rather, on what Marvel themselves would?
This reminds me of an argument I was having once regarding Identity Crisis on a forum I no longer visit with a man who sounded like a moonbat, to whom I was trying to explain that, as I put it then, "I have never known Dr. Light to be a sodomist." And what did he say in reply to that? In a very cynical, contemptuous and nasty tone, he said, "neither did Wally West [The Flash]."
In other words, he indicated, and only then, that he'd already made up his mind about where he stood on the whole subject, and that being that he bought into what the miniseries published in 2004 claimed, NOT what the Justice League of America adventure from 1962 in which Dr. Light first appeared established. Well in that case, why'd he ever insist on arguing and upholding DC's dumb little controversy-baiting act in the first place?
That aside, this is exactly the problem that some of those who upheld Marvel's actions without rhyme or reason seemed to have, which was blurring the differences between reality and fiction. And if that's how they're going to argue, then simply put, they have no argument.
Second, there's the way that they refer to the war on terrorism, by putting it in between quotation marks. That, IMO, smacks of the notion of denying that terrorism exists, that there's a war that's got to be led against it, or that we even are at war with the nightmare at all. And considering where I live just now, that's one more reason why I find it offensive, and definately insulting.
Labels: Captain America, marvel comics, politics, terrorism
