Busiek considers Captain America liberal property only
Again, Kurt Busiek takes the role of Doctor Doom and wants everyone to know he knows everything there is to know about politics and Captain America. For example:
I guess he doesn't have much respect for Joe Simon, does he? Because while Kirby may have been a liberal, Simon was a conservative, and he once drew a picture of Cap punching out bin Laden. Fascinating how Busiek is able to blot that out and not at least accept that part of the Cap history. Nor does he consider that Kirby/Simon only wrote about 10 issues before moving to DC to write/draw some of their own output. He doesn't even ponder that back in the 1930 and 1940s, not all liberals stuck with the kind of mindset that bred fascism and socialism. Nor did anybody at the time go out of their way to demonize American conservatives and capitalism.
There's a liberal male named Busiek who doesn't consider that "Nazis" was a shortage for "national socialists", and that socialism has practically always been associated with leftists.
Straight from the keyboard of a man who feels entitled as a leftist to the co-creation of a conservative like Simon. Now granted, it's true that whomever was writing Cap would be responsible for any politics ascribed in the books proper. But given that Kirby/Simon only wrote a handful, how do we know they were the sole party responsible for any New Deal visions that might've been added to Cap in the Golden Age? And if they weren't, then why is Busiek trying to put words in Kirby/Simon's mouths? Most information I've come upon seems to do just that, making it sound like, just because of the era where Steve Rogers was born in, he'd be a New Deal Democrat, despite how most politics in Golden Age comics were nowhere near as heavy-handed as today's, and how Steve was battling the minions of National Socialists at the time. And the Golden Age material I read never made capitalism and working for self-support out to look like an evil concept.
And I guess the only Cap whom Busiek wants is one structured by the modern left-wing moonbats of today. Older takes don't really count in his POV. Of course, he hasn't written many mainstream comics for a couple years now, so I don't see what he's getting at. His comments suggest he no longer stands by what he ever wrote for Steve Rogers when he penned the Avengers in 1998-2002.
Umm, Cap isn't real, so the argument should be that he isn't usually written as a blind patriot. And nobody's saying he should be ultra-loyal to the government, but then, Steve Rogers shouldn't be loyal to either liberal or conservative. Wouldn't that be a more fitting idea? Just look at that; a would-be fan who thinks Steve Rogers is a real person who existed in real life. And he doesn't have what it takes to make clear he doesn't believe Steve should only defy right-wing governments and only be loyal to liberal ones. Even though it's already clear it makes no difference to Marvel's overlords who's in the White House; they'll tear down on conservatives regardless.
We interrupt this babble to note that if a renowned right-winger were assigned to write Cap, Busiek would be less likely to support the idea. If Daniel Pipes were offered the job, Busiek may not whine incessantly, but he probably wouldn't defend him at ease either. He's probably not in favor of Frank Miller penning a Cap story. And look who's talking again about what he believes. He sure doesn't seem too bothered that Sam Wilson is being exploited as a puppet for left-wing rhetoric, nor that the original structure of the Sons of the Serpent were twisted around in this new rendition.
But this argument would appear to endorse a mindset that cares more about the costume than the character wearing it. After all, Steve Rogers has been shoved out, and Sam Wilson forced in, and had ludicrous politics forced upon his image too, as if it couldn't get any worse. Busiek also makes the mistake of not judging past or present characterization by its own merits, but rather, pretending the characters are real, and that their ascribed personas are fait accompli that can't be modified.
Gee, what's the use of trying to reconcile past characterizations into one, rather than keeping it self-contained and letting readers be the judge for the finished product? Again, this is the error writers like Busiek are making; they act like past portrayals must be canonized no matter how bad they are. And, they go in full lockstep with whatever the mainstream publishers decree appropriate for the superheroes and co-stars they now misuse.
I saw a tweet saying liberals should create their own Captain America. They did. In 1940.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 18, 2015I guess he doesn't have much respect for Joe Simon, does he? Because while Kirby may have been a liberal, Simon was a conservative, and he once drew a picture of Cap punching out bin Laden. Fascinating how Busiek is able to blot that out and not at least accept that part of the Cap history. Nor does he consider that Kirby/Simon only wrote about 10 issues before moving to DC to write/draw some of their own output. He doesn't even ponder that back in the 1930 and 1940s, not all liberals stuck with the kind of mindset that bred fascism and socialism. Nor did anybody at the time go out of their way to demonize American conservatives and capitalism.
There’s a guy who apparently doesn’t know anything about liberalism or history trying to tell me that liberals of the New Deal era would...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…be considered conservatives today, and that no liberal ever born would dare call himself Captain America. The stupid, it burns.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015There's a liberal male named Busiek who doesn't consider that "Nazis" was a shortage for "national socialists", and that socialism has practically always been associated with leftists.
See, this is why liberals of the 1940s wouldn't be thought conservatives today. Idiots today still think like this. https://t.co/QqTX3Y1cPs— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015Captain America was created during the New Deal era by people who liked and supported the New Deal, and yet chowderheads try to claim...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015...that he'd be opposed to it. This is known as knowing nothing about history. Also entitlement, revisionism and deep stupidity.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015Straight from the keyboard of a man who feels entitled as a leftist to the co-creation of a conservative like Simon. Now granted, it's true that whomever was writing Cap would be responsible for any politics ascribed in the books proper. But given that Kirby/Simon only wrote a handful, how do we know they were the sole party responsible for any New Deal visions that might've been added to Cap in the Golden Age? And if they weren't, then why is Busiek trying to put words in Kirby/Simon's mouths? Most information I've come upon seems to do just that, making it sound like, just because of the era where Steve Rogers was born in, he'd be a New Deal Democrat, despite how most politics in Golden Age comics were nowhere near as heavy-handed as today's, and how Steve was battling the minions of National Socialists at the time. And the Golden Age material I read never made capitalism and working for self-support out to look like an evil concept.
The Captain America these guys seem to want is the "commie smasher" version from the 50s who was later revealed to be an insane reactionary.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015And I guess the only Cap whom Busiek wants is one structured by the modern left-wing moonbats of today. Older takes don't really count in his POV. Of course, he hasn't written many mainstream comics for a couple years now, so I don't see what he's getting at. His comments suggest he no longer stands by what he ever wrote for Steve Rogers when he penned the Avengers in 1998-2002.
Yeah, Cap's very much an "I love my country always and my government when it deserves it" kinda guy. @ChrisBrosnahan— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015Umm, Cap isn't real, so the argument should be that he isn't usually written as a blind patriot. And nobody's saying he should be ultra-loyal to the government, but then, Steve Rogers shouldn't be loyal to either liberal or conservative. Wouldn't that be a more fitting idea? Just look at that; a would-be fan who thinks Steve Rogers is a real person who existed in real life. And he doesn't have what it takes to make clear he doesn't believe Steve should only defy right-wing governments and only be loyal to liberal ones. Even though it's already clear it makes no difference to Marvel's overlords who's in the White House; they'll tear down on conservatives regardless.
In addition, I’ll note that many people seem to be arguing about Cap on the grounds that they think Cap agrees with them politically on...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…everything, and they thus assume that when I talk about what I think Cap believes, I’m simply arguing that he agrees with me, since...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…that’s simply the flip side of what they’re doing. But I’m far more interested in what Cap’s ideals and beliefs would be as a result of...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…his background, his upbringing, his era, his experiences, his actions. These are often not things that I share with him, so I don’t...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…expect him to simply be a spokesman for my beliefs, like many seem to believe he should be of theirs. I think he’s a character with a...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…history and a context, and that’s what fascinates me about this sort of thing. Writing. History. Characterization. Not whether he aligns...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…with me. I like characters to be true to themselves, not to me or you or anyone else. What that is I get from their history and behavior...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…not from my own political beliefs.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015We interrupt this babble to note that if a renowned right-winger were assigned to write Cap, Busiek would be less likely to support the idea. If Daniel Pipes were offered the job, Busiek may not whine incessantly, but he probably wouldn't defend him at ease either. He's probably not in favor of Frank Miller penning a Cap story. And look who's talking again about what he believes. He sure doesn't seem too bothered that Sam Wilson is being exploited as a puppet for left-wing rhetoric, nor that the original structure of the Sons of the Serpent were twisted around in this new rendition.
Captain America isn’t a symbol, he’s a man who has taken on a symbolic role. The man is still there. That’s why, when different men take...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…on that role, they act differently. The symbolic part is field by who they are, what they’ve done, where they come from, what they feel.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015But this argument would appear to endorse a mindset that cares more about the costume than the character wearing it. After all, Steve Rogers has been shoved out, and Sam Wilson forced in, and had ludicrous politics forced upon his image too, as if it couldn't get any worse. Busiek also makes the mistake of not judging past or present characterization by its own merits, but rather, pretending the characters are real, and that their ascribed personas are fait accompli that can't be modified.
Meanwhile, figuring out characters from their surface is why Iron Man has veered wildly from reflexive anti-Commie to bleeding-heart...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…liberal to testy conservative and back and around and around. Lotta contradictory portrayals.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015When I wrote the book, based on trying to fit the character’s history into something coherent, I tried to write him as a noblesse oblige...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…Rockefeller of the 1930s, convinced that what uplifted his workers and customers would also uplift his company. But that’s an approach...— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015…that doesn’t float to the top all that often.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 20, 2015Gee, what's the use of trying to reconcile past characterizations into one, rather than keeping it self-contained and letting readers be the judge for the finished product? Again, this is the error writers like Busiek are making; they act like past portrayals must be canonized no matter how bad they are. And, they go in full lockstep with whatever the mainstream publishers decree appropriate for the superheroes and co-stars they now misuse.
Labels: Captain America, Iron Man, marvel comics, moonbat writers, politics
The 1954 "commie smasher" was, at the time, intended to be the original Captain America. The story that "revealed" him as an "insane reactionary" was a PC retcon tacked on in 1972.
And a lot of Silver Age stories in Tales of Suspense and The Avengers showed the original Captain America (and Iron Man) fighting communist villains. In fact, Avengers #33 revealed the Sons of the Serpent to be agents provocateurs from Red China.
And, whether Busiek likes it or not, a lot of Old School liberals might be considered conservative, libertarian, or centrist by today's standards. FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ were progressive on domestic policy, but relatively hawkish on foreign policy. Compare Kennedy's "let them come to Berlin" speech to Obama's whining that "we" can't get on "our high horse" and criticize contemporary Islamofascism because "terrible deeds" were committed by Christians more than 500 years ago. And the New Deal was about creating jobs, not taxing workers to pay able-bodied young adults to have illegitimate children.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:14 PM
BTW, when Barry says that "we" (Americans and/or Christians and Jews) have no right to criticize terrorism, the "we" is really "you." What C.S. Lewis called the vice of detraction masquerading as the virtue of contrition.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:19 PM
whether Busiek likes it or not, a lot of Old School liberals might be considered conservative, libertarian, or centrist by today's standards.
Amen. Hell, if FDR was a contemporary progressive, he'd consider the GOP worse than the Nazis and be out there making speeches about how the US shouldn't use force, blah blah blah to confront Hitler. JFK not only would've welcomed Castro's Cuba, but would've allowed Khrushchev to ship his missiles there happily. Not to mention, given him East Berlin.
And hey -- where was this "liberal" Cap in the early 40s protesting the internment of Japanese-Americans? Oh, and what about his illegal breaking and entering when busting Nazi Bund meetings?
As I noted (http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/359629.php), "just because these dopes write marginally popular funny books doesn't mean they're actually smart."
Posted by
Hube |
4:17 AM