Not-so-subtle themes in the original X-Men films

[Thinking10]

Most people, even Thinking 10 I dare say, would be appalled by an actual overt racist/sexist/homo-bashing act

You are correct, I treat all people with the same respect, no matter who they are, and I do not stand for harming anyone.

 

[Kamaduck]

Well, Phil, if the message of the X-men movies is a simple “don’t be mean to people who are different than you”, then that sounds all right to me.

Comics, like Science Fiction are becoming more and more Politically Correct ghettos.

James Bowman did a good article on this: jamesbowman.net/articleDetail.asp?pubID=1915

That’s rather how I feel when I hear my fellow conservatives commending such childish drivel as Iron Man or the new Indiana Jones movie in the belief — as I perhaps unworthily suspect — that this will make them sound cool, and hip and smart, the kind of sophisticated critics (for such they now seem to us) who can spot aesthetic merit in the very places where those already blessed with the fame and the money that comes with popular success would have wished them to find it. Well, doubtless I am blind to it myself, but such people should know that their opinions ally them to one of the most favored projects of the cultural left, which is to incorporate the heroic tale of the breaking down of distinctions between “high” and merely popular culture into a larger, triumphalist narrative of liberation from the moral and aesthetic constraints imposed by the panjandrums of high culture prior to the 1960s. The reception of the comic book and rock’n’roll into the artistic pantheon is another of the victories of the revolution of the 1960s.

Why should there be a distinction between “high” culture and “popular” culture? Not everything falls into one category or the other. Shakespeare was quite popular in his day. If we don’t analyze the “popular” culture- the media that is actually shaping people’s perceptions on a day to day basis- then I’m not sure why we’re bothering. Popular media is where the action is. That’s probably why this forum is called “Popular Media”- that’s the form of art that most people want to discuss.

Claiming that comic books aren’t art simply baffles me. Why wouldn’t they be?

Real virtues are hard to get and cultivate. Anti-racism/sexism/homophobia by contrast are cheap, ersatz virtues. All it really takes is smugness and a big mouth. Most people, even Thinking 10 I dare say, would be appalled by an actual overt racist/sexist/homo-bashing act, but the so-called “equality movements” are not really about that.

This makes it sound like racism, sexism, etc. are things of the past. They are not.

I see the fight against racism to be one sided. It seems acceptable to bash and criticize white people these days, and off limits to criticize non whites. I haven’t seen an end to racial conflict cause by the civil rights movements. Only a reversal of which race is acceptable to mistreat.

I am white.

I see more anti-black racism and anti-latino racism on a regular basis than anti-white sentiment, easily. White people still control most of America’s financial assets. White people are disproportionately represented in film, and make up an even higher percent of film protagonists. They also hold a disproportionate number of positions in congress.

Even if anti-white sentiment were a more serious problem, it would still be ridiculous to compare it to how black Americans were treated prior to the civil rights movement. When people are denied service at a place of business for being white, then I’ll be concerned. Until then, no, I don’t think it’s a serious problem.

There is no racial harmony, and I am not convinced that there will ever be. There has only been a power shift, but not an end in division.

Being a supporter of racial equality doesn’t sound like a solution to ending conflict. Even today, long after the civil rights movement, people self segregate.

Yes, there is still conflict and division. But answer me this- is it better now? Do you want to go back to black people being denied service, being forced to drink from different water fountains, having to use different bathrooms, etc? Haven’t we made progress in the last 50 years?

The idea that we should not attempt to improve, merely because we cannot completely solve a problem, doesn’t make sense to me. That’s certainly not how we handle sin. We don’t throw our hands up and say “I’ll never be totally sinless, so I might as well not try at all!”

Show just one example of a nation that has achieved equality and unity of all races.

I agree that this is not possible. I don’t think that’s a reason to stop trying (for equality- I’m not sure what you mean by “unity”).

Even in the bible, in stories of the early Christians, there were ethnic divisions amongst those Christians, and example being the Jewish and Hellenic Christians. In Revelation, many races and people are spoken of, not “one race, the human race.”

I don’t see this as a problem. Most non-white/POC people I hear talk about racism say that they do not want to lose their racial or cultural identity, they just want it to be respected.

 

[phil19034]

The equality movements are rooted in Communism, and were started by Communists to undermine Western Civilization. They may sound good, but with some digging and looking into matters more deeply, the dangers of all these movements to our civilization become more apparent. It is possible that the West may cease to exist within a few decades because of these movements. Promotion of these movements is an example of subversion of our culture by Hollywood.

Edit: I am not saying that people should be treated badly. What I am saying is that to a destroy a culture, a nation, a people, you don’t have to annihilate them with powerful weapons.

To destroy our civilization, our nation, our religion, our culture, our history and everything that defines us as a people, you have to do one thing.

You have to make that which you seek to destroy indistinguishable from everything around it.

Destroy a people? Mix them with other peoples and make those peoples equal.

Destroy a nation? Import many people from another nation, and say that they are no different from the natives of their new home.

Destroy a religion? Make an area that has historically been populated by members of one religion, a multi-religious area, and make all religions equal to each other.

Destroy a culture? Make a monocultural area into a multicultural area, and make all the cultures equal to each other.

There is a line from a cartoon, The Incredibles, that summarizes this thinking very accurately. “When everyone is super, no one will be.”

NOTE: I wasn’t talking about “equality movements.” I was talking about prejudices.

 

[Kamaduck]

There is a line from a cartoon, The Incredibles, that summarizes this thinking very accurately. “When everyone is super, no one will be.”

I haven’t seen The Incredibles in years, but from what I recall, Syndrome’s evil plan was motivated by his resentment of superheroes- he wanted to be one, but he didn’t have any superpowers of his own. In response, he decided to make his own- like Ironman or Batman, he used technology to achieve what others got from inborn talent.

And then, you know, he tried to murder all of the current superheroes. This is obviously what makes him a villain, and it’s not really relevant to the discussion at hand. He could have used his inventions and provided them to the public without becoming a mass murderer, and I don’t think that would have been an evil thing to do.

If you side against Syndrome’s basic idea (apart from the murder), it’s going to sound like you’re in favor of a certain “super class” of people that has natural advantages which others do not have, and that the “have-nots”, like Syndrome, should just accept that they’re never going to achieve the same kind of success. It sounds like you’re saying that those who don’t have power should be content to remain powerless, so that those who do- the wealthy, white people, men, etc- can enjoy power over them.

In short, you sound like you support, say, white people receiving preferential treatment. That’s our “superpower”, and if everyone is treated well, it won’t mean as much, and we won’t have the same advantages.

I’m OK with losing those advantages if it means other people will get the treatment they deserve.

Syndrome, the character, is a villain. He is a murderer, he is a terrorist, and his equality plan is selfishly motivated. That doesn’t mean all of his goals are wrong by association.

Personally, I’d much rather live in a world where everyone has power.

 

[Sarah_Coughlin]

I haven’t seen The Incredibles in years, but from what I recall, Syndrome’s evil plan was motivated by his resentment of superheroes- he wanted to be one, but he didn’t have any superpowers of his own. In response, he decided to make his own- like Ironman or Batman, he used technology to achieve what others got from inborn talent.

And then, you know, he tried to murder all of the current superheroes. This is obviously what makes him a villain, and it’s not really relevant to the discussion at hand. He could have used his inventions and provided them to the public without becoming a mass murderer, and I don’t think that would have been an evil thing to do.

If you side against Syndrome’s basic idea (apart from the murder), it’s going to sound like you’re in favor of a certain “super class” of people that has natural advantages which others do not have, and that the “have-nots”, like Syndrome, should just accept that they’re never going to achieve the same kind of success. It sounds like you’re saying that those who don’t have power should be content to remain powerless, so that those who do- the wealthy, white people, men, etc- can enjoy power over them.

In short, you sound like you support, say, white people receiving preferential treatment. That’s our “superpower”, and if everyone is treated well, it won’t mean as much, and we won’t have the same advantages.

I’m OK with losing those advantages if it means other people will get the treatment they deserve.

Syndrome, the character, is a villain. He is a murderer, he is a terrorist, and his equality plan is selfishly motivated. That doesn’t mean all of his goals are wrong by association.

Personally, I’d much rather live in a world where everyone has power.

But with great power, comes great responsibility.

Though to be honest, when I watched the movie as a kid, I felt really bad for Syndrome (and still do). His own ideology about getting revenge on ALL supers was totally flawed, and doomed to complete failure, but it’s hard not to feel sorry for him after seeing him turned away by his idol Mr. Incredible so brutally. I mean, like, did Bob just expect him to be grateful for being rejected like that, even if it was for his own good? It really is tragic that by trying to become artificially ‘superhuman’, in the end he made himself inhuman instead…

 

[Joe_5859]

Well, this thread has taken some interesting turns.

This is the bottom line for me. Can someone interpret the X-Men films as some sort of pro-LGBTQ morality parable? Sure. Is that the only interpretation possible? Not by a long shot.

The thing about art is that there are often multiple possible interpretations. And I refuse to let someone else dictate that a certain piece of art has only one possible interpretation that I must subscribe to, particularly when it is not at all explicit.

I think sometimes we go looking for this stuff in too many places.

 

[Thinking10]

I am white.

I see more anti-black racism and anti-latino racism on a regular basis than anti-white sentiment, easily. White people still control most of America’s financial assets. White people are disproportionately represented in film, and make up an even higher percent of film protagonists. They also hold a disproportionate number of positions in congress.

Is it wrong for whites to be the majority in, and govern some countries? Every other race and ethnicity has countries where they are the majority, and where they govern as they see is fit. Why should whites be denied what every other race has?

 

[Thinking10]

Personally, I’d much rather live in a world where everyone has power.

When everyone has power, who really has power? That is like raising all land to the height of Mount Everest. If all the land in the world were at an equal height, the height of Everest would be meaningless. What would distinguish one part of the world from another if all parts were the same?

 

[Kamaduck]

Is it wrong for whites to be the majority in, and govern some countries?

Of course not. My point is that white people have a disproportionate amount of power in the US- non-hispanic white people make up 63% of America’s total population, but make up 83% of the House of Representatives and 96% of the Senate, for instance.

Every other race and ethnicity has countries where they are the majority, and where they govern as they see is fit. Why should whites be denied what every other race has?

They’re not. White people are the majority in lots of countries, and have disproportionate political power in the US. Nobody is denying us anything in this area.

When everyone has power, who really has power?

Theoretically, power is shared by all. Obviously, it’s impossible to create a society where everyone has the same degree of power- but we can and should create a society where the most vulnerable people are defended and cared for, not trampled on by those who have power over them.

That is like raising all land to the height of Mount Everest. If all the land in the world were at an equal height, the height of Everest would be meaningless.

Well, yes. It would be rather sad to lose Mount Everest, but are you really saying that other people should be content to remain relatively powerless just so you and I can feel special and get the best of everything? :ehh:

What would distinguish one part of the world from another if all parts were the same?

Power is not the only distinguishing characteristic between various peoples.

And now I’m going to stop this conversation for the good of the thread- I love discussing this stuff, but it has nothing to do with the X-men movies, and I’m being very rude by hijacking the OP’s thread. If you want to continue discussing race and how it relates to power imbalances in the US, make a thread in Social Justice and PM me the link.

 

[Thinking10]

Um. They’re not. White people are the majority in lots of countries, and have disproportionate political power in the US. Nobody is denying us anything in this area.

Whites will be the majority in no countries in just a few decades. Research demographic trends in the U.S. and Europe.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I see the fight against racism to be one sided. It seems acceptable to bash and criticize white people these days, and off limits to criticize non whites. I haven’t seen an end to racial conflict cause by the civil rights movements. Only a reversal of which race is acceptable to mistreat.

I don’t know enough about affirmative action programs, for example, to comment definitively on them. It’s quite likely that I would find them to be wrong. But even if I knew everything there was to know about them and every other kind of “mistreatment” that “white” people are subject to in the States, I’m pretty sure that it would still be wildly inappropriate to compare that to several hundred years of systematic discrimination and disenfranchisement, of kidnapping, rape, slavery and murder, of the subsequent enforced segregation (as a means to deprive people of public resources) and of the various other injustices that “black” people were, and to an extent still are subjected to in the States. Actually, wildly inappropriate is an understatement.

Being a supporter of racial equality doesn’t sound like a solution to ending conflict.

It sure beats the alternatives, doesn’t it?

Even today, long after the civil rights movement, people self segregate.

All things being equal, people prefer to spend time with those who are similar to them. Hence the reason we’re all here. In the times when travel was slow and dangerous, those people probably looked a lot like you. In this day and age, travel is not nearly as slow nor as difficult.

The creation of a system that oppresses those of certain skin colors is a good way to ensure that those of like color will stick together. The dominant group(s) stay together because they create an aura of fear and contempt around the weaker group(s). The weaker group(s) stick together as a matter of survival.

These systems have only been defeated (if indeed they have been defeated) for half a century in the United States. They had a reign of several hundred years.

With that in mind, it is no wonder why there would still be voluntary segregation. Among the native born, you are not so much dealing with those original differences that arose out of geographic influences, you’re contending with the differences that arose and persisted due to systematic oppression.

Still, I do not see the relevance of the alleged prevalence of voluntary segregation to either the question of whether voluntary segregation is right or just, nor can I figure out what bearing the alleged prevalence of self segregation has on any of the other topics we’ve been discussing, so feel free to share.

Show just one example of a nation that has achieved equality and unity of all races.

Can you show me an example of a nation that has put an end to all murder or put an end to hunger? Would it actually influence your position about murder or hunger if you couldn’t?

Even in the bible, in stories of the early Christians, there were ethnic divisions amongst those Christians, and example being the Jewish and Hellenic Christians. In Revelation, many races and people are spoken of, not “one race, the human race.”

Again, I must ask you to establish the relevance of this statement. I’ve never met a person in my life who suggested that there weren’t/aren’t different ethnic groups, let alone anyone in this particular thread. So who are you arguing with here?

Scottgun:

Real virtues are hard to get and cultivate. Anti-racism/sexism/homophobia by contrast are cheap, ersatz virtues. All it really takes is smugness and a big mouth.

Clarification on what this is supposed to mean would be helpful.

Thinking10:

Is it wrong for whites to be the majority in, and govern some countries?

Certainly not. But if you the way you got there is systematic oppression, then the way you got there is wrong.

Every other race and ethnicity has countries where they are the majority, and where they govern as they see is fit. Why should whites be denied what every other race has?

So you want a white-only nation, right? Why?

You believe that most people who have the choice will choose to segregate themselves, right?

What is stopping white people from doing so? Are you being oppressed by people of color? Have people of color formed a conspiracy to stop you from realizing this goal?

 

[Thinking10]

I’m pretty sure that it would still be wildly inappropriate to compare that to several hundred years of systematic discrimination and disenfranchisement, of kidnapping, rape, slavery and murder, of the subsequent enforced segregation (as a means to deprive people of public resources) and of the various other injustices that “black” people were, and to an extent still are subjected to in the States. Actually, wildly inappropriate is an understatement.

Are you aware that black on black slavery and genocide of rival tribes are still common in Africa? Blacks are more brutal to each other in the present day in Africa than whites were to blacks more than 150 years ago. Blacks weren’t kidnapped from Africa necessarily. I agree that slavery is wrong, but many slaves were sold to slave traders by rival tribesmen who would have used them as their own slaves had slave traders (who I am not defending) not bought them.

Whites are only unique in regard to slavery in that they ended it. Slavery or slavery like conditions are common throughout most other parts of the world.

Today in America, most blacks who are victims of crime are victims of other blacks. FBI statistics show that most interracial crime is black on white, not white on black.

Show an example of a non-white country in which the majority ethnic group has gone out of its way to boost the standing of minority groups. The day is coming when whites will no longer be a majority in this country. News reports have placed the year around 2041. What kind of treatment can whites expect when they are no longer running this country?

These systems have only been defeated (if indeed they have been defeated) for half a century in the United States. They had a reign of several hundred years.

They have reigned since the beginning of time. Look at ancient Israel for example. The Israelites were warned not to mingle with those of other ethnic groups. Name one non white nation that is not ruled by a group who works in the interests of their own group.

Examples:

In Saudi Arabia, Sunni Islam is what reigns.

In Israel, Judaism, and the Jewish ethnicity.

In Africa, Africans work for the interests of their tribes or ethnic groups.

In South Africa, whites are at risk of genocide by the majority blacks, who have murdered thousands of white farmers since taking power.

In Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea, they give preferential treatment to their nation’s own ethnicity.

In Latin America, how is power distributed? Why do so many people want to leave these nations?

 

[Joe_5859]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...FcOmJARE5igYMaGtRQo5GsIA&ust=1415825136706260

 

[Thinking10]

This should at least give you pause about the ideology that these movements are rooted in.

South African Communist Party (SACP) is a communist party in South Africa. It was founded in 1921, was declared illegal in 1950, and participated in the struggle against apartheid. It is a partner of the Tripartite Alliance with the African National Congress and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and as such wields influence in the South African government.

The Communist Party USA, ideologically committed to foster a Socialist Revolution in America ended up playing a significant role in defending the rights of African Americans during its heyday in the 1930s and 1940s.

The Communist Party continued, even after splits and defections left it much smaller, into the 1960s. It made efforts to reestablish itself among students through the W. E. B. Du Bois Clubs, named after one of the original founders of the NAACP, who joined the CPUSA in 1961.

The parties’ fortunes appeared to revive for a while in the late 1960s, when party members such as Angela Davis became associated with the most militant wing of the Black Power movement.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Personally, I’d much rather live in a world where everyone has power.

Not to mention superpowers are as diverse as people. You think being a mutant means you got it tough? Try being:

1. A green, out-of-control, rage monster.
2. Cursed to house a ravenous demonic entity.
3. A vampire who slays his own kind.

I think Dash’s line isn’t so much an attack on either equality or individuality. It’s an attack on anything that uses an ideological excuse for mediocrity.

Furthermore, anyone who feels their cultural identity threatened by the presence of others only have themselves to blame when they lose it.

And so what if the white man no longer had his way by virtue of being, well, white? I thought we lived in a world where having your way was by the virtue of character, not skin.