There is a difference between that and just assuming EVERYONE ELSE is also a racist. It boggles the mind that they are that disconnected from reality.
“Well we all know black people are bad, but we just don’t say it, amiright?” “Um… no. You’re a racist, hurry up and die already.”
Because Ms Marvel was such a popular character. That 99% of the populace has never heard of or given a shit about.
It’s like complaining about the them changing something about Wonder Man. Who cares? Do most people even have a clue who that is? No. But if they made him black, well then oh lordy, their tainting this hollowed character for libral reasons! Or you know, no one gave a shit so they tried to broaden the market of a character by switching it up a bit and maybe sell a couple comics.
I’m not sure how coming back from the dead is no big deal, but changing the person behind the mask is the end times and we’re all doomed. It’s ok for everyone to be Jesus, but God help us if someone brown puts on a costume you forgot even existed.
Edit: For example, the Thor thing. I sort of get it. It’s Thor. But at the same time… he was a fucking frog or some shit at one point, so… who cares? They could’ve killed him, but that gets old since they always come back anyway. At some point the character will probably be a dude again. They’re in it to make money, changing shit up is how they try to do it. The more “outrage” there is, the more books they’ll sell in the end because no one was buying Thor to begin with. Honestly, it’s just too bad its so poorly written from what I’ve seen.
But wouldn’t at least part of the point of the switch be precisely to revitalize the brand because of the controversy? (So you build off the initial disgruntlement of the two or three diehard fans of the corn-fed version?)
You can thank Fox News for that, and it’s working as designed.
Look, there have been FOUR Ms Marvels. FOUR.
No one gave a fuck until one of them was brown. Then suddenly there is a “controversy”. Go figure.
Edit: And the original Ms Marvel? She took over for a dude and is Captain Marvel (who she took her name from in the first place when the first one died). Who noticed? Fucking no one cause it happens all the time in these things.
Of course it wouldn’t be racist to have a white Ms Marvel character.
What I have a harder time squaring off is not being racist while decrying the existence of a non-white Ms Marvel character.
People claiming all characters and works should contain diversity are loonies indeed, but people getting enraged when a minority of such works embrace diversity are beyond lunacy, way into something much darker.
Why wouldn’t they assume that when almost everyone they meet that makes certain conservative noises feels the exact same way as they do? In their small world you are the exception, not the rule. This is just another effect of the US’ preferred approach to dealing with racism by sanitizing everything racist from the public eye without doing anything about the underlying sentiment. Expression of racism is simply hidden underneath talking points used as dog whistles. If you mention such a talking point, regardless of intention and context, you will be assumed to be a racist by other racists. Because hey, dog whistle.
It’s a sad state of affairs, I agree.
I don’t think you have to go visiting peoples’ intentions about it. It’s quite possible to see the change as gratuitous and preachy - and symptomatic of the larger virtue-signalling trend.
What’s the dividing line between what used to be called “tokenism” and this sort of thing?
Yeah, that would make sense if there was rage about other gratuitous and preachy stuff in comic books too. But since the medium is all about being gratuitous and preachy, you wouldn’t read super-hero comic books then.
The point is why this is this perceived as gratuitous and preachy and worth of writing rivers of text about, while other preachy and gratuitous stuff is ignored. Well, that’s because these people are being triggered by something very specific that doesn’t trigger them in other instances.
Skin color.
Switching the blame to some abstract concept of virtue signalling and the broader culture wars is an attempt to hide the real issue, imho.
Why this is perceived as gratuitous and preachy is also something I wonder about. For me it is clearly an attempt to 1. Get attention and free advertising, like killing Superman 2. Broaden the base demographics. Which is basically the opposite of virtue signalling, but just a pragmatic and perhaps somewhat cynical approach. You could criticize from that angle, but again, that’s not what it’s happening.
It might be for some, but let’s not play the game of taking the worst examples of a political position as representative of the whole - it’s easy enough to play that game in the opposite direction too :)
Why this is perceived as gratuitous and preachy is also something I wonder about. For me it is clearly an attempt to 1. Get attention and free advertising, like killing Superman 2. Broaden the base demographics. Which is basically the opposite of virtue signalling, but just a pragmatic and perhaps somewhat cynical approach. You could criticize from that angle, but again, that’s not what it’s happening.
Well the gratuitousness and preachiness come out in that it (the hypothetical paradigmatic example of this sort of thing, whatever one might choose) is not really a sincere attempt to get troglodytes to re-think their position.
IOW, it’s gratuitous, preachy and annoying precisely because it’s just a cynical marketing ploy.
A word more on the virtue signalling thing. It’s often remarked upon in the better part of the Right blogosphere, how again and again you get situations where what would have caused an uproar if done by a Republican gets a free pass if it’s a Democrat that does it. Of course that’s a scattershot synecdoche that isn’t always true, but it sometimes is. The point is, that’s the mark of something being virtue signalling - it’s not based on a principle that applies truly universally, but it’s a convenience that’s meant to both signal one’s own virtue, and jolly up one’s fellow-travellers.
Obviously any part of the liberal agenda that’s based on individualism is exempt from that criticism, because it’s universally true (and that’s actually the part the Right accepts too, even if sometimes grudgingly, because it’s intellectually compelling). It’s the part of the liberal agenda (borrowed from the Left) that’s based on collectivist memes, group identity, gender identity, etc., etc., that’s the garbage part. It’s not compelling, it’s convenience, it’s rationalization, it’s virtue signalling.
You rarely see that much effort expended on a defense of the status quo in race relations.
…thankfully.
The very concept of “race relations” is utter garbage. If skin colour is meaningless (as it is) then you don’t improve things by accepting the terms of the debate as being based on skin colour, you break through the nonsense to clarity, by emphasizing individualism.
And if you really care about healing things, then that’s the approach you take because that’s the approach that’s ultimately going to convince bigots and change their minds.
O_o
Your universal truths are not my universal truths. I don’t believe you can use that measure to cut where the acceptable is. I do see a lot of preachy virtue signalling from hard core individualists too (Ayn Rand being somewhat on the extreme. Can’t get more preachy than that :P).
For someone who believes skin color is meaningless, you sure are in a tizzy over the change in that very thing for some characters. I truly doubt individualism is the scale on which you weigh the worthiness of a person/character considering your knee jerk reaction in this very thread to the changing of the race of a character. Instead of waiting to hear the voice that character has, you took one look and decried their very existence as a “cynical marketing ploy” based simply on their color.
But I don’t believe you are a racist. I just think you’re naive. The biggest problem you exhibit is your refusal to see that large sections of this world do view skin color and then judge the worthiness of others based largely on that. While it would be fantastic were that not the case, you simply can’t make any meaningful change without first recognizing and attempting to work within that framework.
For someone who believes skin color is meaningless, you sure are in a tizzy over the change in that very thing for some characters. I truly doubt individualism is the scale on which you weigh the worthiness of a person/character considering your knee jerk reaction in this very thread to the changing of the race of a character. Instead of waiting to hear the voice that character has, you took one look and decried their very existence as a “cynical marketing ploy” based simply on their color.
Can’t it be strategic marketing decision and intentionally good? Like maybe someone noticed that there is demographic that’s not seeing a Marvel superhero that looks like them and it would be nice to have that. It’s a win-win, right? You attract people from that underserved demographic, you make some headlines because you’re doing something different, and you’re revitalizing a character with flagging sales.
Why is that bad?
WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE RACISTS!
I just fail to see how a child picking up a comic book and seeing someone that looks like them staring back at them…and they AREN’T the villain…can ever be a bad thing. Even if the reasons behind that circumstance involved someone in marketing.
I’ve seen goalpost moving before, but never outright goalpost denial.
The annoying thing about this whole issue is that the new Ms. Marvel is a damned good book where the character’s 2nd generation immigrant status and working class, teenaged roots shape each story. She may be a “token” character, but the writers don’t treat her race and religion as being merely background noise.