The worst case scenario of the Tuskegee Experiment was a lot of dead Black men. That was of little consequence to the people who conceived the experiments. It is hard for anyone who grew up in the past few decades to even conceive of a time when racism was so pervasive, and so casual, but that is, alas, an accurate portrait of this Nation until very recently in its history.

Applying the same mentality the Super Soldier project simply does not work, because there the "worse case" scenario would not be failure, but success. The last thing White Americans wanted in the late 1930s was a SUPER POWERED Black man in their midst. There is no way the Government would have tested the formula on a Black man (even setting aside Joe Simon and Jack Kirby have established that Steve Rogers was the first and only subject) for fear that it might WORK!!

________________________

THANK YOU. I have been saying and arguing this exact same point ever since The Truth (which was also another short term sales stunt) was first announced.

-------------------------

And if this was the mainstream universe I would agree with you, but
this isn't. Ultimate Spider-man isn't the original. The original is still
around and published and he's the dominate licensed product.

It's like Ultimate Wolverine; he dead and replaced by his son. But
doesn't matter, because the real one is fine.

I thought this is what they should have done in first place for Ultimate
Universe: new characters with existing name recognition.

You can find all the episodes of the japanese  Spider-Man tokusatsu series on marvel's official site in the video section, with english sub-titles.

Not the best toku ever, but very influencial, on some of those that came later, like Bioman. (even if Mazinger Z is certainly as important an influence on that series).

++

And who does he blame for Jim Rhodes, John Stewart, Michael Holt, and any other black super-heroes who took over for white guys?

••

He's probably never heard of them. And Marvel is depending on nobody much in the media having heard of them either. Otherwise, why the hoopla?

(Y'know, purely for shock value I wanted to being this post with "Beck is right about one thing. . . " but, I couldn't think of ONE THING he was right about. Ever.)

Death of Superman ring ANY bells at notMarvel?
Or are they hoping that we all forgot it?

*******

At least DC created a NEW African American character, Steel, who was a temporary replacement. I liked the character too as he's written as reluctant hero (he has a family to look after).

I wish writers were as casual as JB is about writing monorities. The latest Next Men issue being a prime example. He writes some of the most mutli-cultural comics I've read.

Like JB, I grew up in a mostly white country and didn't meet a person of colour until I visited the US in 1997 (I was 16). Nowadays, Ireland is fairly liberal and mutli-cultural and I don't think race is treated as a big deal which is the way it should be.

My favourite African character is probably Black Panther. Why? Cos he's cool and has a cool looking costume.

••

The Panther represents some significant twists and turns -- few of them good -- in how Black characters have been handled in comics, and at Marvel specifically, over the years.

When T'Challa was introduced, there was very little about him that was truly "African". Most of his trappings were filtered thru all the Tarzan movies Jack Kirby had watched growing up, and the hi-tech nature of Wakanda distanced him even further from the real world.

Later writers insisted on going in the other direction. Increasingly issues of racial strife were shoe-horned into the Panther's story. He even briefly changed his name, because of the Black Panthers!

And the problem was, each sojourn into "reality" (ie, the Black Experience as viewed by predominantly White liberal writers) took him further from the pure fantasy, pure escapist character Stan and Jack introduced us to. And, in the process, T'Challa lost much of what made him special -- much in the same way (without racial elements) Spider-Man lost his core elements as loner, "loser", nerdy Peter Parker transformed into a successful photojournalist married to a fashion model!

"Growth" is important in characters, or they become stagnant cliches -- but that "growth" needs to be achieved thru the illusion of change, not so much real change. The Black Panther (one of the coolest characters ever, imho) has not fared well when real change has been brought to his story.

Francesco Vanagolli wrote: If I were a black guy, I'd feel humiliated by this attempt to use "the black Spider-Man" as a freakshow to attract attentions.

If I may jump in here a moment to address this statement...no mindreading on my part but I'm wondering if this statement is based upon an interpretation...actually, a MIS-interpretation...of some of JB's opinions re race-swapping.  Or maybe there is a harmless misunderstanding of the word "humiliation."  But why would, or should, I feel humiliated by this issue..?  I have no personal connection to either the comic book character Spider-Man nor the braintrust at Marvel Comics who greenlit such a move. 

I vote with my wallet.  If I don't like it I don't buy it.  I may discuss the reasons why with friends or on a forum such as this...but humiliation..?  No.  It's not personal against me.  I'm not that connected to it.  I may not like it, I may disagree with the direction the company has taken re "diversifying" their characters...I may even take issue with a creator's work.  But let's move on from this notion that I should be up in arms over it...that somehow Marvel is denigrating me as a man because Samuel L. Jackson is now the de facto characterization for Nick Fury or Ultimate Spider-Man is now an Afro-Latino boy. 

It's like that thing we've had here on the Forum where people are called out for looking for offense.  If I were offended, or humiliated, by an editorial decision made by a publishing company regarding characters they own the copyright to...wouldn't that be a case of personalizing issues a bit too much?  Or can I simply say nope, not my cup of tea, what a dumb idea, etc and move on to spend my $3.99 elsewhere?

JB and I have exchanged comments here on the JBF enough times to where I think we know where we each stand on the issue.  His contempt for the practice is a bit stronger than mine but I don't agree with it either.  But humiliation..?  No, that's too personal of a reaction in my opinion.  I can't dictate to Marvel what editorial or creative direction to take with their characters any more than they can dictate anything to me.  I simply move on to another title, another company, ultimately (no pun intended) another hobby or pastime.

Back to the thread... 

edited for spelling, grammar, etc

There was an episode of SEINFELD in which Jerry essentially set himself up on a blind date with a woman because he thought she was Asian. Elaine asked if that was not racist, wanting to date this woman simply because of her race. Jerry replied "It's not racist if you LIKE their race!"

But I think it is. I think categorizing someone by their race is, indeed, racist, even if it is a "positive" characterization. For example -- and I will use a non-existent "race" here so no one can read double meaning into my point -- if I say "Martians are fat and lazy", that is clearly a slur against Martians, and it is clearly racist. But if I say "Martians are great guitar players," how is that any LESS racist? I am labeling an entire group BASED ON THEIR RACE. I'm saying something GOOD about them, but I am still painting with a broad brush -- and I would think Martians who were NOT great guitar players might object. The fact that they probably wouldn't doesn't alter the nature of the categorizing.*

So the problem with this latest stunt from Marvel -- and what could be interpreted as "humiliating" to Black people -- is that it is being ballyhooed BECAUSE it is a Black kid taking on the role of Spider-Man. This is not "New Guy in the Spider-Suit!", it is "BLACK Guy in the Spider-Suit". As if THAT is what makes the story "important". So Black people are being used as a marketing tool by Marvel. (Brevoort trying to spin anyone who faults this move as a "racist" ironically servers only to underscore the reality.)

Which, if not actually humiliating, should piss off a lot of them!

_____

* In a somewhat different vein, I remember a Black standup comic -- it might have been Dick Gregory -- appearing on a talk show when I was in my teens, and a White standup comic brought up the myth of all Black men having enormous penises. "If you object to myths based on race," said the White guy, "why don't you object to THAT?" "Well," smiled the Black guy, "that's OUR myth!"