"What era is the Superman page from, Dave?"

It's from Action Comics #1.

Clark pretending to be like everyone else is lying and thus not real.
And since they taught him this as a child, then they created the Clark
personality as a disguise.

I might say that neither Clark nor Kal-el is the real man until there is
no disguise and all aspects of the man are out in the open.

When Superman was created, conformity to the traditional American
model was a given. My grandparents family gave up their Italian
language and many customs (but kept the food). They learned English
and gave their children only an American upbringing.   

But couple of decades ago, we decided conformity to a single
American identity was evil and encouraged people to keep their
foreign identity while adopting American ways. Now we aren't
Americans, we are Italian-English-Native American-Americans. Today,
my grandparents might have taught my mother Italian and then me.

So, in the 70s and beyond culture, if Superman is supposed to be the
model of all that is good, he must embrace his Kryptonian Identity as
well as his American one, because that is how we define good.

(Plus marketing Superman to foreign markets is probably easier when
you emphasis the Kryptonian Immigrant over the American
upbringing. And it also makes Superman like mutants. That can sell
well to people who feel they must hide themselves from the dominate
culture.)

As far as the name; people do go by different names, even to the
point of changing it. Kal-el is his name, and someone embracing their
culture and even using their birthname is not in and of itself an insult
to their adoptive parents and their new name, unless it is done out of
anger or vindictiveness. For Clark, he hasn't abandoned his adoptive
name, he uses both and each reflects a different aspect of his identity.
It's like person who uses one name with childhood friends and
another name with work friends. It's not disrespectful, in an of itself.

Being bullet-proof is not a difference in degree.

This is why I HATED the depictions of Superman who thought of himself as Kal-El and said things like, "Great Rao!" Clark was raised as a Kansas farmboy, albeit one with special abilities, and there is no reason he should think of himself as a Kryptonian.

We have seen mild manner Clark, timid weak Clark, football star Clark,
brooding Clark and probably several others. Superman on the other
hand has been more consistent. It's not perfectly consistent, but more
so than Clark.

And, you could go a year without seeing the Clark persona and not
feel like you are missing anything. You can't say the opposite.
(Superboy and the Legion ran years without showing Clark.)

Hmm, you know this was a running theme through Smallville. How
does he hold onto the values the Kents taught him and fullfill the
mission Jor-el sent him to do? Part of the answer is the human
upbringing can't prepare him for everything he must fight.
Somethings are beyond human wisdom and experience. On the other
hand, the Kents grounded him. He needs to embrace both to be the
champion of Earth.

Was he? Didn't his parents own the general store at some point? I think the Superman, the farm boy connection became just popular with Superman: THe Movie.

QUOTE: On the matter of who is the "real" person, Superman or Clark, here's what Siegel and Shuster had to say about it, in 1939:

The original origins recaps his past but it doesn't really tell us much about the man himself. But the stories that followed it clearly speak for themselves and Siegel's intention, there "Clark Kent" is not real at all. An act. Of course, we don't know how his life was before he donned the cape, but the moment they started to tell these stories they invented Superboy (and that was a Siegel idea that the powers-that-were rejected at first).

It wasn't until the Silver Age when there started to be stories that hinted at the possibilities that their might be more truth to Clark Kent than even Superman did realize.

Your Clark Kent, however, wasn't an act, he just didn't use his powers in public. He was a young bachelor, tall, handsome and quite successful - which didn't reflect Siegel's idea of Clark Kent basically being a stand-in for his own failure with women and social situations.

Edited by Friedrich Thorben on 28 August 2011 at 3:43pm