Hello everyone! It’s the weekend! I love the weekend because I have more time to study without worrying about working. Have I just revealed what an interesting life I lead? Oh well. When I have my degree, I will become a world-famous code-cracker. During the course of my career, I will be hired by the government to work in the intelligence community. In my spare time, I will decode the Voynich manuscript, and using the secrets found within, I will be able to alter the fabric of reality so that superheroes actually exist!
Why has this become my new goal? I was reading a superhero webcomic. This one, in fact. Heroes Inc. It’s written by Scott Austin, an American from Scandinavia who is also part Cherokee who lives in Finland. The Cherokee must have emigrated to Scandinavia (an unspecified country) and then had a kid who emigrated back, got citizenship, didn’t like it, and scooted for Finland, near as I can figure.
Ok, so I don’t get it either. But in any case. The comic is as a whole very well done. Beautiful drawing and colouring (most times), plot on the upper end of webcomics and superhero webcomics especially, Obama is super-whitified… oh, yeah, and this brings me around to something that stuck out at me like a sore thumb. Besides the white Obama. (Compare skin tone, did he even use a different colour for shading the white dudes?)
This guy is working with old-school comic heroes. To keep true to form, there’s bound to be a bit of hangover racist styling in character design. I can ignore bad physics (and chemistry and math and biology), jeans that hug every curve, women that don’t age at all like women really age (or like the men do), muscles showing through clothes that should never be that pliable, and so forth. It’s superheroes.
At the same time, he’s made changes in places. Look at Blue Buck. Blue Buck looks like a white dude. He’s Cherokee. The only thing that indicates his Native American-ness is a blue feather hanging from his helmet. (You can’t be Native American without a feather.) He isn’t one of those firey redskins, say from Disney or something. He is updated for modern sensibilities.
Now, there is a black dude, and a key point here is that he is, as far as I can tell, not a golden age hero. He’s new, invented for this comic. The black dude is called Lawrence, and… I missed if he has another name. I guess his superhero power bit is more an innate part of him than the rest. Or the government just doesn’t care if anyone knows who he is, he can shift for himself, deflecting all the flack that must have come his way at one point.
Lawrence has the very nice superpower of hulking out. There’s another character that fights for the Nazis (the bad guys, fortunately) who has the same power. Here he is.
Ignoring that all the black men I ever saw in comics (and, if you would like to argue that there are some that are not this way, I am sure you are right: but all the popular, visible ones that I know are this way, which tells you something) have some kind of power that revolves about super-improvement to “natural” characteristics—e.g. strength, speed, or connection to animals—Lawrence has bad luck with his superpower. Lawrence has the unenviable capability of turning into a giant monkey. Yes, a monkey. Look. Monkey.
Now, that big white dude seems a bit short on brain-bits, to be fair. But honestly, a giant monkey? Lawrence SMASH! Savagely. Look, people even notice. Him savage. I wonder if it’s because he is a savage? Black people always are less cultured than everyone else!
You can’t even recognise him. He becomes inhuman. Just a great big ape; there are no features on his tiny little head that bear any resemblance to what he used to look like as a human. Doubt me? Here he is, old. (All black men look like Samuel L. Jackson.) Here he is, young. The white dude, on the other hand, is definitely human. Big, but no elongated, knuckle-dragging arms, no pea-sized head, no instinctive savagery.
The question that I wonder is: was Lawrence designed this way on purpose, or was Scott just so used to seeing the entirety of black men in comics this way that it was actually accidental? And which would be sadder?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I suspect that the entirety of your analysis, observation, insight, and question exists entirely within your own head. To wit, would you even bother thinking any of this if the skin colors of Archie and Lawrence were switched. Why attribute to chance and artistic choices some unconsious racisim that only you can make obvious and overtly objectionable? What powers did you want the author to come up with that have no point of attachment for his readers as animals might? (Although the only animals I saw were the hawkmen, rhinoguy and the rodent.) What, The Hulk, the most obvious thing he is referring too was not 'coded' enough for you to assume? If you had read the comments below the comic you would have heard this explicitly, as well as having your wonder over the heroes slowed ageing explained. Or, before vilifying and slandering a stranger you could have asked the author directly, but I guess that would be too polite for you.
Oh for Pete's sake. :roll:
People and their analyzing.
Try reading it WITHOUT the racist goggles on. Then get back to me. :-D
Also, I try not to get my undies in a bunch about blogs, but after reading through it again I couldn't help, but feel a little "upset" about your remark to my native american heritage. Escpecially in a blogpost about rascism.
Being part indian (yes, I know the politically correct term is Native American) is something I'm proud of. Call it snarky sarcasm, but your remark and the way you went about doing your article REALLY makes you come off as a biggot.
Wow! Another "deep" analyzing blog, that's full of holes.
As a female reader I think that Scott has approached the genre in a very new way. Diana, his main female character, doesn't look her age, but if you bothered to read the comic you'd know that she's 93 years old!! From what I understand she's meant to look like a very fit woman in her late forties. Take another look at her... How many superheroines have you seen with even slight bags under her eyes or creases around her mouth? She's definately not built like a rock. I've even noticed "love handles" in some of the pics. And I'm pretty sure that Diana won't poke anyone's eyes out with her breasts either.
Your remarks about Lawrence (lastname Johnson) are pretty weak. First off, it's not too much of a secret that black men were pretty much kept in their own platoons etc. I think it's strange that they would even let him into a program that was meant to make superheroes. That's the way it was back then.
And a monkey? Really? He looks as much a monkey as The Hulk does. Only main differance is skin color. Then you compare him to the "white dude" with the similar power. And how much less of a "monster" he is. Do I have to point out that he was made by NAZIS? He looks exactly like a super aryan would look like.
Besides that, Lawrence seems to be the only one with real sense in his head about trying to forget all the stuff done to him. He even kept to his vow of never using his transforming powers again.
This analysis really reads like someone who likes the comic (you started by complimenting the art and storytelling), but then took a sharp left turn. Almost as if you realized that "Good reviews always turn nasty"
Well, damn. I have no idea how any of you could have found my blog, given that it has a readership of about eight people, but I must say I am flattered to know that I am worth a personal response from the very author I was posting about!
Now, to address the comments!
Anonymous:
Before vilifying and slandering a stranger? When did I ever do that? I said, this fact that Lawrence turns into a big monkey exists. I said, this fact that the white dude does not turn into a big monkey exists. I said this is similar to a pattern found in the entirety of comics. At no time did I say, “Scott Austin is a vile racist cur.” I said that there are two possible explanations for this monkey character: targeted racism, or that he was influenced by the aforementioned entirety of comics and did not think about it. This latter, far more likely, in and of itself not a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing if someone is unwilling to confront it. I think perhaps you are a very big fan of Scott’s comic, and feel that by liking this comic, you stand accused of racism if Scott is; I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of this. I present it as a possibility, with the other, more likely, possibility being simply that Scott (by extension you) did not think about it. Again, such a thing does not an evil man make, unless people refuse to acknowledge the possibility that someone who points it out might be right. If knee-jerk defence gets in the way of even considering that something you don’t like to hear may be true, then there is a problem.
Why attribute to chance and artistic choices some unconscious racism that only I can make obvious and overtly objectionable? I don’t understand your point here. Is it better if it is just subtly there, not pointed out? Is it better that the racism is unconscious and let slide, rather than pointed out where it could be addressed? Is it too embarrassing to talk about, that someone might have slipped up? Further, only I could possibly read the comic this way? If you would like, I can link you to a vast, vast number of blogs on this same general topic of racism in comics. I am hardly original.
As to Hulk references, perhaps my own Hulk references were too subtle. I clearly understand the reference: however, I also note the differences, such as Hulk not having a gorilla crop of hair on his arms, chest, and back (which, I also note, Lawrence does not have either in his human form), Hulk maintaining a basic human proportion in the length of his arms compared to legs, and so forth. The white dude in the comic maintains proportion, levels of body hair, head size, etc., as well. Lawrence does not.
Lastly, why must I ask the author something personally? Am I not entitled to my opinion, which I post on my own blog? Are other people not entitled to their opinion of me for it? Are you not entitled to post in the comments section your opinion, without reference to me first?
Scott #1:
Well, that was very honest of you to say it, although I have to say I am a little disappointed. You could try looking outside of your own opinion instead of dismissing mine as me having my “racist goggles” on.
In case you feel accused like Anonymous above, I am not saying you are racist. I am only saying that there is an element of your comic that appears racist, very probably through no wilful intention. Actually, I would even say very certainly through no wilful intention, given that you seem somewhat disturbed at the idea.
Given that this reading of your comic exists, it might be something to think about when designing your next black superhero.
Scott #2:
And here I get to pay attention to myself about knee-jerk defences, as my first instinct is to say, no way! I never said! and then follow up with a defence of how not-racist I am.
I do apologise for causing you to feel that your heritage was belittled. I meant no offence, and certainly not to marginalize your Cherokee lineage.
However, I do not see where I have done so. I will be grateful if you would point it out to me: please do not read this as a challenge to the validity of your feelings. I really do not see, and I should like to educate myself in the matter.
The way I meant the comment was as a (as you point out, sarcastic) way of reconciling the statements that you are from Scandinavia (implying Scandinavian birth), American (implying American birth or naturalization, birth conflicting with being from Scandinavia), with Cherokee blood, now living in Finland.
Kirsi:
Why do people assume I have not read the comic or comments? Obviously I have, as the comments are where Scott states he is part Cherokee.
Yes, he has approached it in a new way, hasn’t he? I have said I like it. I have said I can forgive such things as Diana ageing unlike any woman I ever saw, and much slower than the men. Maybe she gets Botox where they don’t and dyes her hair. The fact is, she ages slower than them, looking at least ten-twenty years younger. The reason I can forgive this is because there may be a valid explanation for it. Women take care of their appearance better than men on average: see dye and Botox argument.
The military was segregated in WWII, you are right. Are you theorizing that Lawrence (no codename as far as I could find) was made into a monkey on purpose by the military scientists, to spare a white person a similar fate? This would be a super-awesome origin story, if it were canon.
Lawrence not a monkey, though; just like Hulk? No. Here I must disagree with you, and I can provide a selection of shots to illustrate it if you would like. Hulk does not have long knuckle-dragging arms. He does not have the dense, fur-like hair that covers Lawrence’s chest, arms, and back in his hulked-out version (which again, Lawrence does not have in his normal form!). Hulk’s head is larger in proportion to his size, and his facial features are far less distorted from what they originally were.
I never said Lawrence was not an admirable character, you know. It was a statement about how this comic exactly conforms to the pattern set by a very large majority of other comics in that the powers given to black people are always brutal, animalistic powers.
Lastly, you are right, I do like the comic. You only mistake that I took a sharp left turn. I like the comic well enough that when the collected issues come out in book form, I will buy it. Just because I can see a flaw in a facet of the comic does not mean that I think it’s a hideous piece of trash that should never be used for other than wiping paper.
Wow. O.o Lotsa discussy! You had READERS. :) Fun.
I'm not good at seeing subtle/implied/underlying racist stuff, so I never do. Here either, really, except the monkey thing might be a point, but not on purpose evidently (especially after reading author's comment).
Also: I don't think that old dude looks like Samuel L. Jackson at ALL.
But you phrase yourself nicely. :) Good for you. And you're conscious and alert and have opinions. Which is also good. I'm looking forward to you solving that code-thing when you find secrets that can alter reality. It will be nice.
<3 u!
Hmmm, also, to Scott Austin: I can't see how she slighted your heritage in any way. Even I got that "You can't be Native American without a feather" was irony directed at people who Are in fact prejudiced towards Native Americans, and to the presentation of them in media.
Even though she saw aspects of your comic that she didn't like, she was very careful NOT to call YOU a racist. So there is no need to call her a bigot.
The internet is a pretty small place. Someone mentioned that Heroes, inc. was being called racist. That's how I happened to be here.
To clear one thing up, as clearly stated on my site: "An American living in Finland" Can't be much clearer than that... :-)
Now Lawrence. My biggest inspiration for his "hulk" form was, besides The Hulk, Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Especially the versions from "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "Van Helsing" both versions had humongous arms and yes, I guess a bit on the gorilla/animalistic side. And the idea was also not to just plain copy The Hulk OR Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde, but to create something a bit new.
Racism is racism only if it's intentional. Otherwise, as in this case, it's just coincidence. No matter what others see in it. Lawrence is just another super hero. If he was white, would this being going on? I very much doubt it.
What kind of superhero are black people allowed to be? Once you start thinking about it that way, that's when you start getting into racist territory.
I suppose I should own up to "someone" being me who posted the original comment & linked to this blog on Heroes, Inc.
I was curious about how the author might respond. It's been interesting to see Mr Austin's response, as well as what other fans have said.
It's possible to write a lengthy-worded, detailed study of a block of wood and call it a racist.
It's unfortunate that you see so much "unconsious racism" in this great comic. I see quite the opposite. I'm not exactly a comic book expert, but I know lot's of "white" brutal, animalistic heroes, but not one "black" one. Creators avoid it, be cause they're afraid of these kinds of reactions.
Blacks are allowed to be brutal heroes too! Even with long, hairy arms. :-D
Kirsi:
"It's possible to write a lengthy-worded, detailed study of a block of wood and call it a racist."
I doubt that. Very much. You may take it as a challenge if you wish.
Kris: <3 you too!
Scott: Hmm, I’m not entirely sure I agree with you about racism being required to be intentional before it is racism. Not to get in a political argument, but I’m pretty sure that Senator Reid wasn’t intentionally being bigoted when he said that Obama has “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” and that this was a helpful thing for Obama. It was simply a lack of awareness.
Leaving that aside, I suppose what seems to be the key issue here is whether Lawrence is racist or not. I completely and totally believe you when you say it was coincidental. I am not saying that your comic is racist. I am saying this particular character comes off as racist, not in his human form (by the way, thank you for portraying a priest in such a respectful manner; I’m sick to death of comics that make fun of religion and I am glad yours is not one), but in his super form.
Analyzed on its own, your comic and your choice are not necessarily racist. You just happened to pick the black dude to fill that role. But your comic does not exist in a vacuum. I was using your comic as an example of a phenomenon in the entirety of comics.
Let us theorize that you picked the black dude to fill that role because you thought Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde/Hulk were the coolest superheroes ever, and why not give the coolest role to a black person, because hey, black people are cool? Then your motives are totally pure. But you make this choice in a world where so many have not had that motive, where your choice’s end result tallies with blacks being relegated to the brutal, savage roles by less well-intentioned people.
The main point of my post, which since I focused on using Lawrence as a case study might be missed, was not to say “Omg, Heroes Inc. is racist drivel!” but rather to point out the phenomenon and how sad it is that it exists.
You say this issue wouldn’t come up if Lawrence were white. You are right, it wouldn’t, but not because I don’t care about white people being portrayed in a way that is unfair to them. It is because most superheroes are white, and thus are not confined to physical, “natural” roles. If the majority of comic heroes were black and white people were always given these roles, you bet I would raise the issue.
Jess: Well, the mystery is solved.
Kirsi: O.O A racist block of wood? I’d actually be interested in seeing that argument, just to see what kind of logic (or lack thereof) would be used to back it up!
Yes, it is unfortunate that I see that, isn’t it? Too bad that the golden and silver-aged black heroes were so racist, otherwise I might not. The sins of the father are visited upon the sons, eh?
As to not knowing any black heroes that follow the tendencies I’m talking about… well which ones have you seen? Strength, speed, or “natural” qualities: lets see… Luke Cage, strength, Spawn, demonic powers, Storm, the natural weather witch, Falcon, commune with the birds, Shadowhawk, strength and agility, Misty Knight, strength, Bronze Tiger, martial artist, Black Panther, do I even need to tell you his ability? Shango the Thunderer, Black Goliath, and so forth. I can go on all day.
Pretty much the ones that do not fall in this category are those that used to be white, such as Green Lantern. Jon Stewart rocks, though. :)
Of course black heroes are allowed to be brutal. I am only concerned when this seems to be all they are allowed to be.
As for how this affects Scott’s comic, well, I’m interested to see what the African’s power will be.
Hmmm... It seems you missed the point with Kirs's "block of wood" statement, which I think was simply that you can write about ANYTHING and make it seem racist.
Another arguement, that you really didn't answer was the point about there not really being any "brutal, animalistic" black superheroes. Creators tiptoe around these characters to prevent these types of situations.
The list you gave only backs up Kirs's point. None of those heroes, except for maybe Spawn, are close to being brutal and animalistic. They all have "clean" powers. Strength, agility, control of the weather. The Black Panther might sound animalistic to some people, but in reality he's basically Africa's Batman.
I can think of an even longer list, but so far haven't found enough evidence to back up your claim that african american heroes are ALWAYS portrayed as brutal animals.
Sorry, just isn't so. Quite the opposite. So I wonder why it is, that you think that all black heroes are portrayed as brutal animals.
And which can be considered more racist, making a stereotypical "strongman" from the ghetto or what I've done with Lawrence?
"Hmmm... It seems you missed the point with Kirs's "block of wood" statement, which I think was simply that you can write about ANYTHING and make it seem racist."
I didn't miss the point. I'm not dumb. I simply disagree. I don't think one can make ANYTHING seem racist, at least not using logic and feasible arguments.
I do think negative aspects can be exaggerated and over-analyzed. But a reader would then easily see through that.
Also, for the record, that is what this blogpost looks like to *me*, being Norwegian and not at all conscious of racist tendencies in... well, anything, really. I just don't see it. So I lean more towards agreeing with Mr Austin on this matter than with you, Mjinga. Sorry. ;)
Post a Comment