Slashdot Mirror
Spiderman's Politically Correct Replacement
jbarr writes "In the latest Marvel Comic series 'Ultimate Fallout,' Miles Morales replaces Peter Parker who has been killed off by the Green Goblin. Morales is a half-black, half-Latino teen, and the creators haven't ruled out that he might be gay. From the article: 'Marvel's editor in chief Axel Alonso denied that having a black Spider Man was a publicity stunt. 'What you have is a Spider-Man for the 21st century who's reflective of our culture and diversity. As someone who grew up on a steady diet of Luke Cage, Hero For Hire and Shang Chi, Master of Kung Fu, I am personally invested,' he said. "
How is a half-black, half-Latino teenager more politically correct than a white teenager?
Next up, Wolverine's special two-part Bar Mitzvah issue! L'chaim!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Bendis is still writing the books. He has written good books for the last 11 years. I think we can give this a chance. If he had introduced a spider-man that was too close to the old peter parker this title would have jumped the shark. There is no reason to retread that ground in this title. If you want peter parker read amazing spider-man.
Political correctness is daintily tip-toeing around words and phrases because those words or phrases may or may not be taboo relative to modern cultural, racial, religious, sexual, etc. constructs.
A Spiderman with non-white ethnic background is just diverse. Anyone can get bitten by a radioactive spider.
terrible, antagonizing post title. having minority characters isn't inherently politically correct. sometimes it's just real.
Raj: I can't wait to ask Stan Lee why he insists on giving all his characters first and last names that start with the same letter.
Howard: Oh, come on. Why would you do that?
Raj: Bruce Banner, Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Stephen Strange, Otto Octavius, Silver Surfer, Peter Parker, oh, and worst of all, J. Jonah Jameson, Jr.
Howard: Okay, I'm cutting. I'm not gonna talk to Stan Lee after you cheese him off.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Yeah the Daily Mail could tell me that today is Wednesday and I'd still double-check.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
RTFA: because in the 21st century, everyone is black and latino and a teenager and gay. Duh.
So, you can be Hispanic if you have lived in southern California for the past 10 generations or if you Nazi grandparents had fled to Argentina. Which can lead to some interesting situations. For example, my mom was classified as by her employer as Hispanic when there was a democratic was president and not when a republican was president. And while Mexicans and Peruvians think of themselves different, I would be most would think of themselves as hispanic - just like English and Germans would thenk of themselves as different and yet both as European.
Yes, the Daily Fail routinely picks up on stories that are true but then purposefully leaves out necessary facts in their reporting in order to create a controversy that doesn't exist. In this story they leave out the fact that this is in an alternate universe comic series. In the main series, Spiderman is still white bread Peter Parker. From what Daily Fail would like you to believe, Marvel has removed Peter Parker entirely yet this is just not true.
All those blacks, latinos, and gays walking around -- who knew that their very existence is a challenge to samzenpus and jbarr's political beliefs?
Certainly comics should only depict people who look like the vast majority in the United States as of 1950. They should only be marketed toward those people, who rightfully define our country in their own image. Anything else would be politically ... umm .... incorrect.
It's what conservatives whine when people don't let them engage in overt racism or when others refrain from racism. So yes, a black/hispanic gay Spiderman is "politically correct." However, I don't think Marvel should limit it's art to appease people who cry "Political correctness!" They want to tell a story about someone who reflects the new America and I think the gay angle is great because Spiderman has always been an underdog.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Italian artist Sara Pichelli, who designed Spider-Man's new look, added: 'Maybe sooner or later a black or gay - or both - hero will be considered something absolutely normal.’
How about you make a NEW superhero that is black or gay, or whatever, and for the superheroes that I grew up with just leave them the fuck alone! Where's your goddamn originality? Of course this is a fucking gimmick to make money, you stupid asshole!
This would be more newsworthy if Marvel hadn't created a Hispanic Spider-man 20 years ago and a Hispanic Spider-Girl 8 years ago.
...is they essentially undid all of Peter's character development, erased his marriage, made him back to a 'single nerdy guy'...and then killed him off and replaced him.
Hey, idiots? Why not just, I dunno, injure him, or remove his powers, or something, and let him retire in peace with his wife? And then have a new guy take over?
Yes, yes I'm aware Peter will probably be back from the dead, and take back up his position, but, seriously. Either you keep the character as he's changed and grown over the years, or you should just let him walk off into the sunset and bring in some new young single person for people to relate to. You don't rewrite his life and then kill him off and then bring in someone new.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"Need your clothes, boots and and foreskin."
"You forgot to say L'chaim!"
The framing of this article seriously makes me want to take Slashdot off the list of sites I look at. Politically correct? Because he's not white? Cowardly, pissant, fragile ego white kids need to get over themselves. And now.
Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
"'Marvel's editor in chief Axel Alonso denied that having a black Spider Man was a publicity stunt. 'What you have is a Spider-Man for the 21st century who's reflective of our culture and diversity. As someone who grew up on a steady diet of Luke Cage, Hero For Hire and Shang Chi, Master of Kung Fu, I am personally invested,' "
Ok, first, you're also personally invested in staying employed. I figured that out.
And you're also a hypocrite, or just a Progressive. 'denied having a black Spider Man was a publicity stunt? There is virtually NO OTHER REASON to do this, than to gain publicity and sales.
Please. Don't apologize or try to justify this as anything other than sales driven. It's ok. You are in the business of selling comics. Grow a set of your own and be comfortable with your career. Sheesh. Such disingenous BS leaves me with no respect for ya, Axel.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Marvel's been saying that Ultimate Peter Parker is going to die and be replaced by a new hero for months now, and there was very little complaint outside of a few people who didn't want to see Peter die and a few people that didn't think anybody else should be called Spider-Man. Now that we know he's not white, there's articles all over the mainstream media and even slashdot complaining that he's "Politically Correct"?
I can respect people who don't want to see Peter die and people that don't think anybody expect Peter should be Spidey, but if you think that the new Spider-Man is "politically correct", then you're the racist here, not Marvel Comics.
I see this whole "preferential treatment" BS a lot. Before you go spouting off again, here are a few things to keep in mind. Let's take African-Americans as an easy example, since that is where Affirmative Action is almost always applied.
For hundreds of years, African-Americans were brutally oppressed. All of a sudden, in 1964, it became illegal to discriminate against them in many places, such as housing, jobs, etc. However, it's not like on midnight July 2, all of a sudden, African-Americans, who had been systematically denied access to things like education, job opportunities, social infrastructure, etc. were equipped with all of the tools, knowledge, and contacts to really be equal. And it's not like all of a sudden, the vast white infrastructure steeped in bigotry and racism suddenly said, "You know, let's give these folks a fair chance."
Unfortunately, what happened is that racism continued in various forms, just as it continues today. You have two candidates, one African-American and one majority white, applying for a job, each with equal qualifications? The theory behind giving the job to the African-American is two-fold. First of all, it is an effort to try to right the wrongs of centuries past. That African-American person who gets the job will now be able to send their kids to college, to integrate themselves in a more equal social structure, to provide much-needed diversity that will make opportunities truly equal, not just equal "on paper." Secondly, as for the white candidate that got turned down? Don't feel too sorry for him or her. Statistically speaking, that person has a much better chance at finding another job, and getting paid more for it, than his African-American counterpart would were the situation reversed.
People kill me, acting like those poor white people are so disadvantaged because of Affirmative Action. The stats just don't bear that out. I don't know a single white person who has ever said, "Wow, I wish that I were African-American!" because their job prospects would be better. They're not. I don't know a single white person who has ever said, "Wow, I wish that I were African-American!" because they wanted better pay. Why do you think that the recent recession has hammered minority communities a lot harder than white communities? Because even today, almost 50 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, there are huge disparities in minority employment and minority pay as compared to their white counterparts. So yeah, poor white people, being all discriminated against with Affirmative Action. What's your idea for providing equal opportunity and upholding the Civil Rights Act?
Also, one thing that I think is lost on a lot of people is that it's not like if you have a large company, you have to have a 50/50 split of minority/majority employees. Affirmative Action only kicks when when there is such a significant statistical deviation from the norm that you are obviously discriminating in your hiring practices. If you have 2,000 employees in an area where minority population is, say, 20%, but only 3% of your employees are minorities, something's wrong, and you're going to get bitten. If 19% or 18% of your employees are minorities, you're not going to have a problem.
So when people gripe about Affirmative Action, I have to ask, okay, so what exactly do you think should be the result of flagrantly disregarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Let's say I'm a company with 2000 employees, and I have an implicit hiring policy not to hire any minorities, which is against the law. If there's no Affirmative Action, what's the punishment? I get to just keep right on discriminating and hiring white people exclusively because I hand-wave the law off saying, "they make better candidates"? I'm not asking at what point you draw the line between someone discriminating and someone not, but if you're against Affirmative Action, you're basically saying there should be no line, and without some sort of
They would say yes in the US, no if in Mexico.
Would a pre-Zionism Ashkenazi and a pre-Zionism Falasha think of themselves as the same race? What if their descendents are serving side-by-side in the same Tsahal outpost?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
But everyone knows that only Americans that agree with my political beliefs are real Americans.
Support SETI@home