Jedi Council Forums - What Caused Captain America to die?

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Author	Topic: What Caused Captain America to die?
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 11/27/07 2:48pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	You know, Gonk had the definitive post for this thread so far, which represent the type of posts that would keep a thread from being locked. It also contained quite a few points for discussion. When faced with a thread like this, it's always good to stop and look around. 1)If one of the forum mods already has a reply in the thread, and it isn't locked, there's a good chance that it's being given a chance, and in fact, isn't being locked right away. 2)If one misses that clue, then one can also look to the top of the forum. If it says The Senate Floor, and not one of the other social forums, "in before the lock posts" don't really fit in. Now, going back to Gonk's reply, I think he's hit on the interesting aspect of popular culture, in that the power of a story comes from each interpretation. Who remembers the other big death story line-The Death of Superman? Superman's comic death began in late 1992, and resolved itself on Jan, 1993- at the same time Bill Clinton was inaugurated. To understand that symbolism, one would have to go back to Ronald Reagan, who was represented in the popular media as "Superman." (The best example was Genesis's music video "Land of Confusion," where puppet Reagan was running around in a Superman suit.) By 1992-3, HWBush had lost re-election, the Cold War was coming to an end, and Superman's "global focus" was being transitioned into a world of Bat-Man's ambiguity. So then, what did Superman's "death" represent? Was it both a positive and negative representation of the time? As with any story, all of the impact was a result of the reader drawing their own conclusions as they put themselves into the story. Of course, at the basic level, it also sold millions of copies when Superman's sales were in a slump. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Moderator Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 11/27/07 3:03pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	Captain America died of a broken heart...when he saw the third X-Men movie. -----signature----- Malthusian Doomsday Quack
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 11/27/07 3:09pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	Captain America didn't have that strong of feelings for the X-Men. Now, the Daredevil movie... That easily caused Cap's premature death, and represented the beginning of the end of life on Earth. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 11/27/07 3:57pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	nancyallen posted: I was reading up on Captain America and how he was killed off in comics to come across how the state of America at the moment was what killed him rather than a sniper's bullet. What I mean by this is how in the past few years it appears that America and American values have become hated, America being a dominantly Christian country and atheists, to be fair antitheists (those who oppose religion rather than simply don't believe in it) mainly target Christianity. And how these values and American patriotism have become so bad that the symbol of America has to be killed off because of how bad it's all gotten. Below are a few links that explain it better. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-young/captain-america-19412007_b_42966.html http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/03/why_captain_america_had_to_die.html http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/captain-america/2007/03/09/ Your thoughts? Just to clarify, not one of those articles has anything to do with anti-theism or even the notion that religion plays an essential role in American values. In fact, the people who 'killed Cap' aren't anti-theists but rather those who exploit religious devotion and "patriotism". There's a difference between waving a flag and actually standing up for your country. Bush and his ilk have waved a lot of flags, and with great success. Post-9/11 flag-waving gave them a few good years of "If you criticize our Commander in Chief, you're unpatriotic/unAmerican!!" from a large portion of the citizenry. The neocons duped a lot of people into forgetting that the American flag is just a symbol. The flag itself isn't what's important; what matters is what the flag stands for. Unfortunately, both in America and the world at large, the American flag has come to symbolize the current administration's corrupt imperialism moreso than the values of freedom and equality that it should represent. An American flag without American values backing it is nothing more than a pretty piece of cloth. The thing that's kept Captain America from becoming just an empty symbol is that although he wears the stars and stripes, he doesn't stand for the stars and stripes. He stands for the values behind the stars and stripes. One of the big problems with the American flag is that it stands for both the American government and American ideals. At times when the government is out of touch with American ideals, it's hard to look at an American flag and know which one it's supposed to represent. And when you don't know what a symbol is supposed to stand for, it becomes a useless symbol. I'm not going to put an American flag on my car and risk people thinking I'm dumb enough to support the Bush administration. On the topic of religion in American values, I think 'anti-theism' is a much smaller part of the problem than you're suggesting. Most 'anti-theism' is just anti-government-supported-theism, something which is very much in line with the traditional American value of religious freedom. Government support or endorsement of any religious systems or beliefs over any others (including atheism) violates that principle of freedom. Yes, there is a fringe segment of true anti-theists, who would like to see all religion outlawed, but they are neither powerful or influential enough to be responsible for any major decline in American values.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
nancyallen Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 11/27/07 4:13pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	Mr44 posted: What do you want your focus to be, and how can the comic be used to support it? The topic is how American values and ideals have become so disliked and corrupt that it was deemed necessary to kill off Captain America. Some people place the blame on George Bush but I'm focusing more on the view of the country rather than the man leading it, and how low the view of America has become, so low that an American symbol is killed off. Gonk posted: This depends on what you mean by "American values", really. I think the big one would have to do with America's foreign policy in how it polices the world. This would be more a political stance than a national one but Americans would engage the Soviet bear in low scale conflicts or South American militia and drug operations and no one batted an eye, whereas now the President and the country are under intense scrutiny and criticism for everything they do, or don't do, not without some justification I will admit. Gonk posted: If you're talking about things like Athiesm/Anti-Theism for instance, I fail to see how things are any more so in that department today than they were in the 60s and 70s in America. Not to make this an attack on atheism, but in my experience atheists have shown a healthy dislike to America, and I wonder if part of the reason for it is because of the dogmatic Christian President and country, much like Americans might see Islamic extremism. Gonk posted: If you're talking in terms of international respect, perhaps it might be appropriate to kill him off now, but it was a long time in coming. You think it's been something that's been building ever since Vietnam? I dunno, it seems to have been with Bush being President that there really has been a showing of anti American sentiment. LBJ and Nixon had earned the ire they receive, no question. Ford, well I think much of the weakness people criticize Clinton for is equated with him. Reagan, certainly there's mixed feelings about him, the Bush of that era probably wouldn't be an exaggeration. Clinton, as I said people thought he was too weak. So with all these people who you could say are bad in one way or another, and one that is demonized by the world, policy at an all time low, anti Americanism at an all time high, one could see how this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Mr44 posted: Now, going back to Gonk's reply, I think he's hit on the interesting aspect of popular culture, in that the power of a story comes from each interpretation. Like Star Wars, how it goes into Vietnam, World War II and the like. Mr44 posted: Who remembers the other big death story line-[i]The Death of Superman? Yeah I remember that, and how much of a issue it was at the time. Mr44 posted: By 1992-3, HWBush had lost re-election, the Cold War was coming to an end, and Superman's "global focus" was being transitioned into a world of Bat-Man's ambiguity. So then, what did Superman's "death" represent? Was it both a positive and negative representation of the time? As with any story, all of the impact was a result of the reader drawing their own conclusions as they put themselves into the story. That's quite interesting. The death and return of Superman being something of an allegory of the death of the Cold War and the birth of...terrorism say? Changing the focus from one issue to another? That we are no longer looking at clear cut good guys and bad guys and instead are growing up to see the shades of gray and moral ambiguity in all people? Well most people at least. I do think it has at the very least shifted gears in terms of moving away from not just childhood as Superman and to some extent all comics have been in to something more grown up (from addressing important adult social issues in X Men to having darker characters, heroes even) Superman by and large had been a relic of the first half a century, times had changed and much like James Bond needed to change, ergo the Lois and Clark smash hit. -----signature----- Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 11/27/07 4:39pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die? - Date Edited: 11/27/07 4:39pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon
	nancyallen posted: Mr44 posted: By 1992-3, HWBush had lost re-election, the Cold War was coming to an end, and Superman's "global focus" was being transitioned into a world of Bat-Man's ambiguity. So then, what did Superman's "death" represent? Was it both a positive and negative representation of the time? As with any story, all of the impact was a result of the reader drawing their own conclusions as they put themselves into the story. That's quite interesting. The death and return of Superman being something of an allegory of the death of the Cold War and the birth of...terrorism say? Changing the focus from one issue to another? That we are no longer looking at clear cut good guys and bad guys and instead are growing up to see the shades of gray and moral ambiguity in all people? Well most people at least. I do think it has at the very least shifted gears in terms of moving away from not just childhood as Superman and to some extent all comics have been in to something more grown up (from addressing important adult social issues in X Men to having darker characters, heroes even) Superman by and large had been a relic of the first half a century, times had changed and much like James Bond needed to change, ergo the Lois and Clark smash hit. It's an interesting interpretation, but as a side note the Death and Return of Superman arc was much more of a last-minute, 'let's mess with everyone' thing to kill time until they could marry Lois and Clark. When it became a bigger deal with the public they expanded it to a massive, multi-series mega-event. It wasn't consciously politically motivated in the same way as the Death of Cap was (at least according to all the interviews with those involved in killing Superman).
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 11/27/07 8:47pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die? - Date Edited: 11/27/07 8:50pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	JKH, how do you differentiate between what US foreign policy was from 1946 up until 2001? Because I'd say, even factoring in what happened on 9/11, there wasn't that large of shift that occurred over multiple administrations. What was the role of the US in high profile examples like the Korean War, the Suez Crisis, Vietnam, the Iranian Revolution, and every Banana Republic conflict up until Desert Storm and the Balkans? In many ways, it was easier to be a JFK or Reagan from a policy standpoint. Kennedy could take the world (not just the US, mind you) to the brink of nuclear war and still fall on the side of righteousness. Reagan could make a joke in public that "the Soviet Union was outlawed, the bombing will begin in 10 minutes.." and still have everyone laugh along with him. The stakes were certainly greater under the bipolar world, but the US was still operating under the expectation that was thrust upon it. At the basic level, the US was just as imperialistic, if not moreso, under JFK...The US was just as polarizing under Reagan... I'm just interested in seeing how you bring imperialism into play now, especially in relation to the US's role in the world since WWII. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
SuperWatto Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 11/28/07 3:43am Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die? - Date Edited: 11/28/07 3:43am (1 edits total) Edited By: SuperWatto
	What caused Captain America to die? $$$ What caused Superman to die? $$$ What caused Chewbacca to die? $$$ Of course, individual authors might have had a less mundane reason, but when choices about franchises this size are made in board rooms, the dollar has the final word. If ya wanna talk about a good current comic that's currently out there reflecting the times - check DMZ -----signature----- TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 11/28/07 9:54am Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	Not to make this an attack on atheism, but in my experience atheists have shown a healthy dislike to America, and I wonder if part of the reason for it is because of the dogmatic Christian President and country, much like Americans might see Islamic extremism. Well it might be the same dynamic, just much reduced. But there's other factors as well: the fact that the US is also the most powerful nation in the world. I also don't know that native Athiests (American Athiests) are necessarily anti-American. and not all Athiests abroad are like that (Christopher Hitchens the notorious example). However the is a general feeling in the first world that America resists trends the rest of the first world is following. Generally speaking this doesn't cause all that much concern, but it causes a lot the greater the effect you have over the country in question. Therefore in a year where not much goes on America could be at a high point in domestic religious followers and it would get less attention if the international status quo was unaffected. However in a year where broad international moves are made (eg.: 2003) the religious fervor could be less prevailant than past years, but get more international attention. That's not to say if domestic US laws went in favor of religion they'd get no international attention; but it would be a heck of a lot less than if the US began changing diplomatic relations, which is the real fulcrum these things move around. You think it's been something that's been building ever since Vietnam? I dunno, it seems to have been with Bush being President that there really has been a showing of anti American sentiment. As a Canadian, I would have to absolutely disagree. It has been building since Vietnam -- although to say that perhaps gives Vietnam undue importance. I am not meaning to say that Vietnam caused MAJOR waves abroad: it caused them much more at home and, naturally, in Vietnam. But there were waves: there were protests in France, in Britain and in Canada. However it is true that these were nothing compared to what was already ongoing in the US and nothing compared to what was to come later. But it serves to say that although Vietnam wasn't a huge drop -- because frankly in countries like Germany, Italy, Germany and Norway they had other concerns -- it was a drop from a point of greater international goodwill that the US has never returned to. The damage of Vietnam to America's international reputation at that time was if anything exaggerated within the US, but it did exist. Had other events not transpired it's feasible things would have mended on thier own because the whole affair meant much more to Americans than anyone else, and gave Americans cause to doubt thier power when abroad few were doubting it. America lost Vietnam but abroad the reaction was clearly "So what? They could still smash us if they wished." For some reasons a lot of people in America didn't think they could do it. LBJ and Nixon had earned the ire they receive, no question. Again, the ire at these two was much mroe domestic than international. The slope of decline from Kennedy is actually not that great -- but I'm saying it WAS a decline from points which Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy enjoyed, and the ground has never been regained. Ford, well I think much of the weakness people criticize Clinton for is equated with him. Ford really didn't have time to affect much. Carter perhaps gained somewhat in some areas, but some of the dark closets opened up around this time with Iran and in the end his single term wouldn't have amounted to much of a gain of respect. Although the fiasco of attempted hostage extraction really didn't help. Reagan, certainly there's mixed feelings about him, the Bush of that era probably wouldn't be an exaggeration. There's few mixed feelings about Reagan abroad. In the US there's mixed feelings -- but you won't get many well-wishers outside of the freinds and confidants of Brian Mulrooney and Margaret Thatcher. The changes Reagan made in the makeup of the country is really where much of this international problem begins. It wasn't all to do with Reagan, but what he represented: this need for Americans to regain prestige that outside the country nobody really thought they needed to regain. Carter spoke as much to it in his own Presidential speeches. Therefore it all came off like overcompensation. Therefore a lot of events are viewed differently. The great performance of the Men's 1980 hockey victory became "OMG MIRACLE ON ICE DIDYOUYEARWEBEATTHESOVIETSANDWE'LLBRINGITUPFORDECADESTOCOME, AND WE'LL NEVER LET YOU FORGET!" Going to the UN to take on the soviets became "the UN didn't like what I did and it didn't upset my breakfast one bit" (translation abroad: screw you, world). A lot of people in Europe were really concerned about the Cold War relationship, and they didn't appreciate Regan coming on the scene early on (because his attitude mellowed later on) and disrupting things they'd be the first to pay the price for. "Bombing begins in five minutes... yeah... funny...". Maybe they didn't understand the disaffected attitude in Aemrica coming out of the '70s, but by the same token America didn't seem to realize the price they were paying to get them out of thier disaffected attitude. But you're seeing it now. The freefall stopped under Bush Snr. -- largely because he made a larger effort to make other nations feel included. But even his administration never moved back in the opposite direction: they mostly just kept quiet about things Reagan had been vocal about. When the Panama invasion occurred, they said virtually nothing about the UN and the UN's attitude recieved only cursory attention in the US. That was better than saying the UN was liable to upset his breakfast, but certainly not the same environment Kennedy had once enjoyed abroad. Clinton, as I said people thought he was too weak. Clinton was worse than Bush Snr; though not nearly as damaging as Reagan had been. As far as I can see Clinton wasn't even aware of an issue -- or much of one -- and let it sit or even took advantage of it. Whatever advantage could have been taken by ending the Cold War that Bush Snr. was trying to push Clinton never followed up on and the question of America's reputation went unrecognized and left adrift. There wasn't any coherent attempt to regain any lost international goodwill and the use of soft power was even more absent than it had been in the previous administration. Everything about Clinton was solving the problem of the moment -- which he did well -- but anything that wasn't on the front burner fell to the wayside. His take on America's international image was less than his take on Global Warming, which he at least peripherally acknowledged. And Bush Jr... well, what does one expect from someone who modelled themselves on Reagan? The problems he's encountered are precisely those inherent with what America rewarded Reagan for in the 1980s. And it seemed ready to do so again until serious foreign policy moves began to be made on those premises, and so naturally collapsed. The reluctance of Europe to seriously aid in the Iraq affair doesn't just have to do with the fact Iraq looked like a doomed affair: it's also because prior to 9/11 they were by then pre-disposed to such an attitude with America and such a seemingly rash and arbitrary move didn't take much to revert things back. It's wrong to think of 9/11 as the height of America's international image. It was really closer to a brief 1 1/2 year RECOVERY of its image (because that one day did more than Clinton or Bush Snr. tried to or were able to accomplish) that was short lived. People in these nations abroad, they have memories. Yes, they remember when America saved them from the Germans/Japanese and helped out a lot with the Soviets (because if America saved them from the Soviets it wasn't as readily apparent as actually fighting those Germans/Japanese). But they also remember the more recent attitudes as well, and that it's very clearly (because American media broadcasts it to us all the time) more about beating the current enemy than saving the oppressed. So with all these people who you could say are bad in one way or another, and one that is demonized by the world, policy at an all time low, anti Americanism at an all time high, one could see how this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. In a sense, yes: basically I'm presenting a declining graph where at best there are only two positive ticks upward -- the barely discernable uptick Carter may have achieved (itself even less decenrable than Vietnam's mild damage to America's rep abroad), and the sizable effect 9/11 had. Everything else has been either downward or at an even slope. All I've been saying is that if you measured the downward angle of these slopes, Bush's would be just as steep as Reagan's and the attitudes that shifted towards America in the 80s -- and possibly less steep. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Alpha-Red Registered: Apr '04	Date Posted: 11/29/07 12:09am Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	nancyallen posted: The topic is how American values and ideals have become so disliked and corrupt that it was deemed necessary to kill off Captain America. Some people place the blame on George Bush but I'm focusing more on the view of the country rather than the man leading it, and how low the view of America has become, so low that an American symbol is killed off. Still, Bush had the opportunity to right things and restore the union between religious and non-religious America. Instead, he chose to feed the war between the two and lent presidential legitimacy to viewpoints that should never have been endorsed.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
nancyallen Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 12/1/07 7:34pm Subject: RE: What Caused Captain America to die?
	Really, this has been something that dates all the way back to Vietnam? Call me ignorant, it seemed to me that Bush was far and away the most persecuted president, I dare say even more so than LBJ or Nixon. Perhaps it has something to do with there being far more media coverage now than there was forty years ago. And sure Vietnam copped a lot of heat, much of deserved, but I don't see Clinton being as demonized as Bush or Nixon. Could that be because there is relief over Clinton not being, Reagan say, or Ford not being Nixon? Alpha-Red posted: Still, Bush had the opportunity to right things and restore the union between religious and non-religious America. Instead, he chose to feed the war between the two and lent presidential legitimacy to viewpoints that should never have been endorsed. This is only my way of thinking, where I see a terrorist group commit an attack that kills thousands of innocent people, I get the impression they are not interested in peace. I cannot speak for the American government, maybe they thought the same thing. -----signature----- Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »