On the impossibility of left wing superheroes

[Lark]

Does anyone have an opinion about the idea that its an impossibility to have left wing or progressive superheroes?

In criminological circles the left criminologists supposed that the law and power were the source of criminality and criminal behaviour through a process of labelling, no power without punishment etc. and that behaviours commonly categorised as criminal were a consequence of maldistribution of resources or the familial cultural and neighbourhood cultural consequences of this maldistribution. Like Weber's idea that every sociological development since Marx was an "argument with Marx" there have been a number of revisions of the original idea right up to and including the division of revisionists into "left realists", not wholly a positive term, and "left idealists", not wholly a positive term either, and later day "critical criminology" in the present.

The idea that there can not be any progressive or left wing superheroes, to me, appears to be a version the "left idealists" view of crime, social stratification etc.

There are two perspectives on this so far as I can tell, one which I think is interesting and requires more thought, another which I think is just vulgar marxist and deserves to be kicked to the curb, I'll clarify.

The first I heard articulated by Michael Moorcock, I think, in a criticism of science fiction and fantasy literature, although mainly fantasy it has got to be said and I think he suggested that science fiction was the more progressive of the two, he suggested that fantasy literature is actually anti-democratic, comparing Lord of The Rings to Mein Kampf, while the King and other members of the Fellowship may be outsiders in the first instance, and the hobbits are lowly mortals, each of the characters who are to the fore, Elf, Dwarf, Human Ranger, are all ubermensch. Revealed as possessing destinies and powers apart from any other. This I think is the more interesting of the two critiques and I suppose this is a feature of literature, far beyond fantasy and only more obvious in the medium of superhero comics, I think it relates to the ideas of heroes and hero worship per se and whether you think those are good things or not, elitist or not, serve privilege or inspire people of any rank and status.

The second is broadly speaking that articulated by Alan Moore in his writing of The Watchmen, it is most exemplified in the DVD release of the Black Freighter (spelling) and mock interviews with the original Watchmen team prior to the anti-mask legislation and emergence of Dr Manhattan as a truly supernormal being as opposed to masked vigilante, in this video the idea that superheroes would become tools of the establishment's political agendas is fully articulated, the bizarre nature of "capes in real life" and the idea that the superheroes existence heralds or calls into being the super villains, therefore the existence of a Dr Manhattan will herald the existence of a greater and more terrible super villain than the world has known up to that point. This is a kind of inversion of the storyline in Batman that it was street crime which "created" the Batman and something further than Tim Burton's hoodlum Jack creates Batman, Batman in turn creates The Joker out of hoodlum Jack (although not everyone has examined this that much and thought Watchmen were oh so original in developing this point). In the grim Watchmen universe rich or privileged vigilantes were given a free hand by authorities to victimise the tragic hoodlum consequences of structural inequalities, in this reality without forfeiting wealth other than ensuring their superiority in combat characters like Bruce Wayne could give full vent to their sadism. Without the Batman there's no Joker, Penguin, Scarecrow, Twoface etc. All ideas which the most recent three part "year one" inspired Batman movies only partially challenged with the idea that Bruce's dad had attempted to correct structural injustice through urban renewal projects of his own. I think this "critique" could be a mature counterbalance to some of the youthful "superheroes are brill" thinking and reflect the readership growing up but I think it goes too far and is outright depressingly cynical.

These arent superficial debates, I dont think, and reflect whether or not its possible or feasible to have something such as crime fighting or law enforcement at all, then further questions about vigilantism, rule of law, voluntarism even come up. Not to mention structural injustice as opposed to personal injustices or individual incidents of criminality and victimisation/survival. What's your view?

 

[sprinkles]

In a way, Violence Jack might be one.

It's set in a post apocalypse though where the strong prey on the weak, and gangs go around raping and killing the remaining populace.

Violence Jack is basically a gigantic ruthless beast man/demon, with some supernatural strength and a huge jack knife that he uses to cut up his opponents, which also gives him his name. He doesn't really follow any rules, but he just has no reason to attack the weak. He ends up helping the weak people when they ask him for nothing in return, saying himself that he sees no reason to refuse. Then he proceeds to chop up the bad guys in horrible ways, then just disappears for a while.

 

[Keirouen]

That's a lot to think about!

Left wing hero? Yeah, sure there could be. A liberal hero would ironically look like a villain to right wingers

Give to the poor. Steal from the rich. Robin Hood?

Fight authoritarian government. Kill dictator pundits. V for Vendetta?

Reject the inadequate legal justice system that lets murderers slip through the cracks. Murder murderers. Dexter?

Those are the real heroes

Batman? Spiderman? Captain America? Etc? These give birth to villains. These guys enforce the imperfect justice system and their justice is safe. Their justice is subjective. Their justice is comforting.

That's why normal superheroes piss me off. They are privileged hypocrites who want to feel good about themselves. They don't really fight for justice. They fight to deal with their issues.

...at least Dexter is honest

 

[Eventhorizon]

Fight the authoritarian goverment? Absolutely not a liberal ideal. Liberals want MORE goverment.

 

[Nixie]

Fight the authoritarian goverment? Absolutely not a liberal ideal. Liberals want MORE goverment.

Rather simplistic view of liberals. I would say that liberals want greater social parity which, as history seems to indicate, cannot be achieved without government intervention.

For example: Sure everybody understands that there is something inherently wrong with making/keeping black/non-whites segregated into places and communities that are basically inferior to those enjoyed by whites (for simplicities sake I will use the term) but nothing was done to enforce this change without liberal movements choosing to interfere with conservative or right leaning stances (let's keep govimmnet outta our bizness).

I think the stance in a lot of fantasy seems to revolve around the idea of noblesse oblige. However the seeming evolution away from social stratification means the ideas of nobility don't come into play as much...the basic premise of someone having a certain skill set/knowledge/mission given to them still smacks of the tenet of noblesse oblige. That if you have the requisite skills, you should have the character to use those skills to enact good on behalf of all men. In a lot of fantasy work though the hero often finds himself to unknowingly be related to nobility or some such contrivance.

I am less familiar with comic book heroes though.

 

[sprinkles]

That's a lot to think about!

Left wing hero? Yeah, sure there could be. A liberal hero would ironically look like a villain to right wingers

Give to the poor. Steal from the rich. Robin Hood?

Fight authoritarian government. Kill dictator pundits. V for Vendetta?

Reject the inadequate legal justice system that lets murderers slip through the cracks. Murder murderers. Dexter?

Those are the real heroes

Batman? Spiderman? Captain America? Etc? These give birth to villains. These guys enforce the imperfect justice system and their justice is safe. Their justice is subjective. Their justice is comforting.

That's why normal superheroes piss me off. They are privileged hypocrites who want to feel good about themselves. They don't really fight for justice. They fight to deal with their issues.

...at least Dexter is honest

Or Violence Jack. He doesn't seem to have any sense of justice, he just seems to hate wicked people. It's not even necessarily that he cares about the weak, he's fairly indifferent to them mostly to the point that some times they get killed from getting in the way and he doesn't seem concerned.

But he does help people. But it seems less out of justice and caring and more out of wanting to kill bad guys. He doesn't go out of his way to kill innocents and at times explicitly protects them, but he's still just Violence Jack.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Rather simplistic view of liberals. I would say that liberals want greater social parity which, as history seems to indicate, cannot be achieved without government intervention.

For example: Sure everybody understands that there is something inherently wrong with making/keeping black/non-whites segregated into places and communities that are basically inferior to those enjoyed by whites (for simplicities sake I will use the term) but nothing was done to enforce this change without liberal movements choosing to interfere with conservative or right leaning stances (let's keep govimmnet outta our bizness).

I think the stance in a lot of fantasy seems to revolve around the idea of noblesse oblige. However the seeming evolution away from social stratification means the ideas of nobility don't come into play as much...the basic premise of someone having a certain skill set/knowledge/mission given to them still smacks of the tenet of noblesse oblige. That if you have the requisite skills, you should have the character to use those skills to enact good on behalf of all men. In a lot of fantasy work though the hero often finds himself to unknowingly be related to nobility or some such contrivance.

I am less familiar with comic book heroes though.

Errr... im not really wanting to get into a discussion about blacks and whites. The democratic party who is mostly associated with the liberal movement was initially associated with the kkk until they distanced themselves. Couple that with democratic policy that actually hurts minorities rather than help them...
I could go on all day about it. However for the purposes here, I simply stated fact. Liberals want larger government so when we talk of an authoritative government and who wants it, Republicans or Democrats, it think its a bit ridiculous to throw that ball into the conservative court alone.

 

[Nixie]

Errr... im not really wanting to get into a discussion about blacks and whites. The democratic party who is mostly associated with the liberal movement was initially associated with the kkk until they distanced themselves. Couple that with democratic policy that actually hurts minorities rather than help them...
I could go on all day about it. However for the purposes here, I simply stated fact. Liberals want larger government so when we talk of an authoritative government and who wants it, Republicans or Democrats, it think its a bit ridiculous to throw that ball into the conservative court alone.

Uh yea but I wasn't talking about democrats or republicans but liberals and conservatives. While it is common to associate one with the other, they are actually different. LOL One set talks about political ideals and the other is in reference to political parties.

Additionally it also depends on what you mean by authoritative. I find it amusing when white guys (if I recall the recent picture you posted) talk about how minorities are hurting too but that is also besides the point.

 

[Lark]

That's a lot to think about!

Left wing hero? Yeah, sure there could be. A liberal hero would ironically look like a villain to right wingers

Give to the poor. Steal from the rich. Robin Hood?

Fight authoritarian government. Kill dictator pundits. V for Vendetta?

Reject the inadequate legal justice system that lets murderers slip through the cracks. Murder murderers. Dexter?

Those are the real heroes

Batman? Spiderman? Captain America? Etc? These give birth to villains. These guys enforce the imperfect justice system and their justice is safe. Their justice is subjective. Their justice is comforting.

That's why normal superheroes piss me off. They are privileged hypocrites who want to feel good about themselves. They don't really fight for justice. They fight to deal with their issues.

...at least Dexter is honest

Well that's the conventional narrative which I dont believe is correct, the bit I've highlighted, I think that's the equivalent of criminological left idealism rather than left realism.

I like Dexter, although I never watched the final season, but there's no mistake that the guy is a psychopath rather than a hero, he targets the trash or kills others of his kind, which is fine by me but I'm not sure its heroism.

The modern Punisher/Frank Castle as imagined by Garth Ennis and all the others afterwards is a very similar example, Ennis' series of Frank Castle in 'Nam before the family were assasinated is very much like Dexter and Dexter's "dark passenger" (the skull motif is actually a disembodied narrator who makes promises to Frank in exchange for him being murderous).

I dont really like modern Punisher and think that classic Punisher was a lot more like Batman, or at the very least like John Rambo at the finish of the movie First Blood (in the book the sheriff or Cornel shoot John Rambo dead and that's the end of that, the book is meant to be a contrast between "Good Korean Vet" vs. "Bad Korean Vet").

Robin Hood, in most folk memories is a good example of the redistributing bandit, although there's been attempts to recover the myth in favour of anglo-saxon nationalism contra the Normans ("Europeans") and also the neo-liberals and capitalist libertarians try to cast him in the roll of a radical tax rebate man.

V for Vendetta is an interesting one, I've read lots of material by Alan Moore reflecting upon this, that book and his Watchmen series are supposed to be his break with traditional thinking in the US/UK, about heroism, about politics, there's a speech in the comics in which V destroys the law courts and he states that he no longer serves justice but serves something else. Personally, I was left thinking and feeling that while V was fighting a totalitarian state that he was a representative of something in potential equally bad, the politics of Ron Paul and his ilk. I like that story and feel conflicted about it as a result, there's a lot of bogus pop-anarchist praise lavished upon it, anonymous and co. are great examples of the utterly confused protest-ism its interpreted as being about.

V's virtual suicide/death on a bomb train headed for government buildings isnt that far removed from the nihilism of so called "martyrdom bombers" and I think the "left that despaired" embraced that sort of "better to die for a perfect vision than to struggle and live imperfectly in an imperfect world" thing too easily aswell, the veneration of Che has a lot to do with that, less to do with being a perpetual revolutionary as is commonly made out.

The best, and sometimes Moore has said so in interviews, explanation for V for Vendetta's storyline playing out as it did is that it had more to do with V's irreparable trauma than politics and his love of The Count of Monte Cristo story and similar literary revenge sagas turning into his own lived out story.

The storylines about his capturing and torturing his protogy to teach them that freedom is a state of mind or state of being are not well worked out and more is presumed by the readership than Moore ever said himself I think. To be honest I felt that was the first indication of the pessimism which would characterise Watchmen, the idea that these "masks" were/are all mad people, that V was mad, driven mad by a regime which was dominated by mad people and produced mad people and by doing so the seeds of its own destruction.

Its like Orwell's "last laugh is on big brother" because it produces wrecks and shells of people, no "ideal men" and will inevitably decay and collapse, a lot of the signs of that collapse are already there.

Although the problem with the left criticism of comic book heroics and superheros is that its not democratic and not everyman cast in the role, it sort of cant be, even when the public come to Spiderman's assistance or protect his identity in Spiderman trilogy they never become the focus, of necessity they cant, although I dont think that's anti-democratic in any ubermensch sense, you know?

There's a lot to talk about on this topic. You're right. Can of worms really.

 

[Matt3737]

Does anyone have an opinion about the idea that its an impossibility to have left wing or progressive superheroes?

In criminological circles the left criminologists supposed that the law and power were the source of criminality and criminal behaviour through a process of labelling, no power without punishment etc. and that behaviours commonly categorised as criminal were a consequence of maldistribution of resources or the familial cultural and neighbourhood cultural consequences of this maldistribution. Like Weber's idea that every sociological development since Marx was an "argument with Marx" there have been a number of revisions of the original idea right up to and including the division of revisionists into "left realists", not wholly a positive term, and "left idealists", not wholly a positive term either, and later day "critical criminology" in the present.

The idea that there can not be any progressive or left wing superheroes, to me, appears to be a version the "left idealists" view of crime, social stratification etc.

There are two perspectives on this so far as I can tell, one which I think is interesting and requires more thought, another which I think is just vulgar marxist and deserves to be kicked to the curb, I'll clarify.

The first I heard articulated by Michael Moorcock, I think, in a criticism of science fiction and fantasy literature, although mainly fantasy it has got to be said and I think he suggested that science fiction was the more progressive of the two, he suggested that fantasy literature is actually anti-democratic, comparing Lord of The Rings to Mein Kampf, while the King and other members of the Fellowship may be outsiders in the first instance, and the hobbits are lowly mortals, each of the characters who are to the fore, Elf, Dwarf, Human Ranger, are all ubermensch. Revealed as possessing destinies and powers apart from any other. This I think is the more interesting of the two critiques and I suppose this is a feature of literature, far beyond fantasy and only more obvious in the medium of superhero comics, I think it relates to the ideas of heroes and hero worship per se and whether you think those are good things or not, elitist or not, serve privilege or inspire people of any rank and status.

The second is broadly speaking that articulated by Alan Moore in his writing of The Watchmen, it is most exemplified in the DVD release of the Black Freighter (spelling) and mock interviews with the original Watchmen team prior to the anti-mask legislation and emergence of Dr Manhattan as a truly supernormal being as opposed to masked vigilante, in this video the idea that superheroes would become tools of the establishment's political agendas is fully articulated, the bizarre nature of "capes in real life" and the idea that the superheroes existence heralds or calls into being the super villains, therefore the existence of a Dr Manhattan will herald the existence of a greater and more terrible super villain than the world has known up to that point. This is a kind of inversion of the storyline in Batman that it was street crime which "created" the Batman and something further than Tim Burton's hoodlum Jack creates Batman, Batman in turn creates The Joker out of hoodlum Jack (although not everyone has examined this that much and thought Watchmen were oh so original in developing this point). In the grim Watchmen universe rich or privileged vigilantes were given a free hand by authorities to victimise the tragic hoodlum consequences of structural inequalities, in this reality without forfeiting wealth other than ensuring their superiority in combat characters like Bruce Wayne could give full vent to their sadism. Without the Batman there's no Joker, Penguin, Scarecrow, Twoface etc. All ideas which the most recent three part "year one" inspired Batman movies only partially challenged with the idea that Bruce's dad had attempted to correct structural injustice through urban renewal projects of his own. I think this "critique" could be a mature counterbalance to some of the youthful "superheroes are brill" thinking and reflect the readership growing up but I think it goes too far and is outright depressingly cynical.

These arent superficial debates, I dont think, and reflect whether or not its possible or feasible to have something such as crime fighting or law enforcement at all, then further questions about vigilantism, rule of law, voluntarism even come up. Not to mention structural injustice as opposed to personal injustices or individual incidents of criminality and victimisation/survival. What's your view?

It's an interesting choice of wording to include 'impossibility' into a discussion related to a form of fiction that is, in effect, rather inclusive of what it means to be 'possible'.

It's important to note the distinction between talking about 'what the stories say' and talking about 'what the stories mean'. It would be highly irrational to confuse the two and make hypothetical associations between real societies/people and fictional societies/people.

If we want to talk about conflict and violence being portrayed in movies and fiction, then it might be appropriate to consider narrative conventions and the practicality of conflict being inherent to the plot of a story. It's nigh impossible to have a story without a plot unless you consider conflict in a very broad, ambiguous, and loosely defined manner from how it is already used (somewhat broad already to include both physical and nonphysical acts of aggressively competing forces). Less conflict in the story equals less catharsis when the resolution is presented.

Similar in effect to this statement:

therefore the existence of a Dr Manhattan will herald the existence of a greater and more terrible super villain than the world has known up to that point

There is no real symbolic reason why Dr Manhattan should possess an archrival or nemesis except that he would then have no purpose within the narrative. His entire existence would be conditional on very trivial premises. I actually think his narrative existence is predicated upon this particular dilemma in a related way to imagining Superman without the existence of kryptonite.

It asks us to contrast 'purpose' and 'conflict' on the level within the story, on the level of the author/artist who is creating the story, and the level of society and interpretations that we, the readers, create about the stories we enjoy.

 

[Nixie]

I also see a bit of religious doctrine in "superheroes" like Spiderman and Superman. The idea that a there are special powers imbued in one character who has the power to radically change people's lives for the better. It seems to be the overarching theme of a lot of superhero fiction. Some do seem to temper the Christ-like figure of superheroes with human foibles but those tend to be story arcs within the series and not a reoccurring theme within the work.

In some ways it reinforces the idea that our (an individual's) salvation lies outside our own control. Where the forces of evil (ala Joker) can wreck havoc on our lives and the savior (ala Batman) can come around with his superpowahs and save us.

 

[Lark]

I also see a bit of religious doctrine in "superheroes" like Spiderman and Superman. The idea that a there are special powers imbued in one character who has the power to radically change people's lives for the better. It seems to be the overarching theme of a lot of superhero fiction. Some do seem to temper the Christ-like figure of superheroes with human foibles but those tend to be story arcs within the series and not a reoccurring theme within the work.

In some ways it reinforces the idea that our (an individual's) salvation lies outside our own control. Where the forces of evil (ala Joker) can wreck havoc on our lives and the savior (ala Batman) can come around with his superpowahs and save us.

I'm not sure that's a religious theme but that is what the whole idea of there being ubermensch (overlords) is about and why authors like Moorcock think that fantasy is anti-democratic, the masses are just cannon fodder.

 

[Nixie]

I'm not sure that's a religious theme but that is what the whole idea of there being ubermensch (overlords) is about and why authors like Moorcock think that fantasy is anti-democratic, the masses are just cannon fodder.

I understand what you are getting at. I was more thinking of the "savior" in terms of an archetype. It is just more commonly understood in the Westernized part of the world to be associated with religious implications.

And I agree on a certain level it creates the Us/Them dynamic and is based on a hierarchal structure. The masses are incapable of saving themselves and thus need the overlord/savior figure. I can see the anti-democratic sentiment though. It is never the will of the people that changes the fate of the world but the will of the overlord/savior. Couple that with the idea that the power to effect change lies within one individual and it seems to be reinforced.

On another level though, it can also be viewed as a salute to the innate power of the individual to bring about change and hearken someone to work toward releasing their "inner hero". It becomes difficult to pin down as totally anti-democratic.

 

[Lark]

I understand what you are getting at. I was more thinking of the "savior" in terms of an archetype. It is just more commonly understood in the Westernized part of the world to be associated with religious implications.

And I agree on a certain level it creates the Us/Them dynamic and is based on a hierarchal structure. The masses are incapable of saving themselves and thus need the overlord/savior figure. I can see the anti-democratic sentiment though. It is never the will of the people that changes the fate of the world but the will of the overlord/savior. Couple that with the idea that the power to effect change lies within one individual and it seems to be reinforced.

On another level though, it can also be viewed as a salute to the innate power of the individual to bring about change and hearken someone to work toward releasing their "inner hero". It becomes difficult to pin down as totally anti-democratic.

Well individual initiative is not necessarily democratic, its merely what it is, individual initiative. Its compatible with ubermensch or any other range of anti-democratic ideals or ideas. Individualistic or socialistic, pluralist or totalitarian.

Again you put it very well and I highlighted it.

I also think there's something about the focus of the comics, I've only read one comic collection, a Punisher comic which I think was called Naked Kills but it could have been another collection (I bought two at once and finished them at once so they are a little mixed up in my head) in which the focus was other characters and he just showed up and disappeared again.

There is one comic which features the Joker and has batman appear at the very finish for a single frame or page, it featured a character called Johnny Frost or something like that but it wasnt even the same sort of thing.

The animated movie Gotham Knight about the Batman of the new/year one movies was good and sort of featured this idea in its first clip, three different stories by kids about seeing the Batman and each of them being different and exaggerated in different ways.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Uh yea but I wasn't talking about democrats or republicans but liberals and conservatives. While it is common to associate one with the other, they are actually different. LOL One set talks about political ideals and the other is in reference to political parties.

Additionally it also depends on what you mean by authoritative. I find it amusing when white guys (if I recall the recent picture you posted) talk about how minorities are hurting too but that is also besides the point.

Ill never be able to win any argument concerning minorities. Apparently, so I am told, I am not part of the solution unless I sit in the corner and dont speak up. I can listen, be told and agree but no more or less than that. Naturally this makes me disappointed to say the least.

Suffering has no race, no sex, no religion. Suffering simply is. It would be nice to think that one day such a thing that seems so completely impossible to fight could actually be brought to pass.

 

[Nixie]

Ill never be able to win any argument concerning minorities. Apparently, so I am told, I am not part of the solution unless I sit in the corner and dont speak up. I can listen, be told and agree but no more or less than that. Naturally this makes me disappointed to say the least.

Suffering has no race, no sex, no religion. Suffering simply is. It would be nice to think that one day such a thing that seems so completely impossible to fight could actually be brought to pass.

LOL *plays tiny violin for Eventhorizon* Not that I don't love melodrama in all it's glory but Please! I was merely pointing out that it is impossible for you to make blanket claims of having some kind of accurate understanding of what it is like to be a minority. I rather doubt that we can effect change without everyone willing to be part of the solution. The paternalistic vein within the US is steeped in an entrenched idea that the White Man (Judeo/Christian) has the "solution" to what is "wrong"....and throughout history has taken action to "solve" the problem. There has, historically, been a complete lack of effort to include/respect/honor everyone's voice at the table....which often shows in the attitude of non-minorities who prattle about how they understand the "problem" without a clue about how patronizing and paternalistic that sounds.

 

[muir]

[video=youtube;Pg2np37JNEg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg2np37JNEg[/video]

 

[Lark]

LOL *plays tiny violin for Eventhorizon* Not that I don't love melodrama in all it's glory but Please! I was merely pointing out that it is impossible for you to make blanket claims of having some kind of accurate understanding of what it is like to be a minority. I rather doubt that we can effect change without everyone willing to be part of the solution. The paternalistic vein within the US is steeped in an entrenched idea that the White Man (Judeo/Christian) has the "solution" to what is "wrong"....and throughout history has taken action to "solve" the problem. There has, historically, been a complete lack of effort to include/respect/honor everyone's voice at the table....which often shows in the attitude of non-minorities who prattle about how they understand the "problem" without a clue about how patronizing and paternalistic that sounds.

That said, history's not a bad record for the paternalistic white man now is it?

Slavery, Theocracy, Absolutism, Nazism, Fascism, Communism? Not bad to have racked them all up for the dust bin of history but if utopia has proven not to arrive on schedule I guess there needs to be someone or something to blame.

So now its "white paternalism"? And "white paternalism" is Judeo-Christian?

Sounds like a whole lot of misdirection, redirection and blaming someone else by people with nothing to show for all their years of struggle, struggle, struggle.

 

[Nixie]

That said, history's not a bad record for the paternalistic white man now is it?

Slavery, Theocracy, Absolutism, Nazism, Fascism, Communism? Not bad to have racked them all up for the dust bin of history but if utopia has proven not to arrive on schedule I guess there needs to be someone or something to blame.

So now its "white paternalism"? And "white paternalism" is Judeo-Christian?

Sounds like a whole lot of misdirection, redirection and blaming someone else by people with nothing to show for all their years of struggle, struggle, struggle.

Merely making a point that within the US the typical definition of being "white" falls along a religious vein associated within the Judeo-Christian faith(s). Jesus Save Me!

And besides I think Malcolm X explained it perfectly when he said that if the ancestors of all those who profited on the labor of non-whites actually had to pay for the labor they extorted then you wouldn't see such a great disparity between differing classes (drawn along race lines in the US more often than not). All those years of "struggle, struggle struggle" are steeped within a historic process of discrimination, the effects of which are less than a generation old. People love to forget that the Civil Rights Movement happened less than a generation ago....in fact, Bush Sr. actively campaigned against Civil Rights and he was our president.

 

[muir]

who are the paternalistic judeo christian white folks behind all this?

Go on.....pin it down!

Watch the resistance grow the closer you move to the inner circle...watch as the opposition voices becoe more shrill in their condemnation!

Go on...i dare ya!