Hey Sup Forums. I'm not an avid member of this board and I apologize if this question has been asked many times before (it probably has), but I'll ask anyway.
Why isn't Steve Rogers a racist, homophobe, ultra religious and probably misogynistic man? He is a guy from the 30's and 40's so it doesn't make much sense that he has such a modern mindset.
I'm using an image from Chris Evans but I'm talking about the character in general, not the MCU version.
Because he's good guy.
Because the narrative that every white male born before 1980 is a monster is bullshit.
But he's from a time when those things weren't consider to be bad at all.
Because Captain America is supposed to represent the best aspects of this country.
Stand beside Freedom and The American Dream.
You're not really either of those if you're a homophobic racist.
because not everybody from the 30s and 40s is an exaggerated redneck cartoon stereotype
also because of marketability
Not everyone from the 40s actually behaved that way. A scrawny irish american kid that grew up in brooklyn, for instance, had a decent chance of not having those beliefs.
He is ultra religious though
That's why he's Captain America and not some uberChad who gets killed in battle. That's the whole reason why he was hand-selected for the Super Soldier serum; because it enhances your physiology, and your personality.
They can't just give the serum to anyone, all willy-nilly.
He's kind of an asshole in the ultimates (2002), it's an edgy alternate universe avengers, that might be what you're looking for
He's not all those things in the primary universe because marvel was hyper progressive in the early years, or at least they tried to be
In a shocking turn of events it turns out that good people can still be nice to others even if they are prejudiced towards them.
The past was a lot more diverse than 1930's media would have been allowed to show. Especially in New York of all places. Steve was the child of Irish immigrants, who were basically treated like how Mexicans are today. Steve was poor and sick, and wouldn't have been treated like shit all his life.
>"I don't like bullies. Doesn't matter where they're from".
He's Irish, so he'd also have been a foil for racism at that time
He was also sickly so he'd be further discriminated against
He should be Catholic as fuck tho
Everybody talks about Cap being kind of a racist crazy guy in Ultimates but aside from being a dick I didn't see that at all.
Exactly. He was also a poor kid who got bullied, had both of his parents die on him, and was instilled with a strong sense of duty and humility.
It's because he was created by people who understood what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country, they want a man who would protect it and have its patriotic values be his morales, he's not going to treat women or people of color and other nationality like dirt because that's not American.
tl;dr: He's presented as what Americans should be regardless of their time period, not what Americans were behaving like at the time he was created.
There were stil people who recognized that they were bad.
Because he represents what the US is supposed to be, not what it is/was
Pretty much all that needs to be said. Nice thread.
He was a poor, scrawny, IRISH, artist, who grew up in Brooklyn during the Great Depression.
>MAGA hat
>What the US is supposed be
Ironic much?
Correct.
As for the homophobia, the Lower East Side in the 30's was the closest thing you'd get to a gay neighborhood. It wasn't exactly considered normal, but he'd have more exposure to it than most.
The Founding Fathers were pretty racist, man. Most of them owned slaves.
Which is, you know, part of why it's a damn stupid idea to base laws on "what the founding fathers would have wanted", but hey.
Anyway, the Irish thing is a very new retcon and I think we've only seen one flashback scene involving it so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned so much
I haven't even started hydra cap yet though so I could be wrong
I probably am
And his best friend growing up, Arnie Roth, was gay.
Hey, you don't need to be a racist, sexist homophobe if all of those brown people, sluts, and fags stay in their place.
I hope that pic doesn't mean you actually think Donald Trump and his xenophobia, sexism and tea parties with the KKK and Russia represents the american ideal.
you are
>thinks the people who fought and died to save minorities from nazis were like nazis
I think this says it best. Jack Kirby was pretty good about this sort of thing, and while Lee didn't create the character he jumped on the civil rights bandwagon. And then the 60s and 70s generation got a hold of the character, so barring socking a few japanese soldiers in the jaw he's pretty much always been a liberal ideal.
What is humor?
something Sup Forumsmblr doesnt have
That was normal back then.
Well he is pretty religious, it's just that he doesn't push his religion. As for prejudice, remember, the Irish were still very heavily discriminated against when he was a kid, especially where he lived. It wasn't too long ago from his time that the Irish were considered closer to blacks than to whites in america. That would change his perspective a lot.
Beyond that, he's also just a genuinely nice guy. Some of his language and manner of speech would be different, some things were just considered acceptable and inoffensive back then, but on basic principle he wouldn't have a hard time adjusting.
From a more meta perspective, it's because Cap is the embodiment of America's ideals, which aren't necessarily the same thing as the ideals of most of the American people. America was founded on the ideas of freedom and individualism. You do you, the government's not gonna dictate your life style or personal choices, and pretty much just exists to protect your freedoms and right to live your life the way you choose, and only really limiting that when you start infringing on other people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's not to say the country has usually, or ever really, fully lived up to these ideals, in it's government or it's culture, but they're still the ideals that inspired and define America.
Being racist or homophobic or pushing your religion onto people is unamerican, in the sense of it does not embody the ideals of America as a whole, but it's also unamerican to say people can't have racist or homophobic or religious beliefs, just that they can't limit the freedoms of others because of them.
Steven embodies not what it is to be an american, but the ideals of America itself.
Recent events would prove differently.
>I can't form an opinion of my own, so I just regurgitate the rhetoric that the bias, left controlled media has fed me my entire life.
People like you don't even realize that the democratic party was formed after the Civil War by former slave owners in a bid to continue to control the black population by keeping them stupid and dependant, while Lincoln's party, you know, the one with the elephant for a mascot, was actually responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation
Then why are you here?
edgy comics of course
They can't get enough (You)s at Sup Forums so they go to other boards, and once they state their shitty opinion and get flamed for it, they use their signature move of calling the board "tumblr".
America's never lived up to it's ideals, but those were still it's ideals even then.
And you have to remember, at that time, EVERYONE was cool with slavery, that was just how the world worked and had always worked. And even then, a lot of the founding fathers were abolitionists.
Thomas Jefferson was probably the best example of this, not living up to one's ideals. He wrote numerous times about how slavery was bad and unjust and all that, but never could bring himself to free his slaves.
His views on racism and slavery are also pretty interesting. He himself was certainly racist, as was literally every person of the time, but not quite in the way people think of. He considered blacks and whites to be inherently gifted in different areas, thinking blacks more gifted with the arts (music, cooking, etc) as well as more physically able, and whites more gifted with large-scale thought and design (i.e. forming governments). Ultimately though, he felt blacks deserved freedom, but simply didn't think black and white societies could live together on equal ground at this point. The wounds of slavery were deep, and even freeing the blacks wouldn't erase the cultural and economic inequality, leaving to a divided society that would inevitably result in violence and mutual detriment to both, for years to come.
OP here. Thanks for all the replies, anons. I thought Rogers was that way just for convenience and financial reasons, considering he'd be an insufferable character nowadays if he was all of that and nobody would buy his comics. Now I see there are actual reasons why he's a pretty cool modern dude.
>The wounds of slavery were deep, and even freeing the blacks wouldn't erase the cultural and economic inequality, leaving to a divided society that would inevitably result in violence and mutual detriment to both, for years to come.
Well, he wasn't wrong.
Yeah, he's been a deliberately left-wing, progressive character from the start. Notably, Americans were still divided on Hitler when he was beating up Nazis, and back in 1969 it was a radical, controversial thing for him to take on an African-American as a teammate and consider him an equal.
Good post.
Jefferson is fascinating.
He had ideas for power lines and other things like that. Dude really was absurdly prescient.
He makes one joke about France and is shown to have a hard time relating to "young" people because he's from a culture sixty years earlier.
People exaggerate those tendencies to stroke their Millar hateboner.
>left controlled media
The media that brought up emails at every opportunity especially when they weren't relevant?
>Lincoln's party, you know, the one with the elephant for a mascot
Yea the more progressive left-leaning party of that time. The Democrats of the civil war were the right wing party.
Let's not.
Please and thank you.
Same with Washington. Washington actually did want to free his slaves but because the majority were in fact owned by his wife he wouldn't have been able to free them all and felt it unfair to only free a select few. The founders were very well aware of the hypocrisy of preaching freedom and owning slaves but the economic and political climate just wouldn't allow them to live up to their high minded ideals. Liberty's Kids actually went into it in a bit of detail. That show did a good job of trying to give a broader view of history.
>nd you have to remember, at that time, EVERYONE was cool with slavery
Are you fucking serious.
This is like saying "EVERYONE was cool with gays not marrying" before 2015 in America. It's just bullshit.
>Which is, you know, part of why it's a damn stupid idea to base laws on "what the founding fathers would have wanted", but hey.
But it isn't. Because whilst some wereh hypocritical to the ideals they supported and represented, the ideals they fought and championed are still worth following.
Because he's a good man who represents the embodiment of American ideology.
"All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
That's Cap right there.
As a quick note, I'd like to point out that while Irish Americans had historically been very much racist against Black Americans, especially those migrating from the south to the north during the great migration period, like all things this wasn't 100% of the Irish population, and by the time Cap was growing up there was starting to be a higher level of 'solidarity' seen working class whites, Irish and blacks in northern cities, particularly after the great depression.
I'd also point out the profound effect that WWII had on a lot of soldier's racial impressions. Black troops fought in segregated units for the most part but most Americans recognized that they preformed valiantly, and by the end of the war segregation had started to collapse and black and white units fought and interacted more closely (even though it was still technically policy. Many soldiers, upon coming back from the war had their opinions genuinely changed by the idea that black Americans had fought in the war but were being given a raw deal at home and were still subject to segregation during the war at times when it really hurt the U.S. Army's ability to reinforce its lines. So we can see WWII as a real turning point in certain public opinion about black Americans that helped jump-start the civil rights era in a way.
As for why he's not homophobic, I only assume that someone sat down with him and had a long talk about the social developments in the modern era and he just kinda went with it. It's possible that someone from the 1930s and 40s would view homosexuals as a thing to be ignored, but highly unlikely that someone at that time, outside of radical communist, left-wing or psychologist circles would view them as something to be accepted. Rodgers might be the exception for some reason but I really don't know why he would be.
Do you need a "cry-in" honey?
Homophobia isn't real and "racism" isn't inherently bad.
Truth is, Cap can't be portrayed accurately because it would be too politically incorrect. That means no money (in theory). Someone should make an accurate Captain America story to see what would happen.
>Homophobia isn't real and "racism" isn't inherently bad.
Explain? I'm not gonna eviscerate you, I'm just wondering.
Limiting the freedoms of others and discriminating against them do run contrary to the American Dream and the deified ideal of Freedom. Regardless of whether or not homophobia and racism are valid, you can't describe them as compatible with equality, freedom for all, etc.
yah except try getting any 5 of them to agree on exactly what those ideals were
people love to talk about the found fathers as if they were a single group when they pretty much all violently disagreed with each other on everything
any argument that starts with the intent of the founders is bullshit because I tell you no matter what your position is some would agree and some would disagree
All true. Which makes the weird inversion between the two parties on these issues between the 1940s and the 1970s that much more surreal. But it happened, when the Democratic party's racist core was ejected and formed another party called "The States' Rights Democratic Party" (usually called the Dixiecrats) which contained all of the old-school racist Democrats. When they failed as a party and ultimately dissolved, the Democrats were rid of those folks. They and their supporters then did the drearily, depressingly predictable thing and attached themselves to the Republican party out of opposition to their own former group, and that tradition survives to this day.
ultimate rogers was sort of like that
The 1770s were a very different political climate than the 1850s.
No not everyone was cool with the gays not marrying in 2015, but that was the case in the 1930s.
And yes, it's hyperbole, some people were vocal about it, but it wasn't an issue at the time. It wasn't talked about in political circles, it wasn't a hot button issue, it was something most people didn't even think about, just taken for granted. 'Slavery is a thing' was just the way the world worked in the mid 1700s, and wasn't challenged, just like 'gays are sinful' was just how things were in the early 1900s.
When we say the intent of the founders, we mean what they wrote down as law and signed their names to. They were, and still are, very specific writings.
And yes, they knew there would be a future they didn't know things about. Hence the 9th, and 10th Amendments.
>People like you don't even realize that the democratic party was formed after the Civil War by former slave owners in a bid to continue to control the black population by keeping them stupid and dependant, while Lincoln's party, you know, the one with the elephant for a mascot, was actually responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation
And then they traded ideals when it was convenient in order to get voters. I'm not a Democrat because I just fucking LOVE democrats, I'm a democrat because I believe in democratic ideas right NOW.
>Why isn't Steve Rogers a racist, homophobe, ultra religious and probably misogynistic man? He is a guy from the 30's and 40's so it doesn't make much sense that he has such a modern mindset.
Why do you think everyone from that time was racist, homophobic, ultra religious and misogynistic?
Sounds like you were brainwashed by modern feminists.
>"I don't like bullies. Doesn't matter where they're from"
That quote alone sold me on MCU cap, i wasn't a fan of the character until i watched the first avenger
The word homophobia would mean "fear of the same" but even taking "homo" to mean "homosexuals" people who don't like homosexuals generally aren't afraid of them.
What is known as "racism" isn't inherently bad because you are treating equals as equals and unequals as unequals. Generally speaking, races are more likely to act a certain way in certain areas so to treat them with this in mind (ie using inductive reasoning) isn't inherently a bad thing. Everyone is equal under the law (in terms of race), but usually when someone says that you're "racist" they don't mean "you refuse to serve blacks" or "you pay Asians less than native Americans." It's "I can't believe you'd hold that opinion (even if it's a statistical fact) about that group of people!"
He would probably pretty anti-gay, gay rights and everything never got mainstream traction until the late 70's, plus most gay people in his generation were closeted. But in the war he served with blacks, hispanics, and women regularly, he wouldn't judge a person based on these, but rather their ability.
Also, he's a good guy, good guys don't go out of their way to be dicks like most racists do.
ya except every man who signed that probably read the constitution to mean something different than the other guy
a classic example of this is Hamilton vs Jefferson, while Jefferson was a strict constructionist thinking the government shouldn't do things outside the constitution, Hamilton believed that government shouldn't be limited by the constitution unless it was expressly forbidden
which is kinda funny cause Jefferson had nothing to do with actually writing it and yet he was the one more hung up on it
also its funny again because as soon as Jefferson becomes president he realizes strict constructionism is completely retarded and reverses position entirely
This is distressingly uninformed, and why recognising the conservative-liberal dichotomy is important in analysing American history. It was once the case that Republicans were the liberal party (and interestingly enough, it would've been liberalism in synch with the rest of the world's view of liberalism, not the modern American liberalism vs. liberalism elsewhere), and Democrats were the conservative party. Societal evolution and several political realignments have occurred since the Civil War that shifted the Republican party to conservatism and the Democratic party to liberalism. Stating that the Republican party was responsible for abolition is technically accurate, but stating that the Republican party at that point in time was also the right wing of American politics is inaccurate.
>The word homophobia would mean "fear of the same" but even taking "homo" to mean "homosexuals" people who don't like homosexuals generally aren't afraid of them.
Jesus Christ this is the stupidest fucking argument I've seen in a while.
Just because the etymology of the word homophobia doesn't work doesn't mean homophobia isn't fucking real. People discriminating against gays is a real thing that happens, and the word we use for it is "homophobia". Yeah it's not the best term for it and they probably could have come up with something more apt but that's the word we have and it's a real thing.
His best friend was gay, I imagine that would probably change his opinion about gay people even if he hypothetically harbored negative feelings about them before.
Read Daredevil: Born Again.
There have always been decent people, even if they have at times been a very low percentage of people.
Is it really more of a stretch than his shield or the serum? This is cape stuff after all. It's not a genre known for being a 1:1 to our world.
Homophobs often use fear mongering tactics to sway people in their favor. Conversion therapy isnt even real but they force it on your anyway because you're feeling are a sin against god.
whens the last time you saw a homophob say. "hey, that person has sex with other like minded individuals which in no way effects my life but I myself personally do not choose that lifestyle "
The only cap related stuff in Born Again is when he shows up with the Avengers. Did he do anything homophobe or racist then?
I've only read Born Again once six years ago so I can't remember.
Any examples of racism as you describe it? I'm genuinely curious- this is a rare opportunity to get to hear someone else's views without them shouting at me.
Also, how do you feel about feminists toting the dictionary definition of the word 'feminist/feminism' as proof that they aren't misandrists?
Yep, he shows up at the finish and concludes the book. He doesn't do anything homophobic or racist but it's a very pure illustration of his ideals.
Lincoln was a war criminal who had thrown thousands of people to their deaths because the South didn't want to pay unfair taxes.
How's that for free thinking?
>People like you don't even realize that the democratic party was formed after the Civil War by former slave owners in a bid to continue to control the black population by keeping them stupid and dependant, while Lincoln's party, you know, the one with the elephant for a mascot, was actually responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation
You whipped this out as if it's supposed to expose some sort of hypocrisy.
THe party ideals have changed. Guess what, people support the current ideals.
For example, if you were to say the black crime statistic aloud many people would call you a racist. Or something as simple as using the race of a criminal to try to find them, as a police officer, would be considered racist. Thing is, people are using the term to mean treating ANYONE unequally, which is impossible because all people are inherently unequal in some way. These inequalities lead to generalizations which lead to stereotypes which cause people to be angry when repeated (eg Asians are good at math or whatever)
Feminists are just crazy. I don't know why they keep trying to say that it's legal to pay a woman less than a man for the same job in the same state when the equal pay act has been around for quite some time now. They use this weird formula of adding up all the salaries of men and dividing it by all the salaries of women, which obviously wouldn't be 100% equal just because some women decide to take time off to raise children at a higher rate than men do, as well as various other factors.
Feminists basically have nothing to fight for at this point and the leaders are trying to cash out somehow. I mean, women can vote and work and whatever else they feel like. There aren't any laws preventing that. What more do they want?