How should X-Men reflect the bigotry of modern times?

[Killerbee911]

Can we win here? Can we have both pointed subtext that actually lands and also zany superhero romps? It seems like only some writers are fully capable of this and some, if not most, find it incredibly difficult.

I think that is what I was trying to ask earlier as well X-men is superhero about fighting aliens, robots,vampires, demons and supervillains but some people only see X-men comic about mutants being hated and feared and metaphor for real life minorities .I think X-men is both things but while fighting Aliens X-men can also be about being a metaphor for minorities. I think the X-men has suffered some from forcing itself to be only hey mutants are feared and hated minority going as far reducing its population to fit the narrative rather it coming out in cleverly written stories about superheroes that you can see the metaphor. I think it is fine to be direct with metaphor at times. But I think X-men loses a little something when it is strong arming yeah we are hated thing.

I get on facebook and see clowish hatred nearly daily but in my life I have only had sporadic incidents of hate. X-men hate comes across clowish at times to me like this isn't reflecting the real world. When the X-men can't live among humans I don't think the can be a good metaphor for minorities

[FIGHT]

Are you sure you're a fan of X-Men comics? Are you really sure? That you're a fan? Of the X-Men? Who have been about bigotry, hatred and more since 1963? Are you really, really sure?

Found Bendis.

[JKtheMac]

Found Bendis.

If overuse of adverbs in posts is significant then I’m Bendis and so is my wife.

[Snoop Dogg]

Found Bendis.

needs about 3 more exclamations of "Jeez!"

[Zelena]

Look at you winning me over with your casual Bowie references. Although I think I generally agree

But, my point is more that right now do we need X-Men to be all of those things? The metaphor has always been very broad. Should it remain so? Should it always be open to interpretation or should it get pointed occasionally. Does even that pointedness create a problem?

Personally I think you can be very pointed in the subtext of a comic but I have lost count of the number of times I have found myself debating the meaning of something and the subtext was apparently so below the surface it seemed possible to deny it was even there. Then a book like X-Men Blue comes along starts off with dragging the subtext into the text for all to see before mostly forgetting about it and getting lost in the plot.

Can we win here? Can we have both pointed subtext that actually lands and also zany superhero romps? It seems like only some writers are fully capable of this and some, if not most, find it incredibly difficult.

The question is, also, whether today's authors are interested in making parallels, analogies, comparisons with our real difficult issues. I know Claremont was… interested in politics and all… So he couldn't help talking about it.
Hickman seems to love puzzles and mind games more… also loves to cause shocks to his readers. I may be wrong but I don't feel he's interested by in-depth questions.
Comics are no more a popular medium, the place is occupied by movies and series and I don't think that editors want to take the risk to upset a shrinking readership.

[pandafarmer]

Are you sure you're a fan of X-Men comics? Are you really sure? That you're a fan? Of the X-Men? Who have been about bigotry, hatred and more since 1963? Are you really, really sure?

LOL, I know it. Every time I see someone complain about X-Men and "SJW" I'm thinking... the X-Men are the pure definition of Social Justice Warriors... LOL

[Triniking1234]

this wasn't on Earth tho...


Ha! Great Post Dude!!!

That page was from World War Hulk so it was on Earth.

[Mutant X]

LOL, I know it. Every time I see someone complain about X-Men and "SJW" I'm thinking... the X-Men are the pure definition of Social Justice Warriors... LOL

Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.

I don't think it applies to X-men.

[Triniking1234]

"Social justice warrior" is a term that only came up during this current age of the internet. MLK Jr. and Malcolm X were referred to as "revolutionaries" rather than SJWs.

[JKtheMac]

The question is, also, whether today's authors are interested in making parallels, analogies, comparisons with our real difficult issues. I know Claremont was… interested in politics and all… So he couldn't help talking about it.
Hickman seems to love puzzles and mind games more… also loves to cause shocks to his readers. I may be wrong but I don't feel he's interested by in-depth questions.
Comics are no more a popular medium, the place is occupied by movies and series and I don't think that editors want to take the risk to upset a shrinking readership.

Hickman is totally fascinated by in-depth questions.

For example his SHIELD book was partly about how continuity in comics is being pulled in two intractable directions and are a problem to be solved. His Avengers run was partly about modern comics and their over-reliance on darkness and by analogy with the obscure Cabbalistic notion of the Tree of Death, how they are in danger of deconstructing themselves to death. His Black Monday Murders is partly a commentary on the over reliance of digital algorithms in finance and by analogy with magic how those that write them and use them could be sinister. I won't even begin to dig into The Nightly News!

We have yet to see the full shape of the questions he is asking about mutants. I get a slight hint he may be interested in 'big data' but it is too early to tell. It might explain the exponential elements and treating mutant genetics as variables to be manipulated.

I can't think of many writers that ask such deep questions. Moore, Morrison, Ennis maybe.

[Knives]

Something more real with both sides of the coin rather than the old extreme plot of war and extinction as inevitable.

In today's world prejudice or racism is not like 100 or 50 years ago. Although there are still extremist groups and genocides occurring in many parts of the world due to international laws, the press and the internet certain conduct is not accepted due to the negative consequences they can have on those who commit them. This is why I have trouble with governments defending and financing extermination programs and the Sentinels openly in the marvel universe as if genocide were something that all humanity openly accepted.

Prejudice and modern racism are linked to post globalization issues and multiculturalism vs nationalism. Fear and anger will always be rooted in people's souls but what drives it to the extreme? And why the speech of us against them works with many people?

From my point of view the situation of mutants should not be so extreme with numerous attempts at genocide. And the government or anti-mutant groups should not be so obvious in their attempts to destroy them because it would logically affect their cause because the press would cover their acts badly.

Anyway if there has to be a war between mutants and humans it should be like US and Russia style because anyone with two neurons would understand that the possibility of mutual destruction is extremely high.

[Nazrel]

X-Men has always had a message against bigotry and in modern times I think we have seen a re-emergence of white supremacy and people becoming more aware of structural racism. How should the X-Men reflect this modern resurgence of bigotry?

They shouldn't.

Mutants are, and always have been, a terrible allegory.

You have a phenomenon where people of any race or walk of life spontaneously manifest a random potentially lethal and destructive powers, they may not be able to control, at an age when when you wouldn't trust them to drive a car; which fails to even take into account the concerns raised by mind control, or those with a physiological need to feed on others.

If you're trying to represent a discriminated against underprivileged group, their defining trait should not be Power, especially not say mind control or death rays firing uncontrollably out of their eyes, kept only in check by an external device, as those immediately raise legitimate concerns.

They constantly push against any monitoring or regulation of their lethal and destructive powers, and are externally validated for this position by presenting a false dichotomy, where anyone pushing for such things are one dimensional pricks out for gulags, genocide, and prone to false flag attacks; presenting the idea that this, and no regulation are the only options; so they are never forced to confront how %&#@ their own position is.

Divorced from any discrimination or intent, people would die just because mutants exist, an immolated playground would be a constant and reasonable concern. In universe people have died just because mutants existed; and this is in the fictional universe that is desperately trying to distract you from actually thinking about the implications it presents.

Hell in an entirely mutant society, people would die, just because mutants exist.

As much as they try to force the allegory, the closest real world parallels I find, are always with the %$#@ing NRA.

They are a validation of their world view, they are the NRA as the NRA see themselves.

[Triniking1234]

I already answered this in Electricmastro's version of this thread but the books should focus on superheroics but include stories with mutants harassing humans and vice versa once in a while.

[Killerbee911]

They shouldn't.

Mutants are, and always have been, a terrible allegory.

You have a phenomenon where people of any race or walk of life spontaneously manifest a random potentially lethal and destructive powers, they may not be able to control, at an age when when you wouldn't trust them to drive a car; which fails to even take into account the concerns raised by mind control, or those with a physiological need to feed on others.

If you're trying to represent a discriminated against underprivileged group, their defining trait should not be Power, especially not say mind control or death rays firing uncontrollably out of their eyes, kept only in check by an external device, as those immediately raise legitimate concerns.

They constantly push against any monitoring or regulation of their lethal and destructive powers, and are externally validated for this position by presenting a false dichotomy, where anyone pushing for such things are one dimensional pricks out for gulags, genocide, and prone to false flag attacks; presenting the idea that this, and no regulation are the only options; so they are never forced to confront how %&#@ their own position is.

Divorced from any discrimination or intent, people would die just because mutants exist, an immolated playground would be a constant and reasonable concern. In universe people have died just because mutants existed; and this is in the fictional universe that is desperately trying to distract you from actually thinking about the implications it presents.

Hell in an entirely mutant society, people would die, just because mutants exist.

As much as they try to force the allegory, the closest real world parallels I find, are always with the %$#@ing NRA.

They are a validation of their world view, they are the NRA as the NRA see themselves.

The Government regulates cough syrup in what world do you think mutants wouldn't have logically measures to make sure they aren't a danger to themselves. Don't let bad part fiction mislead you. Mutants would be tested from birth and measure would be put in for everyone protection. So with that in mind look at large of the mutant population who proven not don't hurt anyone. Yeah it is NRA argument but the right NRA argument guns don't hurt if you proper rules in place

[Paleo_Rage]

maybe instead of trying to frame mutant oppression as just being analogous to just race, class, gender, sexuality, ability etc .. we could think of mutant oppression as non-nomrative oppression, as being the true "other, maybe if we think about it "intersectionally" it might make more sense. As it stands it cannot function well if its just race, class or gender etc because some many of these identity categories overlap and we don't want to forget those that inhabit many of them.

The morlocks kind of started the conversation but there should be more dialogue about mutants who dont look humaniod(Nightcrawler group circle seemed to be heading there) or mutants who are weak power-wise or mutants who powers impact them adversely.