The recent behavior of the X-Men: right or wrong?

[JB]

I'll say I appreciate Hickman's direction and influence helping work more towards to relatively more subtle approaches like this. I suspect many other writers would sooner or later have had this little incident escalate with more bad actions piled top of each other again and again to the point of an all out battle leading to many casualties, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Exactly right. They restrained themselves and moved on, no longer engaging the crowd.

[FUBAR007]

All minorities together against a majority or each minority fighting separately? I may belong to a minority (or several…) but being considered as a part of a majority by other minorities…

According to their comments here over the past few months, Tycon (and their ideological fellow travelers) view mutants in the Hickman era as a metaphor for various historically discriminated-against minorities--chiefly LGBTQ and African-Americans, but other racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities as well--and the humans of Marvel Earth as a metaphor for straight white people. And, to be clear, I'm using "white" in the sense of current political and sociological discourse regarding "whiteness". The term refers not just to racial Caucasians, but also to any historically dominant demographic group (heterosexuals, white men, middle-class and upper-middle class people, etc.).

Based on their comments, Tycon & co. view people from historically privileged demographics to be of less value and entitled to fewer rights than minorities. That is, in their view, human rights inversely correlate with privilege. Privilege is inherently evil so historically oppressed minorities are entitled to the most rights; accordingly, people from privileged groups are entitled to the fewest rights or none at all. The long-term objective, then, is to invert the social hierarchy by redistributing privilege from the majority to minorities, achieving social justice. Minorities will at last be rewarded for all their past suffering, and the majority will finally be punished for its historical crimes and oppression. This is a common, though not universal, worldview among intersectional progressives, at least in the U.S.

What's notable about this is that it's a categorical rejection of democratic liberalism and its core concept of universal human rights as understood in the West since World War II and advocated by liberals up through (in the U.S.) the Obama presidency. In Hickman's X-Men, this break between old-school liberalism and intersectional progressivism is mirrored in Xavier's shift from human-mutant integration to mutant separatist nationalism.

Personally, I don't think Hickman is taking a political stand so much as implementing a radical change to generate dramatic tension, unsettle readers, and increase suspense. In other words, it's a big tease. And, in time as Hickman's overaching plot unfolds, what's really going on behind the scenes will come to the fore, and the focus will shift back to less political, more high-concept action-adventure.

[From The Shadows]

No person worth paying attention to is saying the mutant genocides shouldn't be condemned. Thinking back, the evolution concept is probably the very concept, along with Days of Future Past, that led to many writers being encouraged to write mutant atrocities and mutant genocides in the first place in the 90s and beyond.

Yeah, I remember how viscious to humans the Acolytes were. They were actually chasing innocent humans, including children, saying "flatscan" all the time, leaving bowling ball size holes in their chests from what ever long rang over powered Alcolyte at the time. These people weren't even attacking mutants, they were just going about their everyday lives. One person didn't even have an opinion on mutants - saying this while quaking in fear and begging for mercy and then they slaughtered him anyway just for having inferior genes. I'm not sure how much of the Lobdell and Nicezas on here since many people consider 90's comics skippable garbage, especially Lobdel's.

Yep, and when reading the article, it talks about the possibility of mutants not only killing off humans, but enslaving them as well, and as I'm sure we've all come to understand, nobody wants to be enslaved and will do anything to rise up against potentially vicious slaveowners, calling back to how Magneto wanted to make humans his slaves for example, as well as that newspaper Professor X read. I don't think fans realize or remember how awful mutants were in canon and actual print. Some of the Alcolytes mentioned human persecution but rarely, most of their focus was on their superior genes. You just knew even if humans accepted mutants they would still be doing what they are doing. Many of them were joykillers and did it for sport. They loved death and violence and hated the weak.

This is why the mutants like the Alcolytes revered him so much. Tell the truth I was uncomfortable with the idea of the X-Mens homo superior classification ever since I started reading in the 80s, despite them being my favorites in comics and way before they took a darker path in the more modern stories of the 2000's and they kept using the term like there was nothing wrong with it I think they should change the term quite frankly when we have people like Magneto and his followers. And Cyclops too. With that "Magneto Was Right" crowd and those last two words actually connected to Hitler as many of his admirers say til this day then you connect this to Homo Superior then perhaps there will be the superior/master race that Hitler always thought there should be though mutants aren't what he envisioned of course. A lot of neonazi's are darwinists. Hitler was one as well along with his right hand men.

I'm kind of with you. There's some surface-level moral complexity, but it keeps going out the window. Like, the humans are always going straight to genocide, so any fears they have about being replaced/enslaved look extreme, despite replacing them being explicitly Xavier's goal. Whenever the Marauders invade a nation and attack people, its always to save nameless innocent mutant children. Only a monster would say they were in the wrong! That kind of thing.

And half the books seem to be based on big-shot mutants scheming and undermining each other. Shaw and Emma are manipulating pretty much everyone in Marauders, up to including trying to get each other killed (mostly Shaw on that). Excalibur has Apocalypse clearly setting everyone up for his own agenda, and like you said, Sinister is openly broadcasting his intent to screw everyone over. Solicits are hinting that Mystique is about to pop off over Destiny, too! I've been open about disliking this status quo, but its barely been in place and it already looks doomed, or at least short sighted. A lot of people don't care about the status quo, and they're already upending it!

This isn't a problem unique to X-men. I'm a big fan of the Champions, and pretty much every 4 months they get a NOTHING WILL BE THE SAME! thing, so much so that they really haven't found their feet.

Thats what I've been feeling like for a while now. It seems since the writers since mid 2000's really like the big guns and the ones on the top of the ladder and Emma and Magneto seem to be their favorite and they started using Sinister more frequently and Shaw. It feels like Dallas or Dynasty where they are just short of having a glass of expensive or wine or scotch in their hands and feeling superior to those around them. or even like the movies about the royals who go scheming smiling at their own genius and holding a chalice of wine in their hands. Although, I may have enjoyed a movie here and there (rarely) with that theme, it just really isn't my thing. Also, it sort of makes the rest of the X-Men look like grunts and of less importance. I'm actually surprised they are letting Kurt be on the council as he isn't super powerful and nor does he have the high social standing. I'm still shaking my head that the X-Men are welcoming someone like Sinister - the creator of The Marauders in the X-Men's sanctuary. The guy is responsible for no small a tragedy in mutant history. So big it lead to the "Trial of Gambit." Aaaah... *breaths* When the comics had consequences! One that ended up gravely injuring 3 members of the X-Men and one X-Factor member The X-Men especially as they almost died and when they recovered they had to face regression in their powers. They basically had been disabled. They also slaughtered many Morlocks including the elderly and children. If it wasn't for Gambit Marrow probably would have died. Sinister must be loving the fact that Kitty Ooops! I mean Kate- despite the fact that she looks like she has been de-aged. The short haired bulked up Kitty from Gold looks more like a Kate to me - is using the name the Marauders considering the names personal connection to her. The other one I can't get over Exodus. This guy was responsible for the slaughter of many people including children and kidnapped Luna because he couldn't take that the son of Magnus (Quicksilver) sired a human. a flatscan, and was prepared to kill her.

[Zelena]

According to their comments here over the past few months, Tycon (and their ideological fellow travelers) view mutants in the Hickman era as a metaphor for various historically discriminated-against minorities--chiefly LGBTQ and African-Americans, but other racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities as well--and the humans of Marvel Earth as a metaphor for straight white people. And, to be clear, I'm using "white" in the sense of current political and sociological discourse regarding "whiteness". The term refers not just to racial Caucasians, but also to any historically dominant demographic group (heterosexuals, white men, middle-class and upper-middle class people, etc.).

Based on their comments, Tycon & co. view people from historically privileged demographics to be of less value and entitled to fewer rights than minorities. That is, in their view, human rights inversely correlate with privilege. Privilege is inherently evil so historically oppressed minorities are entitled to the most rights; accordingly, people from privileged groups are entitled to the fewest rights or none at all. The long-term objective, then, is to invert the social hierarchy by redistributing privilege from the majority to minorities, achieving social justice. Minorities will at last be rewarded for all their past suffering, and the majority will finally be punished for its historical crimes and oppression. This is a common, though not universal, worldview among intersectional progressives, at least in the U.S.

What's notable about this is that it's a categorical rejection of democratic liberalism and its core concept of universal human rights as understood in the West since World War II and advocated by liberals up through (in the U.S.) the Obama presidency. In Hickman's X-Men, this break between old-school liberalism and intersectional progressivism is mirrored in Xavier's shift from human-mutant integration to mutant separatist nationalism.

Personally, I don't think Hickman is taking a political stand so much as implementing a radical change to generate dramatic tension, unsettle readers, and increase suspense. In other words, it's a big tease. And, in time as Hickman's overaching plot unfolds, what's really going on behind the scenes will come to the fore, and the focus will shift back to less political, more high-concept action-adventure.

Thank you, I understand better. For me, X-men was so much about democratic liberalism and universal human rights that I didn't understand this passion for something so different. I understood though, that something radical may hold an appeal. The writers before Hickman certainly prepared the ground for a "savior" to come.

[The Quiet Councilor]

According to their comments here over the past few months, Tycon (and their ideological fellow travelers) view mutants in the Hickman era as a metaphor for various historically discriminated-against minorities--chiefly LGBTQ and African-Americans, but other racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities as well--and the humans of Marvel Earth as a metaphor for straight white people. And, to be clear, I'm using "white" in the sense of current political and sociological discourse regarding "whiteness". The term refers not just to racial Caucasians, but also to any historically dominant demographic group (heterosexuals, white men, middle-class and upper-middle class people, etc.).

Based on their comments, Tycon & co. view people from historically privileged demographics to be of less value and entitled to fewer rights than minorities. That is, in their view, human rights inversely correlate with privilege. Privilege is inherently evil so historically oppressed minorities are entitled to the most rights; accordingly, people from privileged groups are entitled to the fewest rights or none at all. The long-term objective, then, is to invert the social hierarchy by redistributing privilege from the majority to minorities, achieving social justice. Minorities will at last be rewarded for all their past suffering, and the majority will finally be punished for its historical crimes and oppression. This is a common, though not universal, worldview among intersectional progressives, at least in the U.S.

What's notable about this is that it's a categorical rejection of democratic liberalism and its core concept of universal human rights as understood in the West since World War II and advocated by liberals up through (in the U.S.) the Obama presidency. In Hickman's X-Men, this break between old-school liberalism and intersectional progressivism is mirrored in Xavier's shift from human-mutant integration to mutant separatist nationalism.

Personally, I don't think Hickman is taking a political stand so much as implementing a radical change to generate dramatic tension, unsettle readers, and increase suspense. In other words, it's a big tease. And, in time as Hickman's overaching plot unfolds, what's really going on behind the scenes will come to the fore, and the focus will shift back to less political, more high-concept action-adventure.

This is so off the mark that I’m actually embarrassed for you.

[JB]

This is so off the mark that I’m actually embarrassed for you.

It's mind-boggling, to me, where these discussions end up going.

[Astroman]

It's mind-boggling, to me, where these discussions end up going.

And why they keep going.

[Londo Bellian]

Maybe if this personally contemptible status quo ends before this new year is out. But it probably won't until the first MCU X-Men movie (or mutant character appearance in a future MCU film). So misery for the detractors goes on.

[Electricmastro]

This is why the mutants like the Alcolytes revered him so much. Tell the truth I was uncomfortable with the idea of the X-Mens homo superior classification ever since I started reading in the 80s, despite them being my favorites in comics and way before they took a darker path in the more modern stories of the 2000's and they kept using the term like there was nothing wrong with it I think they should change the term quite frankly when we have people like Magneto and his followers. And Cyclops too.

I don't like writing of having humans being awful to the mutants to point of committing many genocides against them, but I also don't like Magneto's desire to be a slaveowner either. Now that I think about it, that's probably the biggest writing problem that plagued X-Men for awhile: having the humans act like Magneto is still attempting to be a slaveowner of humans and carrying out other such desires. If humans are going to be seen being hateful towards the mutants, then I think it would be better for the sake of a more enlightening, interesting story to have the writers write their hate by 2020 standards, not 1964 standards.

[nx01a]

This is so off the mark that I’m actually embarrassed for you.

How so? Exactly?

[Lucyinthesky]

Sigh Magneto doesn`t want to be slaveowner of anyone, lest remember that it`s canon this Magneto:



Is also this Magneto:



He loved his human grandaughter and still hated humakind general concensus about mutants, and its telling that after Luna was born he changed his ways from direct confrontation with the US and the Soviet Union or taking over countries towards building refuges for mutants and later even joining Xavier school.

[The Quiet Councilor]

How so? Exactly?

The notion that “Tycon & Co” believe privileged groups are of less value and deserve few rights or none at all. That entire paragraph reads like an Alex Jones propaganda monologue. It’s hateful and serves only to demonize progressives.

[FUBAR007]

What's notable about this is that it's a categorical rejection of democratic liberalism and its core concept of universal human rights as understood in the West since World War II and advocated by liberals up through (in the U.S.) the Obama presidency.

To unpack this particular bit more:

In addition to the inverse correlation between privilege and rights, what also distinguishes intersectional progressivism from univeralist liberalism is that progressivism embraces the belief that criminal guilt is both hereditary and shared by demographic traits. For example, if some of a person's ancestors were slaveowners, that person is both civilly and criminally liable for their ancestors' crimes and should be treated as such by the legal/political system. Their property and income are morally illegitimate and should be forfeited to the state for redistribution to the descendants of their ancestors' victims. In other words, just as wealth is inherited, so is criminal guilt.

Second, because people from dominant demographic groups enjoy socioeconomic privilege, and that privilege derives from norms and social hierarchies (i.e. systemic racism) established by past oppression, all members of such groups have responsibility for that past oppression. So, for example, even if a person had no slaveowning ancestors, they're still responsible because they enjoy privileges by being from the same demographic group as the slaveowners. This is why, in the current U.S. debate over reparations for slavery, reparations advocates say all white people in the U.S. owe reparations even if their ancestors didn't immigrate to the U.S. until after slavery was already outlawed. In other words, all are guilty of what some did.

This is all in diametric opposition to the traditional liberal view that criminal guilt is borne by the individual(s) who committed the crime and that such guilt cannot be inherited i.e. the descendants of criminals cannot be prosecuted, punished, or held liable for the crimes of their ancestors.

Bringing this back to Hickman's X-Men, we haven't explicitly seen this in the books yet. But, the references by the X-Men to "the homo sapiens" and "the humans", as if all humans are a homogeneous, unified block, lean very much in that direction. It paints with a simplistically broad brush, erases the demographic and ideological diversity of the human population, and indiscriminately dismisses them all as "The Other".

[Beaddle]

All right, so we have dealing with the whole Dawn of X for a while now. The X-Men have decided to no longer take crap from anyone, make their own country on Krakoa, and basically put themselves first at the expense of their relationship with everyone else. On the one hand, this makes sense; they have been on the brink of extermination for so long at the hands of humanity and others that they need to take care of themselves. Also, who wouldn't get fed up? However, they are supposed to be heroes, and they aren't acting very heroic at the moment. Also, they seemed to have given up on the dream of coexistence/

Are they right to behave this way, or are they wrong?

70% right

30% wrong.

when you are surrounding by enemies only, sometimes you don't want to keep them any closer than they already are.

They have already tried Uptopia, it did not turn out well, it led to Scott becoming a psycho,. I say, more right than wrong.

[nx01a]

The notion that “Tycon & Co” believe privileged groups are of less value and deserve few rights or none at all. That entire paragraph reads like an Alex Jones propaganda monologue. It’s hateful and serves only to demonize progressives.

Ah, Alex Jones... One of those crazy Americans whose views have way too much traction.

I see the 'mutants as minorities' and 'minority power fantasy' aspects, though I genuinely hope no one here is hoping the mutants eventually rise up and enslave/wipe out humanity.

I also see that Krakoa and its radical shift in sociopolitical and financial power is just step one in HIckman's long term plan. I'm weary of a few things about Krakoa as I've said before [villain inclusion rather than imprisonment, mutant superiority complex] so I can't wholeheartedly support it, but I certainly understand why mutants would do it to keep themselves safe and secure their future. I do find the most ardent Krakoa-supporting posters a bit too ready to drink the tea and accept this new age whole cloth, warts [as I see them] and all, though. I think we're supposed to be happy for mutants but also weary and questioning of what they're doing to secure their future and by extension humanity's future... all based on Moira X just trying something different this time around. We know it can't last, and I'm going to enjoy the ride with cautious optimism and skepticism.