Are Superheroes Fascist By Modern Standards?

[Agent Z]

One big problem with "the Gotham police force is corrupt and so Batman's vigilantism is justified" is that he's best friends with Jim Gordon, Police Commissioner. Sure stories have presented Gordon as a reformist trying to fix a broken system but as time passes, the more corrupt cops on beat there are, the harder it gets to ignore the fact that Gordon is just not doing anything right. There's also the fact that the Batman franchise orbits around ARKHAM ASYLUM, which is essentially the poster-child for the idea that "mentally ill are violent malingering psychos and shrinks are morons and self-destructive fools". So a good part of Batman is tied to a certain authoritarianism, a certain old fashioned idea of mental health and reform.

On a basic genre sense, I don't really need complicated questions justifying Batman's vigilantism. I get that it's more interesting to see a scary dude in a boss costume beat up a bunch of guys using gadgets and fists than guns and riot gear. The other thing is also aesthetic...the thing about Batman is that while yes there's authoritarianism and other stuff there, it's also a fact that the Batman series' popularity rests largely on its rogues gallery. People read Batman to see the rogues in action as much as they do to see Batman doing his thing. The most recent JOKER 2019 movie made far more money than the Snyder Batman movies after all. The BTAS series ran on the idea of Batman villains being someone he relates to or sees as a cautionary tale for himself. Stuff like the Mr. Freeze "Heart of Ice" episode. More recently you have Harley Quinn becoming this anarchic breakout character.

So ultimately it's the villains who come to the rescue of Batman from being authoritarian and problematic. And historically...go back to the Adam West Batman Show. All the rogues were played by prominent celebrities of their day and were grand camp performances and cooler than square old Batman and Robin. The Batman'66 show ran on the popularity of the villains and not the heroes. The Dark Knight (the last Batman movie that's embraced across the board as an excellent movie) rests entirely on Ledger's performance.



Isn't the complicity of the English in the British Empire more concerning? After all when the British Empire was at its height, there weren't any significant voices in England going "Are we the baddies?" Even liberals like John Stuart Mill outright defended the East India Company and said that despoiling India was somehow to the benefit of the Indian people and so on. There were a few people like Ernest Charles Jones, Charles Bradlaugh and others but not many, and certainly on the very fringe. for most of the time in that period.

Harley herself is not without her own ugly implications. Violation of doctor-patient ethics and being let off the hook for numerous crimes being among them. Especially when you take into account how Batman's non-white villains tend to be treated and I'm not just talking about the Nolan films.

[JackDaw]

Isn't the complicity of the English in the British Empire more concerning? After all when the British Empire was at its height, there weren't any significant voices in England going "Are we the baddies?" Even liberals like John Stuart Mill outright defended the East India Company and said that despoiling India was somehow to the benefit of the Indian people and so on. There were a few people like Ernest Charles Jones, Charles Bradlaugh and others but not many, and certainly on the very fringe. for most of the time in that period.

But exactly the same point can be made about the Scottish...it was the British Empire!

Often nowadays many (perhaps most) people routinely put practically all the blame for the bad things the British did on the English.

I think a more informed view is that the class of person...ruling , middle class, or working class was far more relevant...i.e. the Scottish ruling class were just as oppressive as the English ruling class, and the English working class just as unfortunate as the Scottish working class.

I know that’s a very Marxist view of history...but Karl Marx did get some things right.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But exactly the same point can be made about the Scottish...it was the British Empire!

Often nowadays many (perhaps most) people routinely put practically all the blame for the bad things the British did on the English.

The right response is that the complicity of the Scottish people in the Empire project is for the Scottish people to discuss among themselves (as I am sure they have done/are doing) while English people need to take primary ownership.

If a German goes on about how the Holocaust was done with the help of collaborators in France, Holland, Poland, Ukraine, and Finland and so on...which is accurate technically...that would be treated as being disingenuous and gaslighting in response. Or you know if in America, people go on about how the majority of the people fighting for Confederacy weren't slave owners but poor-white farmers fighting for states' rights and so weren't pro-slavery...that would also be a disingenuous response and an attempt to dodge and escape responsibility. Or take another example, it's true that immigrants from Europe were involved with and beneficiaries of Native American genocide and displacement and many of them participated in these actions...but that wouldn't by any means absolve the WASP class who were the major drivers of these actions.

The British Empire and colonialism was largely driven by, and enforced by the English hegemony. It wasn't something that the Scots came up with and asked the English to do. Where's this fabled "Stiff Upper Lip" I hear so much about? Is that only for show? Why is it so hard to accept responsiblity?

[JackDaw]

The right response is that the complicity of the Scottish people in the Empire project is for the Scottish people to discuss among themselves (as I am sure they have done/are doing) while English people need to take primary ownership.

If a German goes on about how the Holocaust was done with the help of collaborators in France, Holland, Poland, Ukraine, and Finland and so on...which is accurate technically...that would be treated as being disingenuous and gaslighting in response. Or you know if in America, people go on about how the majority of the people fighting for Confederacy weren't slave owners but poor-white farmers fighting for states' rights and so weren't pro-slavery...that would also be a disingenuous response and an attempt to dodge and escape responsibility. Or take another example, it's true that immigrants from Europe were involved with and beneficiaries of Native American genocide and displacement and many of them participated in these actions...but that wouldn't by any means absolve the WASP class who were the major drivers of these actions.

The British Empire and colonialism was largely driven by, and enforced by the English hegemony. It wasn't something that the Scots came up with and asked the English to do. Where's this fabled "Stiff Upper Lip" I hear so much about? Is that only for show? Why is it so hard to accept responsiblity?

I really don’t understand why some one who is not Scottish should be debarred from discussing Scottish role in various British ventures. I’d guess you’re neither Scottish or English..but have no difficulty in making sweeping statements about both nationalities, so clearly you don’t follow your own advice.

I’m English..but...of course...I don’t accept any personal responsibility for events that happened hundreds of years ago, when my own ancestors were working in mills, and doing little harm to anybody.

I accept that..of course...if we’re just laying a numbers game that of course the English played a more significant role in the British Empire than the Scottish, it’s just a fact of life that there’s a lot more English people than Scots.

But essentially there was no real difference between the attitudes of the Scottish ruling class and and the English, or the brutality of English or Scottish regiments. Scots landowners like the Duke of Cumberland weren’t nice people, believe me.....or if you don’t “google it”.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I really don’t understand why some one who is not Scottish should be debarred from discussing Scottish role in various British ventures.

It depends on context. If you are trying to dodge or displace criticism of British colonialism by saying, "The Scots helped us too", then that's clearly a cowardly displacement. If a Scotsman were to come and talk about its culture and its superiority to England or Ireland, or otherwise being racist and so on, or claim that the English were evil colonialists over Scotland and so on, then it's worth bringing this all up. I mean technically speaking a lot of Irish people and Welsh people were involved in the Empire project, why bring up Scotland and not them?

I’m English..but...of course...I don’t accept any personal responsibility for events that happened hundreds of years ago, when my own ancestors were working in mills, and doing little harm to anybody.

You do accept that you have a certain privilege, and are beneficiaries of privilege accrued thanks to imperialism, right? I mean on your birth you got in line for a passport that allowed you visa free travel to a number of countries, who in turn have to go through a million hoops to come to England. You are allowed to visit museums filled with artifacts that was stolen from its original countries and cultures, whose descendants in those lands cannot afford to come to England and the British Museum to see the treasures of their ancestors.

[PwrdOn]

I really don’t understand why some one who is not Scottish should be debarred from discussing Scottish role in various British ventures. I’d guess you’re neither Scottish or English..but have no difficulty in making sweeping statements about both nationalities, so clearly you don’t follow your own advice.

I’m English..but...of course...I don’t accept any personal responsibility for events that happened hundreds of years ago, when my own ancestors were working in mills, and doing little harm to anybody.

I accept that..of course...if we’re just laying a numbers game that of course the English played a more significant role in the British Empire than the Scottish, it’s just a fact of life that there’s a lot more English people than Scots.

But essentially there was no real difference between the attitudes of the Scottish ruling class and and the English, or the brutality of English or Scottish regiments. Scots landowners like the Duke of Cumberland weren’t nice people, believe me.....or if you don’t “google it”.

Well if you don't take responsibility for things that your country did that weren't directly involved in, then by the same logic you also can't take pride in any positive accomplishments that you had no hand in, especially because in most cases all of the good stuff was only made possible because of the bad stuff. And quite frankly, I have a hard time seeing the British of all people being willing to stop celebrating their history anytime soon. And yeah, to some extent the Scots, Irish, Welsh, etc. tend to get a bit of a free pass because people tend to see them as fellow victims of colonialism rather than willing and eager, if not necessary co-equal, collaborators in the project of empire. But if you just look at the contemporary political landscape, Scottish and Irish nationalism all revolves around the rejection of the British Empire and the identity, values, and symbols associated with it, whereas English or "British" nationalism tends to embrace the imperial legacy as a point of pride. Certainly, international media tends to have a pretty simplistic and stereotyped view of the Scots, but for all the complaints that something like Braveheart is a total bastardization of history, it does reflect a very real feeling that people around the world can relate to much better than petty disputes over control of North Sea oil revenues or whatever.

[JackDaw]

It depends on context. If you are trying to dodge or displace criticism of British colonialism by saying, "The Scots helped us too", then that's clearly a cowardly displacement. If a Scotsman were to come and talk about its culture and its superiority to England or Ireland, or otherwise being racist and so on, or claim that the English were evil colonialists over Scotland and so on, then it's worth bringing this all up. I mean technically speaking a lot of Irish people and Welsh people were involved in the Empire project, why bring up Scotland and not them?



You do accept that you have a certain privilege, and are beneficiaries of privilege accrued thanks to imperialism, right? I mean on your birth you got in line for a passport that allowed you visa free travel to a number of countries, who in turn have to go through a million hoops to come to England. You are allowed to visit museums filled with artifacts that was stolen from its original countries and cultures, whose descendants in those lands cannot afford to come to England and the British Museum to see the treasures of their ancestors.

I’m baffled why you think I was trying to dodge criticism of the British Empire by saying the Scots helped too...I was just baffled by your apparent believe that there was a fundamental difference between the way the Scots, Welsh, Irish, English acted in that era.

I don’t think there was...you singled out the English because none of the English intellectuals criticised the British Empire...but neither did the Scottish, Irish, or Welsh.

It was...I believe..a joint venture by the British ruling classes to benefit and enrich themselves. If you disagree with that perhaps you can give me a long list of Scottish, Irish, and Welsh landowners, intellectuals, industrialists of that era who spoke out against the immoral acts of the British Empire and refused to accept the gains..I don’t know any!

[JackDaw]

Well if you don't take responsibility for things that your country did that weren't directly involved in, then by the same logic you also can't take pride in any positive accomplishments that you had no hand in, especially because in most cases all of the good stuff was only made possible because of the bad stuff. And quite frankly, I have a hard time seeing the British of all people being willing to stop celebrating their history anytime soon. And yeah, to some extent the Scots, Irish, Welsh, etc. tend to get a bit of a free pass because people tend to see them as fellow victims of colonialism rather than willing and eager, if not necessary co-equal, collaborators in the project of empire. But if you just look at the contemporary political landscape, Scottish and Irish nationalism all revolves around the rejection of the British Empire and the identity, values, and symbols associated with it, whereas English or "British" nationalism tends to embrace the imperial legacy as a point of pride. Certainly, international media tends to have a pretty simplistic and stereotyped view of the Scots, but for all the complaints that something like Braveheart is a total bastardization of history, it does reflect a very real feeling that people around the world can relate to much better than petty disputes over control of North Sea oil revenues or whatever.

Is it possible that ventures like Braveheart deliberately distort history because the Scots (and their American descendants) are ashamed of the real history?

In general not sure what you and Revolutionary Jack mean by “accept responsibility”. Of course, I accept some English did despicable things back then...but I can’t see anything I can do to alter history.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In general not sure what you and Revolutionary Jack mean by “accept responsibility”. Of course, I accept some English did despicable things back then...but I can’t see anything I can do to alter history.

What you can do, and have control over, is asserting agency over the narrative of history. That means when people talk smack about the British Empire, don't go "but what about the Scots though". That's not any different from the USSR downplaying Stalin's crimes by going "Industrial England did worse, or America lynches black people, we beat Hitler f--k you". It should be liberating to talk smack about your ancestors because that means that you, as a 21st Century English person can take upon yourself a mantle of innovation over the past and assert a moral claim for your generation. I mean after the British Empire you guys had the Beatles, the Stones, the Kinks, the Clash, Monty Python. You don't have to apologize for any of that.

[JackDaw]

What you can do, and have control over, is asserting agency over the narrative of history. That means when people talk smack about the British Empire, don't go "but what about the Scots though".

I don’t.

I challenged you because you because you seem to believe the Scots were almost unwilling victims dragged into the venture against their will by the English..I just don’t “buy that”.

[Agent Z]

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Good video. Saw it this morning.

Fundamentally, the superhero genre needs a check and balance and stuff like The Boys and other anti-super satires exist for that.

We need more of this and not less.

[PCN24454]

Good video. Saw it this morning.

Fundamentally, the superhero genre needs a check and balance and stuff like The Boys and other anti-super satires exist for that.

We need more of this and not less.

Oversight will never be portrayed as a good thing because the people that "watch the watchmen" are watchmen themselves which is one common criticism against The Boys. Even Ennis was aware that the Boys were hypocritical in their actions and the lengths they would go to ensure "justice".

It doesn't help how agencies like the CADMUS and the SHR are portrayed where they're almost always portrayed as fascist themselves and are just trying to make power grabs.

[Agent Z]

Oversight will never be portrayed as a good thing because the people that "watch the watchmen" are watchmen themselves which is one common criticism against The Boys. Even Ennis was aware that the Boys were hypocritical in their actions and the lengths they would go to ensure "justice".

It doesn't help how agencies like the CADMUS and the SHR are portrayed where they're almost always portrayed as fascist themselves and are just trying to make power grabs.

That type of paranoia has troubling implications itself. "The government is out to get you" is very common rhetoric among anti-gun control proponents and fascist supporters.

[MyriVerse]

No,because very few superhero stories have the most obvious thing happen. Superheroes seem Facist because they operate outside of the rules. Superheroes don't seem facist when they simple work for the government like cops,firefighter and emts. And other than Cops in real life and we can have whole another discussion on that,You never look at Firefighters and Emts as they are omg they are trying to be dicators and facists. They are just trying to save people and that is the essence of superheroes.

I see superheroes as more fascist when they work for the government like cops (not firefighters or emts, which are more health system workers). So, I think you have that backwards.