If Steve Rogers were not a Caucasian, would he still be Cap?

[Bafflement]

It's not my intent to offend at all with this question. Marvel's been very clear that they're out to diversify their universe by adding characters of all different backgrounds.

That said, I still feel that it's slightly offensive to the character of Falcon that Sam Wilson is now Captain America. Was he somehow lacking on his own?

That's pretty silly. In-story it fits perfectly to have Sam step in as Captain America. It's always been clear that the role of Captain America is considered important and symbolic, which is why others have stepped in when Steve is incapacitated or unavailable. Sam was the natural choice to take over, because he's been Steve's closest ally for a very long time, and is a highly-principled hero in his own right.

To address your title question: Nope. Steve Rogers would not be Cap. Depowering storylines for heroes are pretty common, and at some point writers would want to do one for Steve regardless of his race.

[gurkle]

Good grief, of course Sam was lacking on his own. He's a sidekick. Or a "partner" because Marvel doesn't like the term "sidekick." But he's never been a popular character on his own, even the way Dick Grayson is popular as Nightwing.

Being a sidekick is like being one step away from the top job. So they promoted him. This has happened many times including with Captain America's previous sidekick, who also became Captain America.

So are they disrespecting sidekicks by saying they'd get more respect as Batman or the Flash or Captain America? Yes, pretty much. Marvel was built on disrespecting sidekicks.

[KOSLOX]

I'd actually like American Eagle to be the next Cap.

I think it would be an interesting story. I'm down for Strongbow to show up in anything.

[JohnLynch]

I don't get the hate for Sam Wilson as Captain America, especially amongst those who claim it's perfectly acceptable for Bucky to be Captain America. Bucky was Captain America's sidekick from 1941 to 1948 at which time he was replaced! He then briefly reappeared from December 1953 to September 1954 before he was retconned into having died in the 40s by Stan Lee in 1964. He then came back to life (although not as Captain America's sidekick) in 2005.

Sam Wilson on the other hand was Captain America's adult sidekick (or whatever politcally correct term you want to use in place of) from September 1969 to June 1978. He then became Captain America's sidekick again from November 1996 to November 1997 and routinely appeared in Captain America's comics from January 1998 to December 2004. He was then a sidekick again from 2004 to 2005. He was then a "support character" between 2005 and 2009.

So to sum up, Bucky was Captain America's sidekick for 8 years (with one of those years being retconned out of existence). Sam Wilson was Captain America's sidekick for 11 years and had a regular presence in his books throughout the 70s, 90s and 2000s.

If people are saying "it feels natural for Bucky to be Captain America" then it really does give rise to question how the heck Sam Wilson doesn't feel natural.

Regardless, I love the idea of Sam Wilson as Captain America and Old Man Steve. I felt that Bucky as Captain America never really got the chance to play out. He was in the role from December 2007 to December 2010. 3 years, in event time and the extended story format used today isn't really that long. Regardless if they let Sam Wilson remain as Captain America for that long, I'll be happy. I understand he hasn't been written the greatest pre-Secret Wars. Hopefully Secret Wars is a turning point to get some new writers on him and to let him find his own voice in the role. As much as people try to say that "Sam Wilson was great as Falcon" he wasn't. He was not A-List, he was never popular. And he struggled to keep a book alive. He's also Marvel's aquaman. His powers are talking to birds and flying. That's pretty analogous to Aquaman's talking to fish and swimming. We need for Sam to be propelled to the spotlight just like Aquaman was so that when he moves on he can actually keep his own book going. And expecting that to happen in less time than Bucky spent as Captain America is simply ridiculous.

The thing I hate about All Event All the Time is that the new status quos never get the opportunity to be explored. The characters just go from one major change to another. I love that Marvel's giving Sam Wilson more than 10 months to actually explore his new status quo.

[KingsLeadHat]

The irksome point to all this is Marvel's cowardice. Why not attempt to create a new minority character as great as Black Panther and Storm instead of all this pandering? Is it no wonder that, beyond a few nut jobs back in the day, the vast majority of the fanbase accepted both of those characters from the start? Could it have been because they were simply great characters, who stood on their own, and didn't need to fill in for the white guy while he was out?

[Jack Flag]

Unlike other characters whose superhero persona is unique to them, Captain America was a title bestowed on Steve Rogers (it's a code name and not a military rank) and the govt can take it away (they did and Steve became US Agent) so in the ongoing story of Captain America, it can be any American.

[gwangung]

Unlike other characters whose superhero persona is unique to them, Captain America was a title bestowed on Steve Rogers (it's a code name and not a military rank) and the govt can take it away (they did and Steve became US Agent) so in the ongoing story of Captain America, it can be any American.

Actually, the symbolism alone makes it almost imperative that they replace Steve Rogers from time to time to examine the character. That makes sense thematically when it doesn't for Thor.

[gurkle]

The irksome point to all this is Marvel's cowardice. Why not attempt to create a new minority character as great as Black Panther and Storm instead of all this pandering? Is it no wonder that, beyond a few nut jobs back in the day, the vast majority of the fanbase accepted both of those characters from the start? Could it have been because they were simply great characters, who stood on their own, and didn't need to fill in for the white guy while he was out?

Comics are different today and fans won't accept most new characters. I don't mean new superhero characters either; there are a few big-selling independent books but few characters who have become world famous like Harry Potter or other fictional characters outside comics. Create a new character without a familiar title, and people won't buy their book, simple as that.

And even Black Panther can't carry a book for very long, to say nothing of Storm. They will never be as famous as Captain America or Thor, movie or no movie.

So they promote the sidekicks (Sam, Jane) to the heroes' titles. It's not like they went around searching for some random characters to pull in for the sake of diversity. They were already in the books and had been for decades.

It's not cowardice, it's just gimmickry to get publicity and sell more books. Which, guess what? This whole business is built on shameless sales gimmicks.

So to answer the question, they probably wouldn't replace a black hero with a white guy (though I'm sure it's been done sometime) because the publicity would be negative but more importantly, there's no publicity value in adding another white guy. Having a black Captain America and a female Thor - and having both of them be familiar characters the movie and comics audiences already know - is a great way to get attention.

Is Marvel trying to cash in on what it sees as a fad? Could be, but again, it's always done that. In 1972 Stan Lee noticed that women's lib was in, so launched a line of comics starring female heroes written by women. Then there was the blaxploitation hero, kung fu hero, Ms. Marvel... comics are all about cashing in on fads, including diversity fads. People act like they've caught Marvel in a gotcha to point out that they're just trying to make money and get publicity. Well yeah.

[Jack Flag]

The irksome point to all this is Marvel's cowardice. Why not attempt to create a new minority character as great as Black Panther and Storm instead of all this pandering? Is it no wonder that, beyond a few nut jobs back in the day, the vast majority of the fanbase accepted both of those characters from the start? Could it have been because they were simply great characters, who stood on their own, and didn't need to fill in for the white guy while he was out?

It is because - and it is unsaid in public - Marvel and DC won't create new characters and new heroes other than derivatives of pre-existing characters because of artists ownership rights. No writer will willing give a 'work for hire' creation that can take off and be in a billion dollar movie and maybe Marvel and DC don't want artists to create new characters for the same reason (with new copyright laws what an artists owns can be extended even to works for hire if you have a good enough lawyer). For example, Wolverine was a throw away character in Hulk that later on became a huge asset.

Also, the current created characters have a built in market recognition and no need to invest in the marketing of new characters.

[megaharrison]

If Steve Rogers was not Caucasian, he wouldn't be Steve Rogers. Unless the character as we know and love was always not Caucasian.

And by extension he wouldn't be Captain America. Marvel (sans Ant-Man) really doesn't have a tradition of replacing the men behind the masks like DC does, and when it does do it now it's not out of genuine writing but rather just a desire to meet some banal quota.

[Jack Flag]

Actually, the symbolism alone makes it almost imperative that they replace Steve Rogers from time to time to examine the character. That makes sense thematically when it doesn't for Thor.

For Thor, I would not mind a female god of thunder - why not make Storm able to life the hammer or whomever - what I hate about the new "Thor" is they call her "Thor" which is stupid because Thor is not a code name. But to the way Marvel sees these characters - Thor is a brand name now and that's why. Also, I think "Thor" is exotic sounding enough to make it seem like a super hero code name - when in Scandinavian countries it is just a normal male name and this would seem kind of silly to call a woman "Thor". If Thor's name was "Ralph Odinson, God of Thunder" I doubt that the mystery female would be designated Ralph by Marvel.

[gurkle]

For Thor, I would not mind a female god of thunder - why not make Storm able to life the hammer or whomever - what I hate about the new "Thor" is they call her "Thor" which is stupid because Thor is not a code name. But to the way Marvel sees these characters - Thor is a brand name now and that's why.

Also the original premise of Thor, back in the early days, was that he was more like Captain Marvel (the original Captain Marvel; it's so confusing). Hitting his stick on the ground would turn Don into Thor, as if they were two separate people. All they've done now is do the same premise with Don's girlfriend Jane Foster - which of course was already done in a What If? comic (except she called herself "Thordis").Thor is someone Jane turns into, like Captain Marvel was someone Billy Batson turned into.

Later in the run Kirby put more emphasis on the Norse mythology and he and Lee eventually decided that Don was just a fake persona Odin created for Thor. But they do have precedent, with the original comics, for this approach. Think of the lightning and thunder as Marvel's SHAZAM!

[t hedge coke]

For Thor, I would not mind a female god of thunder - why not make Storm able to life the hammer or whomever - what I hate about the new "Thor" is they call her "Thor" which is stupid because Thor is not a code name. But to the way Marvel sees these characters - Thor is a brand name now and that's why.

It's what they called Eric Masterson when he was Thor.

It's what Dargo was called when he was Thor.

Cecil MacAdam. Red Norville. Donal. Probably others I'm not thinking of.

They all used Thor as a title or alias at one time or another.

[t hedge coke]

Actually, the symbolism alone makes it almost imperative that they replace Steve Rogers from time to time to examine the character. That makes sense thematically when it doesn't for Thor.

I think, for Marvel Thor, it does.

There's a tradition, at this point, of him losing face, wallowing in ego or shame, losing his title, his father's approval, losing access to Asgard, etc. And then he picks himself up and acts like a hero, and gets it all back. This is, really, his origin, so aside from tradition, it's built into the very beginning of the Marvel character.

[Biclopcicle]

Also the original premise of Thor, back in the early days, was that he was more like Captain Marvel (the original Captain Marvel; it's so confusing). Hitting his stick on the ground would turn Don into Thor, as if they were two separate people. All they've done now is do the same premise with Don's girlfriend Jane Foster - which of course was already done in a What If? comic (except she called herself "Thordis").Thor is someone Jane turns into, like Captain Marvel was someone Billy Batson turned into.

Later in the run Kirby put more emphasis on the Norse mythology and he and Lee eventually decided that Don was just a fake persona Odin created for Thor. But they do have precedent, with the original comics, for this approach. Think of the lightning and thunder as Marvel's SHAZAM!

Well if you're saying Kirby and Lee effectively retconned Donald Blake's true nature, then yes "Thor" is a title and the whole Jane Foster thing is consistent with that. (Like that super old Thing cartoon with the Thing Rings!- and then Fraction resurrected that idea in FFv2). I tend to see Jane Foster/Thor as more of a Beta Ray Bill though- no Thor identity or memories, just Thor power and costume