I've wanted to have this conversation for a few weeks since I joined the forum but honestly I've been a little afraid to do so, given the heated responses it might provoke. So I'd really appreciate it if we all keep cool heads on the topic. Hopefully, my fears are unfounded because you do all seem like a pretty cool crowd.

I'm a storyteller and when I look at Superman I question what his ethnicity would work best as from a narrative perspective, because lets not kid ourselves ethnicity plays a part in how people live their lives. A really great example of this was shown by Milestone Comics in the 90's with heroes like Icon.

Now I get the whole traditional angle of maintaining Superman's 'Caucasian' ethnicity, it's a character steeped in cultural mythology and relevance after all. And I also appreciate that established character's don't need to be redefined to appeal to a more diverse audience, there are already a growing number of wonderful fresh heroes ready to fill said void with I've no doubt more to come.

This discussion, for myself is about the character narrative only. Is Kal-El served better by being of another ethnicity? And specifically I'm talking about an African-American ethnicity.

Before I explain why I lean in favour of the idea, I think the relevance of the answer depends on when you set Clark's arrival as. This obviously moves to a later era with each audience to maintain relevancy with each new generation of comic-book readers, movie-goers and tv enthusiasts. But let's not forget Kal doesn't really age from our perspective so whether he was born in 1910 or 1980 doesn't make much difference outside of his backstory, personal experiences and supporting cast. Correlating to that statement I think it also holds true as to why we are eligible to discuss his ethnicity, Superman will be around long after we're all gone I imagine and will surely be reinvented countless times as a result. Is it so outlandish to suspect a similar such a reinvention might occur in the future? (And I'm not refering to sideshows like Earth 23's Superman Kalel).

For me, I think showing Kal growing up in rural poverty adds to his sense of morality. It's all about nurture over nature, Kal doesn't kick off his career with an innate moral compass born of his Kryptonian heritage, that comes from the loss he's endured and I think there needs to be more there to define this core character trait and psychological need to right wrongs. Growing up in poverty of any kind will cast a shroud on you, and for some that shroud is the need to see that it doesn't happen to others, with an ideology that sometimes extends beyond such a cause.

Now it can be argued that a white Clark Kent can experience the same kind of poverty, if we look at the historics of the USA's agricultural economy over the past century, there have been some very good decades and some very bad ones. If you cast Supes as an orphan in a period like the Great Depression then whether he was white or black, he was going to grow up with little to eat. But if you put him as the adopted child of a black family in a time when white farmers were doing well, that becomes a whole other story, one that I would argue enriches Superman's personal ideology and backstory.

Add to that the hot-button of racism, growing up in rural america in a time it was prevalent and I think you have a Superman that truly represents the American Dream, someone who can fight for liberty and justice for all and overcome the many social obstacles he'd have in his way both as Clark Kent and the alter-ego to represent something greater than has been, the idealism of human nature.

Anyway I hope you guys find the conversation interesting and hopefully I haven't pissed anyone off. Cheers.