Right
Wrong
Both
Neither-it's complicated
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.
Last edited by FUBAR007; 01-07-2020 at 03:34 PM.
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. 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.
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.
Last edited by From The Shadows; 01-07-2020 at 06:31 PM.
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.
Last edited by Zelena; 01-07-2020 at 03:49 PM.
“Strength is the lot of but a few privileged men; but austere perseverance, harsh and continuous, may be employed by the smallest of us and rarely fails of its purpose, for its silent power grows irresistibly greater with time.” Goethe
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.
Genkai nante nai (No limits), Zettai nante nai (No absolutes)
Thank GOD for X'97. Cautious about "From the Ashes". Please no more Blue vs. Orange.
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.
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.
Last edited by Lucyinthesky; 01-07-2020 at 04:28 PM.
"To the X-men then, who don´t die the old fashioned way and no matter how hard we try, none of us die forever" Uncanny X-Men #270, Jean and Ororo
Magneto: The master of magnetism Appreciation 2022
Polaris: The Mistress of Magnetism Appreciation 2022
House of M Appreciation 2022
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".
Last edited by FUBAR007; 01-07-2020 at 04:47 PM.
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.
Originally Posted by The General, JLA #38