Now heres the real conversation: Lets say DC announce they were rebooting Batman, and he's black now. Same exact thing but he's black. Titled of the comic, oddly enough, isn't Batman but "Black Batman". HOWEVER, DC announces they will be discontinuing anything having to do with a white Batman, in other words, White Batman is being retconned out of existence.
My question is, how would you react to it? would you keep being a batman fan or would you scoff at the change of skin color? I mean thematically, it's still the same comic.... save for perhaps the Joker is now overtly racist rather then gay, and maybe there is a story arch with Batman hunting down Klansmen.
I suppose I would be all right with it, so long as they were just changing the skin color and not turning Batman into a genre of urban fiction.
(also, clearly, I'm talking about this subject very light hearted and tongueNcheek. I'm trying to be silly, no racist... even though this whole concept is vaguely racist I realize.)
"Black batman" is stupid. There is however nothing wrong with batman being black. Nothing in any of the story lines or any of the various versions of his often recreated backstory require a particular ethnicity.
Of my two favorite Catwomen (that looks odd...Catwomans?) one happens to be white, one black. Ethnicity doesn't matter to the character at all.
It would only matter if something about the character is inherently race based. I can't think of one at the moment, but to give a silly example, if a Nazi superhero was turned from White Christian to Black Gay Jew in a retcon.
I think it would probably be the absolute stupidest way DC, or ANY franchise wanting to introduce a minority, could go about it. I mean really, by making an overt effort to point out that he's BLACK is just begging for people to make a huge deal of it. And not only that, it's completely defeating the purpose of nonchalantly phasing out the white Batman stuff. They are essentially saying "Yeah he's still Batman. Just as powerful, just as rich, got as dark of a past as ever...but he's black." Yeah, and? I think we could have figured that out for ourselves after a couple of pages.
Any of the controversy about the character suddenly being black would be completely overshadowed from the fact that DC, for what ever reason, thought it was necessary to point out his skin color in the title of the comic. The situation and discussions going on would be completely different if DC left the title the same. So if that's where you wanted the discussion to be heading, I think you should take that out of the situation. Because titles which point out the race of their cast for no reason at all hasn't been politically correct in the mainstream since like World War II.
Kendarik: "Black batman" is stupid. There is however nothing wrong with batman being black. Nothing in any of the story lines or any of the various versions of his often recreated backstory require a particular ethnicity.
Of my two favorite Catwomen (that looks odd...Catwomans?) one happens to be white, one black. Ethnicity doesn't matter to the character at all.
It would only matter if something about the character is inherently race based. I can't think of one at the moment, but to give a silly example, if a Nazi superhero was turned from White Christian to Black Gay Jew in a retcon.
Ethnicity is not the same as race. Black is not an ethnicity. And a black gay Jewish Nazi would be hilarious. Every Nazi ever should be retconned as black, gay, and Jewish.
Wasn't there a new spiderman awhile back that was half black, half hispanic, and either gay or bisexual?
My reaction to such was that they were just trying too hard. Leave established characters alone; If you want to make someone with a new look, ethnicity and situation, that's fine, but make it a new character.
Plus that gives you an added bonus of having a good jumping-on point which mainstream comics are sorely lacking.
Saladfork: Wasn't there a new spiderman awhile back that was half black, half hispanic, and either gay or bisexual?
My reaction to such was that they were just trying too hard. Leave established characters alone; If you want to make someone with a new look, ethnicity and situation, that's fine, but make it a new character.
Plus that gives you an added bonus of having a good jumping-on point which mainstream comics are sorely lacking.
I heard the change was actually pretty positive; it's not that they willy nilly replaced Spiderman, they killed off the original. So it was an entirely new character, just taking up the mantle left by the original Spiderman. Kinda like when Robin changed a few times because one graduated into Nightwing and the other died. And not one of those fake superhero deaths where he comes back to life a few issues later; it's in the Ultimate universe, meaning that Marvel doesn't care as much about keeping characters alive.
Now, as for retconning Batman to being black, that's different because that's taking your original character and changing an aspect of him. I'd find the change to be entirely pointless, and since I grew up with the animated series version of the character would end up pretending it never happened.
Kendarik: "Black batman" is stupid. There is however nothing wrong with batman being black. Nothing in any of the story lines or any of the various versions of his often recreated backstory require a particular ethnicity.
Of my two favorite Catwomen (that looks odd...Catwomans?) one happens to be white, one black. Ethnicity doesn't matter to the character at all.
It would only matter if something about the character is inherently race based. I can't think of one at the moment, but to give a silly example, if a Nazi superhero was turned from White Christian to Black Gay Jew in a retcon.
Ethnicity is not the same as race. Black is not a race. And a black gay Jewish Nazi would be hilarious. Every Nazi ever should be retconned as black, gay, and Jewish.
Race is defined as "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits." Skin color is a very distinctive physical trait, thus one could call Black people a race.
Ethnicity is related, by relies also upon a heritage, language, and culture. Race on the other hand is more of a social construct (it's like breeds in dogs where there are actual significant biological differences) that although often relies upon skin color also relies upon continental origins.
Kendarik: "Black batman" is stupid. There is however nothing wrong with batman being black. Nothing in any of the story lines or any of the various versions of his often recreated backstory require a particular ethnicity.
Of my two favorite Catwomen (that looks odd...Catwomans?) one happens to be white, one black. Ethnicity doesn't matter to the character at all.
It would only matter if something about the character is inherently race based. I can't think of one at the moment, but to give a silly example, if a Nazi superhero was turned from White Christian to Black Gay Jew in a retcon.
Ethnicity is not the same as race. Black is not a race. And a black gay Jewish Nazi would be hilarious. Every Nazi ever should be retconned as black, gay, and Jewish.
Race is defined as "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits." Skin color is a very distinctive physical trait, thus one could call Black people a race.
Ethnicity is related, by relies also upon a heritage, language, and culture. Race on the other hand is more of a social construct (it's like breeds in dogs where there are actual significant biological differences) that although often relies upon skin color also relies upon continental origins.
I made a mistake. I meant to say black is not an ethnicity. I will edit that now. On a side note, my phone is suddenly able to quote again.
I wouldnt give a shit because fuck Batman. I only like the recent movies and although Christian Bale would be a heavy loss I dont think having some (good) black actor replace him would be the end of the world.
As long as hes not running around Gotham in baggy pants shouting "Ahhh hell nah n*gga, you aint touching none of dis shit punk" all is good.
Kendarik: "Black batman" is stupid. There is however nothing wrong with batman being black. Nothing in any of the story lines or any of the various versions of his often recreated backstory require a particular ethnicity.
Of my two favorite Catwomen (that looks odd...Catwomans?) one happens to be white, one black. Ethnicity doesn't matter to the character at all.
It would only matter if something about the character is inherently race based. I can't think of one at the moment, but to give a silly example, if a Nazi superhero was turned from White Christian to Black Gay Jew in a retcon.
Ethnicity is not the same as race. Black is not a race. And a black gay Jewish Nazi would be hilarious. Every Nazi ever should be retconned as black, gay, and Jewish.
Well race isn't a word with a university definition, but in general terms, yes, black probably does meet the definition of race, in fact skin colour was one of the primary determining factors in that non scientific word's early use. You know, that's why people say its "racist" when you are anti-black. But you keep feeling smug if it makes you feel better. (Especially when your corrections are wrong lol)
Kendarik: "Black batman" is stupid. There is however nothing wrong with batman being black. Nothing in any of the story lines or any of the various versions of his often recreated backstory require a particular ethnicity.
Of my two favorite Catwomen (that looks odd...Catwomans?) one happens to be white, one black. Ethnicity doesn't matter to the character at all.
It would only matter if something about the character is inherently race based. I can't think of one at the moment, but to give a silly example, if a Nazi superhero was turned from White Christian to Black Gay Jew in a retcon.
Ethnicity is not the same as race. Black is not a race. And a black gay Jewish Nazi would be hilarious. Every Nazi ever should be retconned as black, gay, and Jewish.
Well race isn't a word with a university definition, but in general terms, yes, black probably does meet the definition of race, in fact skin colour was one of the primary determining factors in that non scientific word's early use. You know, that's why people say its "racist" when you are anti-black. But you keep feeling smug if it makes you feel better. (Especially when your corrections are wrong lol)
Read my other post and recent edit. It was a typo. And there are plenty of university definitions for race, just ask a professor and there you go. I can insult you for making typos as well, but I am pretty certain your original misunderstanding of the differences between race and ethnicity were not typos.
Revnak: I made a mistake. I meant to say black is not an ethnicity. I will edit that now. On a side note, my phone is suddenly able to quote again.
*chuckles* It's like when a grammar nazi makes an error in their correction lol
BTW, in some cultures ethnicity=race or ehtnicity includes skin colour, in terms of definitions of those two words so even your correction of your correction isn't universally accurate.
Ethnicity is not the same as race. Black is not a race. And a black gay Jewish Nazi would be hilarious. Every Nazi ever should be retconned as black, gay, and Jewish.
Well race isn't a word with a university definition, but in general terms, yes, black probably does meet the definition of race, in fact skin colour was one of the primary determining factors in that non scientific word's early use. You know, that's why people say its "racist" when you are anti-black. But you keep feeling smug if it makes you feel better. (Especially when your corrections are wrong lol)
Read my other post and recent edit. It was a typo. And there are plenty of university definitions for race, just ask a professor and there you go. I can insult you for making typos as well, but I am pretty certain your original misunderstanding of the differences between race and ethnicity were not typos.
You claim now it was a typo...
And read my comment on your correction.
Also you might mean, University where I work, not where I go.
Let me help you out there, the term "race" is inherently "racist". There is no valid scientific use of the word, and no self respecting academic would suggest there was. Feel free to point me at that very clear universally accepted definition though.
How about this: A Batman is black. Don't screw with who Bruce Wayne is. Him handing off the mantle of Batman has happened before, so as a what-if scenario he could pass it on to a black guy. As awesome as the new Nick Fury is, it makes no sense that he's black now. The writers should've just replaced him with a new director of SHIELD.
Well race isn't a word with a university definition, but in general terms, yes, black probably does meet the definition of race, in fact skin colour was one of the primary determining factors in that non scientific word's early use. You know, that's why people say its "racist" when you are anti-black. But you keep feeling smug if it makes you feel better. (Especially when your corrections are wrong lol)
Read my other post and recent edit. It was a typo. And there are plenty of university definitions for race, just ask a professor and there you go. I can insult you for making typos as well, but I am pretty certain your original misunderstanding of the differences between race and ethnicity were not typos.
You claim now it was a typo...
And read my comment on your correction.
Also you might mean, University where I work, not where I go.
Let me help you out there, the term "race" is inherently "racist". There is no valid scientific use of the word, and no self respecting academic would suggest there was. Feel free to point me at that very clear universally accepted definition though.
A typo is a type of mistake.
Race is as real as we make it. You can't ignore the obvious social importance of the concept of race, even though it biologically doesn't exist. And yes there is no universally accepted definition. However, there is one for ethnicity, and it is not the same as race. Black is not an ethnicity, it is a race.
I'd be pissed, if only because I think they would only ever do such a thing to stir up controversy. So I wouldn't have an issue with it directly, only because I think they would do it for the wrong reasons.
Read my other post and recent edit. It was a typo. And there are plenty of university definitions for race, just ask a professor and there you go. I can insult you for making typos as well, but I am pretty certain your original misunderstanding of the differences between race and ethnicity were not typos.
You claim now it was a typo...
And read my comment on your correction.
Also you might mean, University where I work, not where I go.
Let me help you out there, the term "race" is inherently "racist". There is no valid scientific use of the word, and no self respecting academic would suggest there was. Feel free to point me at that very clear universally accepted definition though.
A typo is a type of mistake.
Race is as real as we make it. You can't ignore the obvious social importance of the concept of race, even though it biologically doesn't exist. And yes there is no universally accepted definition. However, there is one for ethnicity, and it is not the same as race. Black is not an ethnicity, it is a race.
How can you positively identify it as a race, when you agree race isn't defined?
In any event, your definition is STILL wrong for ethnicity. Ethnicity CAN include racial traits. A couple segments of the Merriam-Webster definition for your attention:
a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> Synonyms: racial, ethnical, tribal
I'm not sure if someone mentioned this already or not, but we kind of DO already have a Black Batman. His name is Batwing (David Zavimbe) and he was introduced in the Batman, Incorporated series. He now has his own series in The New 52.
He's basically the Batman of another area. If there can be multiple Green Lanterns, why not multiple Batmen.
Doesn't make much sense for Bruce Wayne to be Black.
Now, get a new Robin who is black, and hand Batmanning over to him, fair enough. Though it'd make more sense for Grayson to be Batman again, have to push him out of the way as well.
Saladfork: Wasn't there a new spiderman awhile back that was half black, half hispanic, and either gay or bisexual?
My reaction to such was that they were just trying too hard. Leave established characters alone; If you want to make someone with a new look, ethnicity and situation, that's fine, but make it a new character.
It was a new character (and I'm pretty sure he wasn't gay), taking over as Spider-Man in one of the millions of universes, whilst the others still had Peter Parker. Blacks and Mexicans also comprise something like a quarter of the US population - a guy who's mixed race between the two is hardly astronomically unlikely.
OT: Calling it Black Batman would be pretty fucking retarded. Having a black Batman would be fine.
I like Batwing. Or, I like the concept of Batwing, but I don't think the writing's particularly strong. Do love the artwork though, to where the sometimes-iffy writing doesn't really matter to me.
Just wanted that said because, more people should give that comic a try.
Also you might mean, University where I work, not where I go.
Let me help you out there, the term "race" is inherently "racist". There is no valid scientific use of the word, and no self respecting academic would suggest there was. Feel free to point me at that very clear universally accepted definition though.
A typo is a type of mistake.
Race is as real as we make it. You can't ignore the obvious social importance of the concept of race, even though it biologically doesn't exist. And yes there is no universally accepted definition. However, there is one for ethnicity, and it is not the same as race. Black is not an ethnicity, it is a race.
How can you positively identify it as a race, when you agree race isn't defined?
In any event, your definition is STILL wrong for ethnicity. Ethnicity CAN include racial traits. A couple segments of the Merriam-Webster definition for your attention:
a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> Synonyms: racial, ethnical, tribal
Ethnicity is just a way of grouping people into groups that make some sense and have some commonality.
Your race is a socially constructed status that is ascribed to you in accordance with certain physical traits. Your ethnicity is the social group or category you generally fit within. Black is not a valid ethnicity as it tells me nothing about what social category that individual fits within. A black Swede differs from a black African which differs from a black American. And Webster loses credibility with me for having an incorrect definition of gender.
To be honest, there was backlash when Sonic changed his eye colour.
I don't think they should do it to be honest. It seems like a sily retcon to change a natural feature of a superhero. I don't think I would mind personally, but I don't have much personal investment in batman.
Now heres the real conversation: Lets say DC announce they were rebooting Batman, and he's black now. Same exact thing but he's black. Titled of the comic, oddly enough, isn't Batman but "Black Batman". HOWEVER, DC announces they will be discontinuing anything having to do with a white Batman, in other words, White Batman is being retconned out of existence.
My question is, how would you react to it? would you keep being a batman fan or would you scoff at the change of skin color? I mean thematically, it's still the same comic.... save for perhaps the Joker is now overtly racist rather then gay, and maybe there is a story arch with Batman hunting down Klansmen.
I suppose I would be all right with it, so long as they were just changing the skin color and not turning Batman into a genre of urban fiction.
(also, clearly, I'm talking about this subject very light hearted and tongueNcheek. I'm trying to be silly, no racist... even though this whole concept is vaguely racist I realize.)
while it would be funny whenever a goon says 'oh no! its the dark knight' and he responds with an mr. t style 'ya bet ya ass, foo' it would be slightly racist to change a heros skin colour so that he can act in a stereotypical way as i told u in the other tread.
and making superman asian so he knows kung fu is also slightly racist. plus he is superman, one of the best minds, even superior to batman in terms of physics and biology and i bet he already knows a good bunch of martial art styles.(he made a serum for louis that gave her his powers for 24h)
i know it would be fun to see batman in a blaxplotation spin off.
but you cant pull this off in todays time.
Strain42: I'm not sure if someone mentioned this already or not, but we kind of DO already have a Black Batman. His name is Batwing (David Zavimbe) and he was introduced in the Batman, Incorporated series. He now has his own series in The New 52.
He's basically the Batman of another area. If there can be multiple Green Lanterns, why not multiple Batmen.
I would have absolutely no problem with it. The problem is this, why would they be changing his skin color, to appease a certain demographic? To make a statement hey we love them black folk? Or just cause hey we haven't reinvented this character in forever wouldn't it be cool if we did, maybe get people back into comic book reading, or create a new generation of fans with a new character or reinvented one.
Batman is Batman, doesn't matter if he is Latino, Black, White, Asian, or middle eastern. He fight for justice, not affirmative action, so who gives a fuck about his skin tone.
When they did make Spidey black/Hispanic and Bi, it was completely obvious what there underlying reason was. A big stamp of approval from the ACLU and LBGT community. It wasn't a natural progression, it wasn't a reinvention, it was a statement yelling at the top of their lungs, hey look at us we are tolerant. That shit pisses me off, and is completely retarded in my opinion.
As far as batman being black, sure do it, I'd like it if they rebooted the whole series, would give me a reason to start collecting the comics.
Race is as real as we make it. You can't ignore the obvious social importance of the concept of race, even though it biologically doesn't exist. And yes there is no universally accepted definition. However, there is one for ethnicity, and it is not the same as race. Black is not an ethnicity, it is a race.
How can you positively identify it as a race, when you agree race isn't defined?
In any event, your definition is STILL wrong for ethnicity. Ethnicity CAN include racial traits. A couple segments of the Merriam-Webster definition for your attention:
a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> Synonyms: racial, ethnical, tribal
Ethnicity is just a way of grouping people into groups that make some sense and have some commonality.
Your race is a socially constructed status that is ascribed to you in accordance with certain physical traits. Your ethnicity is the social group or category you generally fit within. Black is not a valid ethnicity as it tells me nothing about what social category that individual fits within. A black Swede differs from a black African which differs from a black American. And Webster loses credibility with me for having an incorrect definition of gender.
Certainly many Black South Africans will tell you they are a different ethnicity than White South Africans. Colour can most certainly tell you part of someone's social category.
And I'm so impressed that you know more than dictionaries lol
so the other night I was stoned and amused at the idea of trading Batman's ethnicity for Luke Cage's. I made this post, it's just a silly idea: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.373406-White-Luke-Cage#14436420
Now heres the real conversation: Lets say DC announce they were rebooting Batman, and he's black now. Same exact thing but he's black. Titled of the comic, oddly enough, isn't Batman but "Black Batman". HOWEVER, DC announces they will be discontinuing anything having to do with a white Batman, in other words, White Batman is being retconned out of existence.
My question is, how would you react to it? would you keep being a batman fan or would you scoff at the change of skin color? I mean thematically, it's still the same comic.... save for perhaps the Joker is now overtly racist rather then gay, and maybe there is a story arch with Batman hunting down Klansmen.
I suppose I would be all right with it, so long as they were just changing the skin color and not turning Batman into a genre of urban fiction.
(also, clearly, I'm talking about this subject very light hearted and tongueNcheek. I'm trying to be silly, no racist... even though this whole concept is vaguely racist I realize.)