You must log in or register to comment.
Much like Jesus would not recognise his “followers”, Cap would not recognise the “america” he was fighting for…
Considering he went to war in the 40s, I think he would recognize this America. For all of our flaws, we’re doing better now than we were then.
Like he said - he fought not because America is great, but because it is fragile. America is not some shining precious jewel, it’s a deeply flawed creature - the only thing that marks it as worth saving is the ideal that all people are equal. The further we get from that, the closer we come to being nothing more than trash and a rag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello_La_Guardia
New York City in the 1930s was full of Socialists and Communists.
Much of the 1950s Red Scare was set up to punish the ‘premature anti-fascists’ who a young Steve Rogers would have listened to.
But in that fragility, he understood that we were only as strong as our weakest link
I agree with your statements on ideals, but I do not think America was on the precipice of becoming a fascist dictatorship in the 40s.
You might be surprised, there were a lot of pro nazi Americans. The attack on Pearl Harbor changed what might have been a quiet agreement with the new reich
For all of our flaws, we’re doing better now than we were then.
Really? How many Palestinians were the US helping to murder back in the 40s? How many Afghans? How many Iraqis?
Or are you just happy that the people being murdered happen to be brown people and not ones you think should be included in the “white enough” club?
Want to know how I know you’re not black or a woman? You think the 40s were better than now.
Dang. This is a real Captain America from a “What If?” Published in 1983. “What if Captain America was thawed out today (1983)?”
Please save us, Cap. Oh wait, I guess now Disney owns you, too.
It may be my ignorance, but the history of the USA i know starts with the massacre of indigenous people, then goes to the massacre of black people, then the massacre of mexicans, the massacre of communists, then the massacre of vietnamese ppl, then iraqs and afhgans, and so on. Where is the part that inspires the idea that the USA has such great values?
You left out a bit. We also fought the British, and the Confederacy, and the Spanish, and the Kaiser, and the Nazis, and Imperial Japan.
America’s history is complicated, and full of atrocities, like the history of nearly every major nation.
The values he’s referring to in the comic are the core principles espoused in the founding documents. The idea of one nation with liberty and justice for all. At no point in history have those ideas been fully realized, but striving to meet those ideals is what America means to the Captain, not some borders on a map or colors on a flag.
But they were founded on the idea of the liberty of men… as long as they are white, protestant, male land-owners…
…which was remarkably liberal for its time.
Not really that liberal, compared to what the people they colonized were doing, before the europeans arrived.
You are correct, actually. Not sure why you are downvoted. Several traditional tribal government structures of indigenous peoples were much more democratic in form.
However, besides the Iroquois Confederacy, it’s hard to consider them as being sufficiently organised to be considered a state in the traditional sense. This isn’t meant to exclude all indigenous governments; the Aztec, Mayan, and Inca civilisations were all examples of (non-democratic) highly organised states, especially in comparison to the North American tribes around and after European contact.
I don’t think that being/having a state is necessary for a democratich governance. I don’t know why you added that conditional.
It is not, but I think that discussion about democracy in cultures that don’t organise themselves into states is very informative because those societies basically have to be democratic. A state apparatus that can enforce its will is what allows a state to be non-democratic in the first place. If there is no state, people who don’t like it can just leave.
I kind of get your point. However, the state, as we knou it today is a relatively new invention. And the original idea of the post was that the US was founded on “enlightenment ideas”, like democracy and such. This framing is very cynical, since the european upper class probably got those concepts from the native Americans which the US displaced/genocided.
Also: I’m an anarchist, so I’ll guess you’ll forgive that I’m not too fond of states. ;)
Sounds like pinko commie talk. Am I right?
He didn’t say women. /s
The business coup plot in the 1930s almost succeeded for a reason. There are… unsavory elements in the American political apparatus.
Remember when Nixon made him so hopping mad he quit and took on the mantle of Nomad over it? Pepperidge farm remembers.
I’m pretty convinced all the craziness with hydra cap and old cap was just the writers trying to dodge the backlash of having Steve Rogers be the cap that made all the political statements that Sam Wilson did as cap during that stretch that happened to line up somewhat with the Trump Presidency.
While he blithely conflates nations with states as if that’s the only natural arrangement.
(To be fair I do not expect comic book writers to understand those kinds of differences)
“American exceptionalism is when you think that America, a country founded on a handful of documents, relates to the ideals expressed in those documents.”
I’ll offer a cautionary note on that take. We really need to meet our heroes, in this case our founding fathers, and frame their words and mindset in the time they said what they did. Those “ideals” revolved around landed white males and not the sugar-coated “I can not tell a lie” history we got in 4th grade.
Those ideals are largely enlightenment-era ideals which still resonate today.
The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
- George Washington
Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men?—Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!
- Ben Franklin
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
- John Jay
The origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent?
- Alexander Hamilton
The Founding Fathers were deeply imperfect men who were, in many ways, products of their time. But as far as ideals and not specific policy positions go, they’re worth the naming.
Again, you are framing their words in your mind today and ignoring the context they were written. For instance, “all men are created equal” was intended to give all white males a shot at “equality” in reference to hereditary white aristocracy, not people of other colors. We have revised that to mean literally everyone.
You offer up quotes to prove how great they were but in the next breath say they were flawed while using those quotes as a rebuttal to my statement pointing out that these men were flawed.
Pick one.
Please read about these people, not just the polished historical deep-dives that go soft on their flaws to give the books a veneer of honest and complete truth while extolling their virtues as Great Founding Fathers. They were humans of their time and station.
Again, you are framing their words in your mind today and ignoring the context they were written. For instance, “all men are created equal” was intended to give all white males a shot at “equality” in reference to hereditary white aristocracy, not people of other colors. We have revised that to mean literally everyone.
How many quotes of the Founding Fathers would it take for you to admit that there were a non-negligible number of them who believed in the Enlightenment ideals that were expressed in our founding documents? 5? 10? 100? Perhaps there is no number sufficient, and your mind is made up regardless of evidence. If that’s the case, it would be very helpful for you to state as much now.
You offer up quotes to prove how great they were but in the next breath say they were flawed while using those quotes as a rebuttal to my statement pointing out that these men were flawed.
Men can be great and flawed. Men can champion great ideals and be flawed. I don’t know why that’s so troubling to you?
Please read about these people,
Jesus, fuck. You think I haven’t?
The problem here is you’re fighting a battle that doesn’t need to be fought. Nobody here is contesting the effect they had on the formation of this country, yet for some reason you want to argue that point.
My point is that they were flawed, and that we have revised some of their motives and framing to suit both grade-school level and adult levels of patriotism and worship of the people at the helm of the country’s beginnings. People don’t want to hear that, and it sounds like you’re in the same boat. I’m sorry if that’s something you’ve decided you don’t want to discuss but would rather hyper focus on their successes like some kind of founding father Facebook page. You’re making this argument about your views. It was never about you. If you’ve read everything, good for you. Move on.
Feel free to pile on some quotes if it helps you look the other way.
Edit: welp. People like their sugar-coated history. Too bad. It’s amazing how far we’ve come and adapted over time to make things better for everyone rather than “just white males get to vote”; but nobody wants to hear about why we started out that way when a bunch of white males wrote the rules?
Nobody here is contesting the effect they had on the formation of this country, yet for some reason you want to argue that point.
No, the point I’m arguing is against you here:
Those “ideals” revolved around landed white males
Feel free to pile on some quotes if it helps you look the other way.
Sorry that actual primary source evidence doesn’t mean anything to you?
Get a better rebuttal, yankie.
I don’t know, it seems pretty great to have a rebuttal that half-baked edgelords can’t formulate an answer to.
I have, several times. You ignored it every time.
Sure is a great feeling when you’re unaware of your fallacies, though. /s
I have, several times. You ignored it every time.
Wow, goodness me, you must be posting invisible comments in this thread!
Oh look… American Exceptionalism and American Innocence all rolled up into one ubermensch-style Objectivist “super hero” character.
History teaches us what US “ideals” truly are and always have been - and all the “soft power” the US can conjure won’t be able to paint over it ever again.
“Objectivism is when an antifascist nazi-killer says that a nation which fails to embody ideals of equality is trash.”
If objectivism was how you describe it I’d be an objectivist.
Removed by mod
In Captain America #180 (December 1974) Rogers becomes disillusioned with the United States government, when he discovers that a high ranking government official (heavily hinted to be the then President of the United States Richard Nixon) is the leader of the terrorist organization known as the Secret Empire.
Rogers then decides to abandon his Captain America identity, feeling that he cannot continue to serve America after this latest discovery has shattered his faith in the nation’s status. However, a confrontation with Hawkeye (disguised as the Golden Archer) forces Rogers to realize that he cannot abandon a life of heroism, and he subsequently takes on the name “Nomad” (as it means “man without a country”) adopting a new dark blue and yellow uniform with no patriotic markings on it at all.
This identity is short-lived, with Rogers maintaining it for a mere four issues of the comic to varying degrees of success; he even trips over his own cape at one point. At the conclusion of Captain America #184 (April 1975) Rogers returns to the role of Captain America when he realizes that he could champion America’s ideals without blindly supporting its government.
Steve Rogers has never blindly supported the American government.
Rogers then decides to abandon his Captain America identity,
Right… because we can’t actually have these “supers” actually do anything about that, can we? After all… America is untouchable. It’s just too exceptional, right?
he even trips over his own cape at one point.
Didn’t that happen while Cap was saving a billionaire parasite oil tycoon? Yeah… I can just feel Cap’s “antifascist” cred rising as we speak. I guess this is the true face of those (supposed) “ideals” Cap was going on about, right?
Just for interest’s sake… did you happen to see Cap offing any fascists in Nicaragua in the 80s? Or does Cap mysteriously forget to show up when the fascists are bankrolled by the CIA?
To be fair, that was the whole point of Civil War.
