Captain America: The Winter Soldier pre-release thread

My Cap was the one from the 70s as written by Steve Englehart. So seeing Cap as a social progressive, New Deal Democrat isn't hard for me. But I have to mention a lot of what's mentioned in that article are retcons. Living Brooklyn, being the child of of Irish immigrants, being an artist and being poor are later additions to Cap's history and not part of what was established in the 40s.

 

Certainly not. Even in the '30s and '40s, there were white Americans who despised racism and treated people of other races with respect. Jack Benny, for instance. Most radio shows of that era portrayed black characters as demeaning caricatures, slow and lazy and cowardly, but Benny never let his writers make such jokes at the expense of the character of Rochester; indeed, while Rochester was a manservant, he was smart and canny and was routinely given the punch lines at Benny's expense. And in real life, Benny was outraged when Eddie Anderson, who played Rochester, was mistreated or denied service because of his race. I think I read that once while the cast was traveling in the south, Benny refused to stay at a hotel that wouldn't let Anderson stay as well.

So even then, there were people who knew better.

Technically, perhaps, but think about it. A poor, New York-born artist who's the child of immigrants belonging to a minority that was persecuted at the time? That perfectly describes Captain America's creators Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, as well as Stan Lee himself. The only difference is that they were Jewish rather than Irish. So while those aspects of Steve's backstory may have been added later, they accurately represented the background of his creators. And these were not people who would've created an American icon defined by elitism and exclusionism.

 

Someone like Coulson, who sees a positive value in things past, would know this sort of detail about the likes of Jack Benny.

 

What was really established about Steve Rogers' family and background back in the 40s?

 

Probably nothing at all. Comics at the time weren't all that deep.

In Captain America #1, we don't even meet Steve until he's introduced as the volunteer for the supersoldier experiment -- and he isn't even named on that page, because the reveal that Private Steve Rogers is Captain America is the surprise on the last page of the story. So Steve's past was a complete non-issue in his debut story, and I doubt that changed any over the rest of the '40s and '50s.

 

I wasn't commenting on Cap's politics; obviously he's neither racist nor a misogynist. Indeed he probably think the latter has something to do with melted cheese.

I was just pointing out that the "old fashioned ideas" that people always harp on about (on this side of the pond too) are often looked at through some very blurry rose tinted glasses. Like I said: a whole other discussion.

I don't know, I'd be interested to find out what (if any) back story the original version of the character had. That later authors went out of their way to paint him in as liberal a light as possible rather smack of revisionism and some of that misguided nostalgia I mention above.

Part of me would rather he wasn't so morally "perfect" by modern standards. After all we can't help the times we're born into and a good person can still have some (from our perspective) very backward views.

I'm not saying any person in those or earlier times must by definition hold "views" that we would find disagreeable by any means. I'm just curious how (if at all) different the original Cap's sense of morality is from the version we have today.

Ah ah, so he's in favour of corporal punishment then? I knew he wasn't squeaky clean!
Also, is Bucky suppose to be a child soldier in this? I mean the outfit is creepy enough, but he actually takes him into a warzone?

Yes, yes, I know. Comic strip. Wartime propaganda aimed at children and borderline illiterate draftees and all that...but still...

 

Sometime during Roger Stern's run we learn that Cap's memories were altered so much of his history was invalid. And he was replaced by somebody else in the 50s. Still Steve Rogers' moralistic center remained just his past was changed over the years.

 

Later versions show Bucky fighting alongside Rogers in WW2 while he still is a teenager (late teens of course) and being quite proficient in killing.

Modern Cap America comics often alluded to Bucky's actions as the one necessary which Cap couldn't do like stabbing a guard in the back to enter an area.

 

Yeah it was so much better to show a minor doing the killing than Cap.

 

No that's not quite right, Stern's run reverted to the status quo after someone else (Gerber) tried to change the origin.

 

Right. Despite the famous "punching Hitler" cover of his debut issue, the '40s Cap wasn't fighting the Nazis in Europe, he was fighting fifth columnists, saboteurs, and Nazi sympathizers in the US. It was upon his revival in the '60s that he was retconned as having participated actively in the war in Europe as a member of the superhero team called the Invaders, and occasionally in partnership with Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos.

But that debut cover shows that Cap was never a mere enforcer of the status quo. At the time, in 1940, a lot of Americans opposed the idea of going to war and a lot were sympathetic to the Nazi government or doing business with them. Prior to December 1941, blatantly endorsing enmity toward the Nazis was a controversial stance and a strongly political statement.

 

My fault then, I remembered the panel in #247 and thought the memory altering was done during Stern's run.

 

Criticism from a man whose country still has Lords and Ladies and swears allegiance to a Queen.

Plus you don't seem to understand the whole purpose of ideals. They exist not to cover up flaws but to transcend them (and judging by the racial violence in Europe we are doing a pretty good job).

Just because Captain America lived with racists doesn't mean he was one himself.

 

OK, *when* exactly did I swear allegiance to the Queen? And when exactly did this discussion become personal? Calm down sunshine.

 

Citizens of the UK are not required to swear allegiance to anyone.

Lords are elected government representatives.

"Ladies" refering simply to their spouses, who often have other roles in government/civil service.

All of the "old fashioned" aspects of the jobs themselves have been replaced apart from a few aesthetic keepsakes, a tiny piece of what the House of Lords actually is today.

These people are the final stage of passing laws that have overturned the likes of gender and racial inequality.

But do please keep being ignorant, it's amusing.

 

I like Cap's Roosevelt-ian New Deal era politics and I like to explain to people who associate Captain America with 'jingoist' policies that he's a much more subtle and liberal character than the name suggests. But I thought Reverend made a fair point, that we shouldn't overlook the problems that prevailed at the time that the character is supposed to have grown up in.

I don't think anyone should take it as an insult; merely a reminder that nostalgia ain't what it use to be! Seriously though, don't forget that Roosevelt (whose presidency I have a lot of respect for) opened detention camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII, long before any War on Terror thought of similar ideas.

 

Watch 'Benefits Street' for a real slice of British life.

I personally have toasted the Queen on many occasions, however.

And 'Ladies' are not just the spouses of Lords. Many Baronesses are titled on their own merit, don't forget. Go Floella Benjamin, I say!

 

Elected by whom?