Captain America Reborn #1 (of 5)

I couldn't disagree more. Steve Rogers is the idealism and strength of the American spirit. His fight for true freedom brought him to the ultimate sacrifice. He took the side of liberty over tyranny. Bucky is a construct, cybernetic arm, Soviet programming, former assassin trying to redeem himself through wearing his former partner's suit. He's a fake Captain America. He represents nothing of the United States today. He can't even get the Avengers to fight as a coherent unit. He doesn't inspire like Steve Rogers does, he can't, he doesn't "IT" like Steve Rogers does. Steve Rogers is needed now more than ever.

...I totally agree with you on all you comments on Steve except that with his return, how does the sacrifice of his life remain as powerful as it was? Also, how many people can relate to a World War II hero? America has done much that has tarnished its image since then as has Bucky but still has the spirit of a hero and one who strives to do what is right even when co-opted by men (in Bucky's allegorical case, the Soviets) who abuse power and have their own vision of the American dream. Bucky is a much more complex yet still heroic allegory for America during the Cold War and the Post-Cold War world. Not always right per se, but still adherent to the core values of the American Ideal.

So you're asserting that "Bucky" is near enough therefore good enough? Barnes is a metaphor for the United States? A nation that saved Europe from itself three times by sending it's young men to die on foreign shores? A nation that saved muslims in Bosnia while muslims were bombing it's World Trade Center? A nation that went to protect the oppressed Somalis while it's own people butchered and starved them? A beacon of liberty and democracy to the people of Poland and the oppressed that saw Soviet Russia crumbled? Lech Walensa himself held the United States in the highest esteem saying the words of Ronald Reagan and the efforts of the U.S. against the Soviets are what inspired his people to defeat communism. You have an issue with this America? I don't. You're endorsing a complete dilution of what Captain America is to any kind heroism. Near enough is never good enough if you're a true hero. America needs a hero now more than it ever has because if people like yourself are expressing thoughts that America isn't "right" then we really need Steve Rogers now. He is "right", he fights for "right". That's why Steve Rogers must return. His clarity and vision are needed right now. His return wouldn't devalue his sacrifice at all it would remind us of what we're allowing ourselves to lose. He allowed himself to be arrested, he was killed through the machinations of his mortal enemy..a villain who champions, self elevation, repression and tyrany..and yet he'd survive even death to return to the good fight. What's more heroic than that? A cybernetic, former soviet assasin who's trying to pay for his sins by wearing a suit? Like I said, he can't even inspire the Avengers to unite to face Osborn's crew. Ronin has been reduced to whining and kvetching on TV about Osborn taking the Avengers from him. Oh yeah..how heroic..just what we need right now, another whiner. Steve Rogers would have hung Osborn and his usurpers out to dry by now.

As for asserting "who can relate to a World War II hero" Why not ask "who can relate to any true hero"? Washington and the first patriots? Can you? I can't, I'm not made of that stuff but I'm glad men like Steve Rogers are. That's why they're heroes, that's why they're exceptional. They transcend our fallibilities. We should be thanking the comic book gods for Steve Rogers and his kind. And there's a lot of weight to the saying, "those that choose to forget history, are condemned to repeat it". Forget American bravery of any time and place and you're condemned repeat the conditions of why they had to sacrifice so much. We need Steve Rogers, not a self doubting construct wearing his boss's suit while the boss is out.

Tel, from what I read, you have a vision of America and the Captain that adheres to the old myth of exceptionalism of the United States.

Andy, from what I understand, I see that you argue that Steve Rogers, is too black and white - pure good versus pure evil to be representative of our current times.

Tel, in your arguments, you seem to say that the character of Captain America write itself by default and in your views, writers tend to adapt their writing to his character.

Andy, you would argue that Captain America is a vessel for what a writer sees in America and is therefore not as mythical or a pure character. Hence, why Bucky Barnes can be Captain America today and yet be a perfect fit for the task at hand.

Interesting debate.

...I in no way of the mind that Steve Rogers isn't what Tel says he is. I say that America is not what it should be. No nation, or culture, or government is perfect and Steve is perfect. Bucky isn't perfect but he's a good man with a good mission, remember before he was brainwashed by the Soviets he was a hero and Steve's partner. Cap is a character and a vessel for what the current writer views America as. If you want to talk about patriots, etc. There is no way you can equate Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II (definately not!), or even Obama with the founding fathers. You can't equate any of these recent Presidents with FDR, Lincoln, Washington, etc. Steve is the embodiment of those founders, not the current flawed but at the core well meaning and patriotic (if sometimes misguided) men. You are acting like I'm denouncing America, I am not in any way. I'm proud of most of my country's actions, note MOST, not ALL. We as a nation strive to the best that humanity has to offer but we are not all perfect. Steve is perfect, Bucky isn't. America isn't perfect, so therefore Bucky is much more realistic. This isn't a debate on whether the "American Experiment" is flawed, its a debate over the realities of the men who mess with the most sacred aspects of the American Spirit and pevert them. It's happened. I think someone who realizes they have flaws and is willing to battle with themselves to improve themselves is much more realistic than someone born "perfect." Therefore, Bucky is more compelling. Of course he hasn't pulled the Avengers together yet, how long has he been Cap? Its like the man who wants to better himself and takes on this mission isn't going to suceed in the first moments of his endevour.

To address Herve's assessment....is it "exceptionalism" to state the truth?

America was saving muslims in Eastern Europe while muslims were bombing Americans on American soil. I call that noble, not exceptionalist. America was saving Somalis at the cost of it's own sons, while Somalia's own "leaders" were butchering and starving their own people. I call that compassionate and selfless, not exceptionalist. Democracy, free trade and civil freedoms kept the U.S. bouyant and strong while the USSR wilted and died under the weight of it's own corruption and oppression. I call that being true, strong and logical, not exceptionalist. Rogers encompasses all that and Barnes at one point did also.

Andy...I understand your view, Barnes is a metaphor for how you perceive America today, flawed and struggling with itself. But America isn't self doubting and trying to redeem itself for perceived sins which is where I feel you're on the wrong track. Imperfect? Sure. In need of redemption? Definitely No. That's why Barnes' need isn't an accurate dynamic for the U.S. Nor does it wear another's face to begin to atone for perceived sins as Barnes is doing. The fact that the world still wants to come to America for a better life is it's own confirmation.

Correct, Barnes fought alongside Rogers and was programmed after he was captured. Then he spent decades carrying out assasinations for the Soviet regime. A regime responsible for killing and incarcerating millions. Barnes and Rogers actively fought to bring down another regime responsible for kiling and incarcerating millions before that. I realise, Barnes was not of his full senses when he was working for the Soviets and that I'm sure is a source of great anguish for the character..it would be for anyone to know they were used as an automaton to do things that went against every fibre of their being. But I don't see the U.S as having to redeem itself for anything (yes even Iraq today, history I know will vindicate me on that). Every conflict will have individuals that act with dishonour, but the Abu Graib jailers for instance, were addressed. Do you think any of our enemies (yes we have enemies) would have prosecuted and removed any of their own jailers if their deplorable conduct was made public? No is the honest answer...and that is why America is still the beacon it is. Because even when some of it's own citizens let it down, it upholds it's core values. The two most enlightened documents of modern history are the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I hear people from other countries quoting what they believe are their "rights" and I have to remind them they're quoting the American Constitution, not their own. Fascinating that such a charter can resonate across civilisation on such a subliminal level. It obviously addresses fundamentals that other countries have suppressed. And by the way, I'm an immigrant to the U.S.

I also don't agree with your assessment of Barnes' lack of ability to unite the Avengers...Rogers was thawed out of a block of ice, a man out of his time, and still united and led that group of heroes into an effective unit. It's because Barnes is no Steve Rogers that he can't unite them into a cohesive unit. He's not the inspiration and strength Rogers is. Which brings me back to my point..we need Rogers now more than ever.

Tel, in the field of political theory, what you are arguing is called American exceptionalism. It is, just like republicanism, totalitarianism or libertarianism, an ideology. For you and the way you describe it, this is truth. I'm more interested in stepping back and observing what you're saying - it's truly arguing for the city on the hill - that's what you're saying.

The way you describe the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as the most influential events in modern history even goes further than what historians on both sides of the Atlantic have described as the starting date for modern Western civilization. Historians usually agree that the French Revolution is the cut off date and most influential of the two revolutions. The United States' influence as a power came in the latter part of the 19th century only.

But your take on this is clearly based on the ideology and myth of American exceptionalism, whether you realize it or not.

Quite interesting.

To address Herve again. Your thinly veiled insults wrapped in your elitism are noted. I see them as a window into your cynical perception of the United States and I'd hazard to say a demonstration of the disaster that is the liberal arts in our colleges.

If you can credibly demonstrate one other country that has exceeded the United States in consistent amounts of generosity and selflessness I'm open to further debate (minus the elitist rhetoric). I stand on my opinion that the two most enlightened documents of modern times are the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And I say this as an immigrant to the United States. I'm also quite well aware of the influence of the French Revolution...however it didn't play out so well for the French in practice did it? If one extrapolates that to the Bolshevik revolution, we have the unmitigated disaster in the creation of a regime that's responsible for the death of millions.

I suggest you reserve the "exceptionalism" jab for the rest of the "Che'" T-shirt crowd at the coffee house where it's enthusiastically embraced.

Quite Interesting.

Why do these "quite interesting" debates always devolve into name calling...it takes all types, and all views are respected but someone, either the liberal, the moderate, or the conservative in any debate ends up namecalling or dissing someone else...

This was fun until now...at least I was enjoying it.

Tel, sorry you felt that way about my prior message. I'm not sure where you get the liberal coffee drinking angle. Have you tried googling up the term "city on the hill" and exceptionalism, before saying I was writing rhetoric? If there has been rhetoric in this discussion, it certainly didn't come from me. All I've been doing is trying to interpret the arguments Andy and you have shared and bring them into a different context/referrer.

Exceptionalism, Tel, is an ideology that runs the whole gamut from Liberals to conservatives in the United States. It's not a left or right debate. And neither do you have to be from the Mayflower to adhere to this. Recent Americans often are the most die-hard defenders of exeptionalism.

The way you continue to argue that the US documents are the most important in the world's history is exactly what exceptionalism is about. You may hate that I put a label on you, but what you're expressing political scientists and historians have been studying and writing tons of books on since the 1950s. I did a presentation on this very topic just a few months ago. That's why I found this debate between you and Andy so interesting. You guys were literally acting out stuff I've read about in books. That's my only interest in this debate. I don't care about the rights or wrongs, left or right.

It's an ideology and frame of mind. You believe in something that has been studied by social scientists about the character of Americans and I'm just pointing that. Now does that make you uncomfortable for being put under the magnifier by a crazy scientist, maybe!

I don't care about the "generosity" of Americans and selflessness. That's all debatable stuff, and I didn't comment on that.

About the most enlightened documents/events, I ask you this. Which American Constitution are you referring to? There's been a few written out...

And about the French Revolution being the demarcating point to modern times and not the American Revolution, you're missing the point. It's not whether or not the French Constitution succeed that matters. It's what it changed - it changed far more than the American Revolution in history and that's why the majority of historians agree that this event is the one that marks the entry in the modern times.

The effects of the Unites States' Revolution did not change the balance of power overnight, it did not reinvent modern warfare and the modern state. In the 18th Century, the United States was a minor power. It's only in the second half of the 19th Century that the United States started to be a major player in world affairs and that it began to influence a lot of other countries. By comparison, the French Revolution changed world maps overnight.

I do agree with Andy that name calling is not necessary. I did enjoy this discussion a lot more before your last post.

Cheers

I've heard and read about the ideology of American Exceptionalism. When in my undergrad program I was a "victim" of the liberal minded professors, well not really a victim, since I agreed with a good bit if not all of what they purported. It's really hard for an American, like myself, to look at Americans objectively simply because we are what we are trying to look at from the outside. What is interesting is that, yes, Tel..., you and I might be exceptionalists but we can agree that our country is quite exceptional. America, even though driven by a massive capitalist urge in most endevours, (and calling America capitalist doesn't make me a marxist-it is what it is-hell, I'm a capitalist!) have had arguably many postives on the world as it has negatives, being and exceptional exceptionist, I have to say more beneficial than negative BUT I don't want to get into that here. I'm just saying that what I find most interesting is looking at a "foreign" (well, Canadian) view of America. One can expand one's outlook and world view by listening to what others say about "us" i.e. Americans. That is why its so interesting to foster informative debate, like I tried to do with my article. Even though it's only been us three talking thus far I've gotten a great deal out of it. Anyone else have an opinion out there? on Cap, exceptionalism, or all of us exceptional Americans?