Captain America Goes Rogue!

Marc Alan Fishman

Marc Alan Fishman is a graphic designer, digital artist, writer, and most importantly a native born Chicagoan. When he's not making websites, drawing and writing for his indie company Unshaven Comics, or rooting for the Bears... he's a dedicated husband and father. When you're not enjoying his column here on ComicMix, feel free to catch his comic book reviews weekly at MichaelDavisWorld, and check out his books and cartoons at Unshaven Comics.

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Kristo says:

    I can see it now: "Next up on the Sean Hannity program, we'll speak with esteemed superhero Batman and get his thoughts on holding terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

    • Marc Alan Fishman says:

      And stay tuned… Bill O'Riley will be pasting up liberal shill Ollie Queen for his pinko-commie agenda in Star City!

  2. Anonymous says:

    If they ever want to get more free publicity and attract more readers they SHOULD not shy away from showing heroes taking stances. Now what Quesada did I found was totally embarassing. What happened to the guy that had cojones, what I wished Q had said was "Hey! It's a comic book. It's a work of fiction! Deal with it!"

  3. Steve C. says:

    Ok, I have, like, zero use for the tea party movement. I also have no idea what it's like to produce a comic coming up on deadline (or any other time, for that matter).That having been said, am I the only one who doesn't think Joey Q's story passes the smell test?

  4. Kyle Gnepper says:

    I honestly do think this was just a mistake. Comic companies have usually been pretty good about keeping neutral in the name of not alienating readers. If they take either side people will stop reading because it conflicts with what they believe, like it or not that's the way it happens.That being said tune in tonight as Rush Limbaugh tells us how Wonder Woman's all female paradise is a threat to the American way of life.

  5. Delmo Walters Jr. says:

    I guess Quesada's cojones only come in handy when he's making smarmy comments at DC. Here kitty, kitty, kitty…

  6. Alex Jay Berman says:

    I actually got into it with the erstwhile writer of the original "Marvel is racist", resulting in the exchange shown in the posts below: Quesada caved to the likes of THIS moron?

  7. bryce swan says:

    I'm sorry that Marvel decided to go the "sorry, simple mistake" route in the interest of being inoffensive to the largest group of readers and non-readers. I'm old enough to remember the comics of the 60's and 70's being fairly non-neutral and even more recently marvel writers making thinly veiled political points. If its well written I think it benefits the readers.

  8. Dave says:

    I think that some of it, at least, was intentional. P. 18 shows a woman who looks like she's been injected with thorazine with the "keep the government out of my Medicare" sign–hard to believe that's just coincidental. In reality, comics have been political at least since Cap punched out Hitler on the cover of Captain America 1. Creators have political views that shape their works, and that's a good thing and debate over the content is healthy too, but it should be over what's really going on. The problem here (or beauty of it) is that this is becoming more like the commentary you get from political cartoons, which don't get flak like this for it. It is the association of comics with children and socialization through Seduction of the Innocent and Senate subcommittee hearings in 1954 that is lurking at the bottom of this debate, a sense that comics are forbidden from openly making these statements, and in the absence of the Comics Code, such statements may still be suppressed by corporate powers (like Disney?), presumably to retain readers but perhaps to control what you and I think as we draw connections between fictional storylines and current events. The debate needs to come back to this–none of the most incendiary things Huston says are happening actually occur in the comic book. Cap doesn't say tea parties are racist and dangerous, he isn't slandering anyone on behalf of Marvel, and Marvel isn't making super villains of real-life (self-identified) patriots. They _are_ saying that at least some tea party members may be vulnerable to manipulation by a group like the Watchdogs, and that some of the signs they display–which are insulting to themselves–may indicate this, and are also humorous. The referencing of real events and poking fun at them is what I think inititiated the backlash. They are also saying this public dissatisfaction is a product of economic hard times that have hit some areas like Idaho disproportionately to others, and that as tea bagging (go back to those mailed to Tip O'neil in the 80s) has been historically associated with growing white male poverty, the racism displayed by some members of the tea parties should be watched and taken seriously. I predict there will be more such debates simply because comics have grown better in part by incorporating more realism, they've done it to satisfy creators and readers, and that isn't going away. The rest of the public is going to need to get educated to this, and get used to the fact that this isn't 1954, or the late 60s, but 2010 when the view of comics as a childish medium has been disproven for some 25 years. Because of what people are accustomed to from political blogs, Huston can spew a lot of lies and half-truths about comics, but the rules of the game are that it is a problem for comics to be political, at least if they contradict your views. I don't like what he says, but in a free society, he gets to do it within legally prescribed boundaries–I guess saying Marvel is slandering through a comic character is hazy enough to relieve him of the legal ramifications of accusing them of slander, as does not identifying who they are slandering. Let's see him find the people who made the signs that inspired Marvel, and assert those people are being slandered. Big lawsuit. What has to stop is the disproportionate pressure on comics to kow-tow to a public discourse on them that is so shallow, ill-formed, and founded on what are at best inaccuracies and at worst blatant lies.