alf, i'm sorry if you got the idea i was directing the whole thing at you because of my quote at the beginning. it wasn't meant as a personal attack on you, or on any one poster in particular. i was attempting to show the ugly, ignorant side of this rally the thread had turned into. it became a rant about how black characters were mistreated, underexposed, and set aside by the white man controlling the industry. it became a call for more black characters for the sake of black characters. it seemed like the only criteria you [collectively] cared about was that the character's skin was black. if he wasn't a black character, he wasn't as important. if he was black, but had no character to speak of, somehow he deserved exposure and praises and etcetera. specifically the instances in which the creative teams who put their time, their effort and their own experiences into their writing were criticizes and outright insulted with no basis whatsoever aside from this thought-up conspiracy. those set me over the edge. so, before going further, i apologize for the coarseness of my language in the first post, and the tone i took in general.
in reply to your replies, alf, since you're the only one whose actually said anything; here goes.
your comment on the aboriginals seemed dismissive at best. it separated "them" [aboriginals, including gateway and bishop specifically] from "black males." you did say it was good seeing them put in, which i did overlook, but the wording of the sentence seemed to go along with the "not black enough" idea of saying bishop didn't count. also, this "only interested in characters of african descent" idea sets up a strong "us versus them" scenario in which white characters are not only dismissed, but also non-african black characters. that type of thinking, as much as you're entitled to it, is only good for creating tension, resentment, and eventually anger.
storm's hair and eyes were taken directly from the bird woman concept, as they couldn't keep the cat woman concept and tack on weather powers. wouldn't be sensical. and instead of just having her be a mesh of two characters from a rejected line-up [nightcrawler also came out of this rejected team,] they established a genetic reason linking her to a religion, making her a "goddess," and putting her within a new, unique mythology. they weren't throwing in bits of "white girl" to tone her down and make her more "acceptable" to a white audience. to be honest, the idea that a character would need to be "less black" for whites to find them acceptable is extremely insulting to me personally, and to the vast majority of comic readers who are not racially biased. again, this idea slants things and establishes two groups at odds with one another. it doesn't have to be that way, but it seems like an almost defensive reaction. you're unhappy, so it's got to be someone else's problem ****ing up your good time, and you're not gonna stand for their bullshit. not only can a rational conversation not occur within those confines, but it's a thought process doomed for failure.
a comment was made on the pages prior to this one that everett k. ross was likely put in place to ease a white person's mind when faced with the dominant african character that is the black panther. without checking i don't know who said it, but it was said, and as i explained, my post was directed to the group; not any one poster. that said, i stand by what i said earlier, and reiterate that the very idea that, as a white person, i would be unable to handle a character like t'challa without a white character walking me through it is incredibly insulting. it assumes far too much in the sense that somehow this MUST be the reason, and that's why white people could read BP; and far too little in assuming we, white readers that is, are incapable of functioning beyond some artificial racial barrier you allege exists. that we can't handle a strong black character simply because we're white. it's an insult, and it is racist thinking.
the storm thing just pissed me off. it's better for storm to be with a character who shares her skin color, despite it contrasting years of her continuity, than for her to have a complex, long-standing relationship with a character who ISN'T her same color? that sounds like a concept a bigoted white man from the mid-1900s would have come up with, not something an allegedly "progressive" writer [regardless of his color] in the year 2007 would've thought up. again, alf, it wasn't directed at you if you didn't say it. i was taking bits out of the conversation at large.
the comment was made, by someone with someone else agreeing, that maybe the creative team behind new x-men introduced a bunch of minority characters to dupe minority readers into picking it up, then killed 'em off or depowered them because they couldn't come up with any compelling stories involving non-whites. the idea is completely ludicrous, directly insulting of both creative teams whose agendas differed completely, and further insulting of the creators to allege that somehow they, as writers, are incapable of creating stories outside of a cookie-cutter, white-on-white-on-white setup. not only has it been proven not true through the various stories written by both teams, it makes unfair leaps in logic to assume any decision that affected a minority character was somehow an attack on them for being a minority. it's completely ridiculous. and alf, two of those three comments don't directly apply to new x-men. the third even seemed like a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" scenario, given the complaints about how it WAS done, and complaints about how it COULD HAVE been done. while you might have meant it as a compliment, as in "at least they're doing something, so i can't knock them for not trying," that's not how i read it originally. it still seems kind of skewed, to me, but i apologize if i misinterpreted.
at least apocalypse wasn't german. at least he wasn't russian. at least his megalomania can't be tied into a country's history of attempts at world domination [no offense meant to any germans or russians,] but stems from his mutancy. it's something of a no-prize, considering nobody makes mention of poccy's heritage anymore, but that's just not who the character was made to be.
while there were positive comments made, they all seemed to be coupled with more negative, racially-charged commentary. saying "well, black female characters seem popular, but i think black male characters aren't so popular because white people can't handle a strong black man" isn't really a positive statement overall. saying things like marvel "threw black people a bone" by casting michael clarke duncan as kingpin isn't a positive statement.
just because something exists doesn't mean it's the only answer. while i freely admit there is racially-motivated decision making going on, you can't lump all racially-involved decisions [any decision involving a minority character, conflict between races, etc] into that idea. that's an unfair scapegoat, and it puts not only unfair blame on the writers involved, it creates a false stigma AGAINST the creative teams who have to make decisions for any cast that isn't strictly white. saying tag and prodigy were killed and depowered because of racist decisions made by the creative team is absurd when you consider how many characters in total died or were depowered, editorial pressures put onto creative teams to fit into the flow of the comic industry and company events, etc. so, while i leave room to acknowledge its existence, i don't throw it around like i have the right to accuse just because i'm upset. i'm not contradicting myself at all by saying so.
i made the comments about other ethnic groups because noone during the "the world's against us" rant thought it prudent to bring up discrimination and unequal representation of other minorities. whether you believe that everyone should be getting represented equally or not, it wasn't mentioned. it had a "they're hating on the black man, we're the victims here, ignore everything else," feel, which did not address the bigger discrimination issues. that's why i said it was a pity party. i apologize if you're offended by that, but that's the way the last several pages of chat were going.
as for your personal experiences, i can only say that everyone's got their scar tissue, and i can't tell you how to handle yours. but, to the same extent, you can't assume your reaction to your traumas overrides anyone else's ability to empathize or find a different solution. i suppose you are entitled to think that way [after all, i'm no fascist,] but it doesn't belong in the realm of respectable adults or decent conversation. i'm sorry your past played out as it did for you. i like to think that, due to my own traumatic experiences in life, i haven't become prejudiced against the religious, the handicapped, or, coincidentally, the "black man" or those of mexican heritage. i like to think i'm beyond that kind of thinking, which only makes the allegations in this thread that much more insulting.