[ SECRET POST #5238 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5238 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #750.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

I'm so....something that we're no true scotmaning Captain America.

This is why MCU using its characters in real politics badly AND marketing sucks

Now I'm remembering how Captain America said that SSR actions during WWII were justified when that's highly unlikely just based on real world US OSS and wondering if assholes who view the US's sketchy covert WWII behavior as justified applies as people who shouldn't wear captain america shirts, lmao.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh

My view is generally that it's better to try to make a reconstructive stab at American civic nationalism rather than leaving it to the far right. And I think the textual history of Captain America as a character supports doing so - that's also why it's not No True Scotsman imo, because the distinction being drawn is very present in the source material

Obviously this shouldn't preclude engaging with the historical reality of American misdeeds, in the source material or in general

[meadowphoenix]

It is w i l d l y clear that the MCU takes ~WWII~ US behavior at face-value, and there is no version of that that isn't on the same line as far right reconstructive American nationalism. The basis of this from a CA standpoint makes this utterly frustrating: the bully that Steve first stands up to is literally complaining about US WWII propaganda in real time when Steve gets mad. There were good and bad political reasons to do so, but from Steve's perspective (which fits along with his justification in Winter Soldier to Fury that SSR actions were not out of fear by safety an actual WWII piece of propaganda used to justify Japanese internment camps and lmao, guess where those justifying propaganda pieces showed up!) none of those reasons could possibly be legitimate.

My point is really that it is no true Scotsman because the distinction drawn in the source material doesn't really exist in rl, and to some extent is a distinct obfuscation of the extant politics at that time and now, and worse some of the ethical choices Steve makes in the present are at their philosophical foundation not unlike the ethical choices the US makes in the present, just without state sanctioning. The oppositional framework to the US is not "intervention is bad" or "military paternalism is bad" or even "neocolonialism is bad" but that "the sovereign state is easily corrupt" which, while true, combined with his philosophy is distinctly the view that many of OP's assholes with CA shirts also take.

I do think this is because the MCU is gingerly trying to deal with the current nature of political and military conflict which does not reflect on the US well while also trying to preserve CA's "America-ness" with whatever values they think they can apply, partially so they can sell t-shirts, but as I've explained that doesn't work for a variety of reasons without justifying all the range of people who want to be CA.

eta: also there's something perverse about giving a superhero created by Jewish artists to a corp founding by an anti-semite to navigate US nationalism, my god I hate it here

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I don't think that the valence of Captain America as a character or a symbol can be reduced to the specific actions of the MCU version of the character. I don't think that Marvel-Disney should be allowed to dictate terms of what the character means to us; the character exists beyond his copyright.

And I'm also pretty dubious that just ceding the interpretation of American culture, identity, belonging and ideals to the far right is a good course to pursue that's going to lead to good results over the long term.

[meadowphoenix]

there's no symbol that cannot be re-interpreated or is static, and most have multiple meanings but it's naive to believe that the popular incarnation isn't how the majority of people derive meaning from a symbol. in communication, a symbol can absolutely be reduced. that's especially true when the audience rapidly expands in growth between mediums. sucks, but that's why say, Synder's Superman/Clark Kent is angering. and a lot of why cultural appropriation, for instance, is upsetting.

And I'm also pretty dubious that just ceding the interpretation of American culture, identity, belonging and ideals to the far right is a good course to pursue that's going to lead to good results over the long term.
Well, eye never said anything like this, and I can't respond to what you're getting from other people. But I don't think CA and who wears his merch is where I'd start as resistance, lmao. Also, don't know if this part of the response was good faith misunderstanding over what I said, or bad faith shifting because you don't have a response what I said, but hey, if you think I somehow implied this, show me where!

[(Anonymous)]

I admit that I framed my point in a way that was grouchier than necessary. But if I'm misunderstanding anything, it's in good faith. And I do stand by the point, for two reasons.

First, I think the kind of critique that you want to make in regard to Captain America can be made across a wide range of American symbols. I think it's hard to conceive of a form of American symbolism that is drawn from American history and inclusive of white America which doesn't have a similarly complex relationship to the history of American misdeeds. So while your point was obviously specific to Captain America, I think the general considerations apply much more broadly. And second, I do think that the practical effect of not contesting a symbol like Captain America basically is to cede it to the interpretation favored by right-nationalists. So, given those two considerations, it seems to me the logical conclusion is that any comparable interpretation and symbolism of American identity, culture, ideals or belonging which has been used by the right and which has a relationship to the misdeeds of America should not be contested, which in practice will meaning ceding it to the far right. So, whether I am right or whether I am wrong, that's the point that I was trying to make.

Also I do still just disagree that the MCU version of the character is definitive to the extent that specific lines of dialogue in MCU movies can be taken as indicative of the symbolic meaning of Captain America in general. I accept that meanings change across time, but I don't think it's naive to believe that the meaning of a symbol is still more multivalent and open to legitimate interpretation than that. Especially when there are multiple textual versions of the character that preceded the movie version.

[meadowphoenix]

So while your point was obviously specific to Captain America, I think the general considerations apply much more broadly.
I mean I'm making two points re: MCU through CA. 1) It constructs politics in a way that perpetuates propaganda and 2) its politics were constructed in a way that leaves its engagement with American sovereignty broadly appealing for marketing purposes. Symbols constructed with the former only have value to those who value the propaganda to begin with (which for the most part was white supremacy if not the right-wing anyway), which...is of questionable value to all those Americans who are victims of that propaganda. I think we need to far more discussion on what is actually valuable about those symbols which do that.

The latter is going to feel personally relevant to assholes of all political values because that's the point. Saying "there is an issue with watering down political philosophy for marketing purposes because the broad appeal easily validates assholes" isn't ceding anything to anyone, because there are plenty of assholes who simply aren't right-wing and there are plenty of ways to like...not do that, lmao. As an issue of construction you can construct it differently, right? Fanfic authors do it all the time. You also don't have to contest it that way.

Do not understand what you mean by "inclusive of white america" you'll have to explain.

Also I do still just disagree that the MCU version of the character is definitive to the extent that specific lines of dialogue in MCU movies can be taken as indicative of the symbolic meaning of Captain America in general.
when it comes to symbol construction the public doesn't need to remember the specifics of construction to have successfully constructed a symbol to those specifics. But yes, it's entirely naive to believe that mass symbols don't communicate a limited meaning which overwhelms other meanings. I actually think it's dangerous to ignore the power of corporations to put out simple effective messaging to overwhelm and then reduce more complex symbols to a simplistic state even in this context of entertainment.