Nuking Metropolis in 1963

[starwolf_oakley]

The Chris Claremont-written miniseries SUPERMAN/WONDER WOMAN: WHOM GODS DESTROY was an Elseworlds miniseries where Superman first appeared in 1938 and World War II either didn't happen or ended differently, with the Nazi's controlling most of Europe. And Metropolis was nuked in 1963.



Some set-up. Lana Lang has gone to Europe for some reason. But Superman can't go to Europe to find her. Why?



It seems there's no Kryptonite in this Universe. Superman is only injured due to magic-based attacks, the first time he's been hurt... ever.



I wonder if a scenario like this is why "our" Superman would give up his American citizen: he's worried other countries would attack America to "get" him.

WHOM GODS DESTROY is very... Claremont-y. As in, Clark, Lois and Lana end up together in OT3 bliss.

Comments

[baxter2814]

See, THIS is a situation where I can see Supes doing drastic stuff like giving up his citizenship or leaving Metropolis or stopping his superheroing career — to protect people. Not pitching a "screw you guys, I'm pulling my endorsement" move over politics or getting his panties in a twist about people not living up to his expectations. Why is it so hard to make the little mundanities of superhero life actually dangerous and unfair? That's how their lives are. They're not like our lives, not at all.

[kamino_neko]

...

That's not even vaguely what happened in the story.

He caused an international incident by showing up at an anti-government protest in Iran.

The Iranian government complained. The US State Department took him to task for it.

He acknowledged that both groups were completely correct in their complaints toward him.

He gave up his citizenship to keep that from happening again.

No 'disappointment', no fit of pique. Just refusing to let the world burn because he's an American.

[ardat_lili]

Indeed. All the complainers seemed to miss that mostly, as far as I could tell, Superman was trying to protect his fellow Americans from suffering retaliation from people who thought of Superman as an arm of US foreign policy and got upset about it. Because, you know, there shouldn't have to be a war just because Superman decided to beat up some evil dictator somewhere, and the Senate shouldn't have to vote on how they feel about some political statement he let slip some time, and he ought to be bigger than just one country's interests, especially a country he loves and calls home.
Honestly, I thought it made good sense. It's too bad the takeaway has been "SUPERMAN WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH."

[feyandstrange]

Because Superman is apparently such an ignorant and innocent Boy Scout that he believed that giving up his citizenship would somehow change the minds of the billions of people who hate anything American? I like to think Supes is smarter than that, myself.

As an example: the Red Cross is still seen as a largely Euro-American White Oppressor People organization, despite the fact that they do nothing but good wherever they go. They tried to shed the last bits of possible nationalism and religionism by starting the Red Crescent and a few other options so that folks who were unnerved by crosses and Switzerland could still work together. And yet they still have to stay the hell out of any kind of politics, or all belief in their neutrality is lost. They can't stand with protesters or step in front of bullets. UN workers without a defense mandate, other charity groups, it's the same thing. A former US president has to be very careful what he endorses lest it be seen as an American policy statement. Americans overseas are careful what they do lest their actions be seen as directed by their government instead of their hearts.

To think that Superman could say "I'm not an American, I'm a world citizen and I am only here to help", and then stand with protesters on one side of a political conflict believing that people would somehow believe that he wasn't in some way representing American policy - of that the other side would *claim* this as an excuse - is naivete and ignorance on a level that even comic books for children would be ashamed of. I expect better of the writers and I expect better of Superman.

It's not "why does he hate America", it's "why is he acting so stupid as to believe this won't endanger just as many Americans".

[jlroberson]

Superman has only associated himself with the US as a citizen since Byrne, actually. In the Silver Age he often worked on behalf of the UN. Byrne decided, the 80s being what they were, he'd make Supes a superpatriot.

[dr_archeville]

I read it as "refusing to let the world burn because he's A GORRAM SUPERHERO."

[kamino_neko]

Either I'm misreading you, or you misread me - probably the latter, as I can see how my phrasing was rather ambiguous. I meant that he would be forced to act under restraints that would force him to leave the rest of the world to fall to pieces if he kept his citizenship, because acting would result in the current situation happening again, because he's an American, and would be seen not as Superman coming in to help, but An American interfering.

[dr_archeville]

Ah! Yes, I misread/misinterpreted. Sorry!

(Though I still don't see how Supes is considered an American citizen. But that topic was covered in an earlier thread, so I'll not rehash it here.)

[baxter2814]

Well, I wasn't referring only to that story — I was also referring to other stories in the past where Supes has done stuff like that, where it's usually some stupid ideological or personal tiff. Reviewing the story, you're right, that's what happened, but that kind of practical approach wasn't really what his attitude conveyed. Maybe it was just poor writing.

[jlbarnett]

and you're overlooking the fact of political spin, where anyone can claim that because the US wouldn't back the Iranian protesters as he did he gave up his citizenship, as well as crazier ideas.

[icon_uk]

International politics and his effect on them is the motivating force in BOTH instances.