Sam Wilson: Captain America #21

[laughing_tree]

"Earlier in my reviews of this run, I commented that Spencer’s version of Sam Wilson reminded me a lot of President Barack Obama. Now that we’ve had more time with him, I see that he’s much more than that. He’s every black person that’s ever had to think about where they fall in the battle of injustice. He’s every one that’s been given power and had it stripped away. Which, eventually, boils down to practically every minority in America. [...] This current run of Captain America: Sam Wilson is going to end up on the syllabus of a really liberal, young-minded sociology professor one day." -- Black Nerd Problems

Comments

[laughing_tree]

My opinion on rioting aligns with yours, actually. My point isn't about morality, it's about the exceptional circumstances. The fact is, if you take real world major riots, most of the participants are not people who engage in property damage (justified or otherwise) on a regular basis. Is Rayshaun another of those people? Or is he someone with a greater, enduring commitment to change through violent action? I maintain that we've seen so little of him that we can't say for sure. Just as we wouldn't be equipped to make such a determination about any real life rioter we knew equally little about.

Which isn't the same as saying what we've seen says *nothing* about him (a stance you seem to think I subscribe to, based on some of your comments). I'd be surprised if he turned out to be your "goody-goody" too. But there are plenty of points in-between "goody-goody" and "guy who goes around bombing buildings."

[sadoeuphemist]

Rayshaun is not an average guy who was at a protest that turned violent, and he got swept up in it. He was sitting safely at home when he heard the news, so he made a firebomb (!!) and put on a disguise, and he snuck down to an apparently peaceful protest and struck the first blow unprovoked. (This was actually really inconsiderate to all the peaceful protesters.)

If a real-life rioter did that, I be comfortable assuming that yeah, he did have a commitment to change through violent action.

I just don't understand your criteria. Why is killing a dog 'determinative', why is refusing to fight back 'determinative and telling'? I might as well say that a fight is an exceptional circumstance, and how a person reacts when they're being attacked in a fight doesn't say anything about them as people. Maybe they freaked out, maybe they froze up, maybe, maybe, maybe. And we're talking about superhero comics here, most of the circumstances are exceptional. The writer chooses which moments to show us, and if he wanted to make a point that Rayshaun regretted his actions, he could have easily shown us that. He didn't. At some point we have to take it on faith that what the writer shows us is what he wants us to see, that despite the exceptional circumstances, the writer isn't deliberately just showing us all the reactions that are out of character.

[laughing_tree]

"If a real-life rioter did that, I be comfortable assuming that yeah, he did have a commitment to change through violent action."

Enough of a commitment that you'll assume he went to do more of the same in his life? Like, if all you knew about a guy was he "struck the first blow unprovoked" at some famous race riot when he was a teen, you'd assume he went on to also firebomb other buildings outside the riot?

"Why is killing a dog 'determinative', why is refusing to fight back 'determinative and telling'? I might as well say that a fight is an exceptional circumstance, and how a person reacts when they're being attacked in a fight doesn't say anything about them as people. Maybe they freaked out, maybe they froze up, maybe, maybe, maybe."

Yes, absolutely true. That's why I specified my scenario as refusing to fight "because he was opposed to violence." And just in case it's not clear, by killing a dog, I meant maliciously doing so in cold blood, not in the context of a fight for survival or whatever. If it was a fight for survival, I would not use it to make assumptions about how the character will treat animals outside that exceptional circumstance.

"If he wanted to make a point that Rayshaun regretted his actions, he could have easily shown us that."

If it's not essential to that particular story, there's no harm in saving it for later. But again, regretting his actions was just one hypothetical off the top of my head. If you don't buy that particular example, okay, but it doesn't change the larger point.

"At some point we have to take it on faith that what the writer shows us is what he wants us to see."

I'm sure he wanted us to see it. I don't draw the same conclusions from the sight as you.

[sadoeuphemist]

If all I knew about a guy is that he put on a mask / facepaint and snuck down to a peaceful protest and firebombed a bank from the shadows and initiated a riot, absolutely, I would ascribe political motivation and commitment to his cause, and I would expect him to repeat it in the future.

This "because he's opposed to violence" bit - how can you prove motivation? Maybe he's lying, maybe he's dissembling, maybe he's justifying his cowardice to himself - intent is fundamentally unknowable to outsiders, and sometimes it's mysterious even to the actors themselves. You are slipping back into 'everything is unknown and unknowable territory'. Barring any evidence to the contrary, you have to judge people by their actions, and this is especially true for fictional characters, who do not exist at all outside of the page, outside of the thoughts and actions and words we are shown, so we can actually see them in their entirety.

[laughing_tree]

You keep trying to push this into a binary situation where either I believe Rayshaun's definitely going to be bombing more buildings or I believe the scene tells us nothing about him. It's all about the gradations.

Yes, intent is never truly knowable, but that doesn't mean some scenarios aren't stronger indicators of intent than others. Again, gradations. A scene of a guy killing a dog maliciously for kicks is more telling than a scene of a guy killing a dog that has no context. A guy not fighting back is less telling than a guy not fighting back while another character is explaining that his inaction is because of his beliefs. A guy not fighting back while himself thinking that its because of his beliefs is more telling than either of those. A guy not fighting back while the omniscient narrator says its because of his beliefs is even more telling still. A wordless scene of a kid doing homework tells us very little because kids of all kinds do homework.

And I maintain that Rayshaun's scene does not tell us enough to conclude that he's going to be firebombing buildings as the Patriot. That's not me saying we should ignore the scene. It's me keeping it in mind and reaching a different conclusion from it than you. I am judging him by his actions, and this is my judgment.