Orthodoxy & Comics: Is Paganism and the Old Ways being brought back via Comics?

[ArmyMatt]

it's all good

On the same token, if they managed to make a saga about an Orthodox Hero who lived in a time where aliens/sci-fi were present, that'd be a trip.

that would be wild

 

[Gxg (G²)]

that would be wild

So long as people within Orthodoxy are not uncomfortable with the concept of aliens being real potentially, it could work.

 

[inconsequential]

WRT heroes in general, how "anti" can a hero be and still be a hero? As much as I am inspired by noble, virtuous heroes, my pragmatism forces me to identify more with antiheroes because they seem more believable or "real".

I'm reminded of Methos in the Highlander series. He was the only good character that would employ overtly devious tactics in combat because he understood what a handicap nobility was in life or death battles. When Duncan was unable to kill Kristen because of his chivalrous code, Methos stepped in to finish her. When she asked who he was, he replied, "Someone who was born long before the age of chivalry".

So, can a hero be ruthless when that is the best tactic to save the world or is that a trait absent in a real hero?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

WRT heroes in general, how "anti" can a hero be and still be a hero? As much as I am inspired by noble, virtuous heroes, my pragmatism forces me to identify more with antiheroes because they seem more believable or "real".

I think real heros will always be people who are capable of making mistakes...and not flawless at all points, just as the people celebrating as "heros" in real life are the ones seeking to do what needs to be done, even as they themselves may struggle.

When Duncan was unable to kill Kristen because of his chivalrous code, Methos stepped in to finish her. When she asked who he was, he replied, "Someone who was born long before the age of chivalry".

Makes you wonder when chivalry came into existence...and people begin to have moral stances saying that there were rules in battle/standards to maintain..

But indeed, Highlander is an excellent example of what you're noting.

So, can a hero be ruthless when that is the best tactic to save the world or is that a trait absent in a real hero?

I would think that being "ruthless" isn't necessarily something one can give full definition to as being a negative if it comes to saving lives.

Reminds me of the episode from Startrek Deep Space Nine when the Dominion War was happening---and lives were being lost at enormous rates. Captain Sisko was bothered by one group who could've given aid to turn the tide of the war--but wouldn't due to long standing rivarly---and so he decided to "trick" them into joining the war. Things got out of hand the further the plan went...but by the end of it, the result was that lives were saved--and his morals, although compromised, were things he felt he could live without in certain levels for the sake of life.

Powerful episode..

Star Trek, Deep Space Nine: In The Pale Moonlight ​

Some of this goes into the larger issue of how far do you go to spare life. And this is something we see multiple times within the scriptures with other Biblical Heros. The Midwives lied to Pharoah to protect babies from slaughter (Exodus 1) and Rahab lied to protect the lives of the spies (James 2, Joshua 2, etc).

For another, Esther being one since she literally LIED to hide her identity as a Jew in Persia when she was chosen as Queen...something that helped her to save lives and that her uncle was honored for.

In Esther 2:9, as she was a Crypto-Jew living in a nation notorious for being anti-semitic at times....and as she was told by her uncle to keep her ethnic heritage quiet, he blended in with the people who'd later convert to what her background was about.

With ladies in a Harem, they didn't have the right to demand what kind of food they wanted...but with Esther's humility/submission, she set herself up in a position to achieve favor/advancement in the Harem. It wasn't like a cafeteria where one had a choice since what the King felt others needed to eat was what they ate in Persia.

Esther 2:9 notes how she daily recieved her portion of food, which many have noted as indicating that she appeared not to observe Jewish dietary laws...a concern to early interpreters. For in this, she stands as a contrast to Daniel (Daniel 1:8-20) who lived earlier than she did.......and some have noted how her actions were perhaps to conceal her identity.

As one Jewish individual noted:

Esther, the heroine, is the most fully developed character in the Book. She emerges from being a compliant maiden to being Mordecai’s partner and an authoritative leader. Esther originally appears as a compliant young girl and respectful to her adoptive father Mordecai. She is equally compliant in the hands of Hegai, the custodian of the harem. She graciously accepts his beautifying lessons for herself (2:9). The women spend six months being purified with oil of myrrh and six additional months being purified with sweet perfumes (2:12). Do they learn the role of the women in that society? Did she learn the king’s sexual preferences? Esther went to the king for her one night. The norm was a night with the King and then back into the harem as a concubine. There is no mention in this very gourmet food and drink oriented environment she asked for kosher food. In fact we are told that ‘she did not ask for anything beyond what had been assigned her by Hegai’ (2:15). This is stark contrast to Daniel in Babylon where the book clearly informs of his need for kosher food (1:8).
​

​

And yet the Lord was presrnt throughout the text working things for her favor/that of her people...showing how He works with those in desperate times/situations and bringing glory to Himself. For those within the world of Crypto-Judaism, it often seems that Esther's story truly does offer hope and real life examples of how things aren't always as easy as others may make it out to be when it comes to living according to what one knows of the Lord---and yet the Lord is able to work in it.

There are other examples coming to mind apart from Esther's who really stood out to me recently, such as David.

Some of the history with the Philistines is interesting when considering David's status with them. In I Samuel 29, the other Philistine officers were going to war against Israel..and the text says that David was marching with them at the rear with his men. The other Philistine commanders knew that David was the one who, as a young man, had killed their champion, Goliath (I Samuel 17:32-54), had killed hundreds of Philistine soldiers (I Samuel 18:27), and was the hero of the Israelite victory songs ( I Samuel 21:11). Even when on the run from Saul, he had previously been starting raids against Philistine encampments as if he were still on duty---such as what happened when he saved Keilah from the Philistines, the land he fled to running from Saul ( 1 Samuel 23 ). They were afraid that, in the heat of battle, David might turn against them.....and I wouldn't blame them seeing how David was essentially a mercenary during his time away from Saul.

David was upset at this at first, as seen in I Samuel 29:6-9, but God used the commanders' suspicion to keep him from having to fight against SAul and his countreymen. To see that is interesting in light of what I Samuel 28:102 notes when Achish asked David to fight against Saul in battle and David agreed, saying "Then you shall see what your servant can do"---and Achish made David his bodyguard for life. Achish's request put David in a difficult position. For to refuse to help Achish fight the Israelites would give away David's loyalty to Israel and endanger the lives of his soldiers and family. But to fight his own people would hurt the very people he loved.

David never had to solve his dilemma because God protected him....and the other Philitine leader's objection to his prescence in battle may've been a means of Divine Providence on the behalf of David.

The turn of events is rather fascinating since I Samuel 27 notes that David sought to hide out in the land of the Philistines. The instance with I Samuel 27 is actually the second time he did so, as he also sought refuge in I Samuel 21:10-15 when he acted as if he was insane before the king. For the Philistines, accepting their archenemy may have made them initially happy since it'd be akin to accepting a defector who was a high military leader. Any enemy of SAul would have been a friend of theirs.

They could not have known that David had been anointed Israel's next king (I Samuel 16:3)......and with David acting insane during the first instance, it was beneficial since it was the custom not to harm unstable people.

With the second instance of David going into Philistine territory to flee from Saul, David hired himself out to the services of the Philistines and sought permission to live under the protection of King Achish of Gath. ALthough DAvid had previously acted insane---right after making Psalm 34, ironically, about blessing the Lord/trusting in Him to bring deliverance --evidently, Achish had forgotten that incident or had tried to overlook it in light of DAvid's current situation.

Achish certainly would have known about the split between Saul and David and would have been glad to shelter this Israelite traitor. In return, Achish would have expected military support from David and his 600 warriors.....the Mighty Men referred to in scripture who were NO JOKE ( 2 Samuel 23 /1 Chronicles 11 ). They all knew how to live on the edge, as those forming David's army came to him while on the run from Saul. As scripture ( 1 Samuel 22:1-3 /1 Samuel 22 ) says concerning David's escape from Gath to the cave of Adullam, "All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their commander. About four hundred men were with him." To have such a great fighting force that had been around David for years was a big benefit to King Achish, as he had others who truly understood the make-up of his enemy's kingdom.

David further strengthened his position with Achish by leading Achish to believe that he was conducting raids on Israel and by pretending loyalty to the Philistine leader. Although Saul had finally stopped pursuing David at the time (after two attempts on his life and sparring Saul Twice), Saul's army was not strong enough to invade Philistine territory just to seek one man....should Saul have reverted to old habits of chasing after David.

In I Samuel 27:5-7, what's fascinating is David's decisions for travel. Gath was one of the five principal cities in Phillistia and Achish was one of the five co-rulers. David may've wanted to move out of this important city in order to avoid potential skirmishes or attacks upon his family. He may have also wanted to escape the close scrutinty of the Philistine officers. Achish let DAVID MOVE to Ziklag where he lived unti Saul's death (II Samuel 2:1).


I Samuel 27:8-9 is also fascinating when considering the raids he did on other groups--the Geshurites, Girzites and the Amalekites. David probably conducted these guerilla-style raids beause these three tribes were known for their surprise attacks and cruel treatment upon innocent people. These desert tribes were a danger not just to the Philistines, but especially to the Israelites, the people David would one day lead. While David was raiding these groups, he lied to Achish about his activities with them. Was David wrong in falsely reporting his activities? I'd say no because he may have felt justified in a time of war against a pagan enemy. DAvid knew he would one day be king of Israel...and the Philistines were still Israel's enemy, but this would be an excellent place to hide from Saul.

When Achish asked David to go battle against Saul in I Samuel 27:10-12, David agreed and pretended loyalty to the Philistines--and to a degree, perhaps having a bit of tolerance for them when it came to the larger goal he may've had. As the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend, not my enemy.."....and it does seem David was very much a pragmatist. Although he was essentially a Double-Agent, he was still able to remain true to his vision of helping Israel while being at peace helping the Philistines in achieving some of their goals.


And there's the example of how David took spoil (Stealing) from his enemies after he defeated the Amalekites...:

G
1 Samuel 30
David Defeats the Amalekites
18 David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken, and David rescued his two wives.

.......26 When David came to Ziklag, he sent part of the spoil to his friends, the elders of Judah, saying, "Here is a present for you from the spoil of the enemies of the LORD."
​

​

Someone may ask if God accepts or rejects a robin hood persona...but scripture seem to already give a precedent out for that plainly when examing the context...and on the Robin Hood dynamic, it may need to be noted that it's more broad to include doing anything that may be deemed as "illegal" by a dominant group when it seems that what the dominant group decides is not truly allowing for justice to occur. In example, would it be cool to be labeled as a "thief" because one chose not to give a percentage of their crops/food to a nation or empire because of how they saw the empire utilizing their resources not for helping the people they served? If they took from the organizations that were essentially "stealing " from the people/misuing materials so that women and children were harmed, how would one address that?


For another example, smuggling goods into nations (i.e. food, clothing, material, etc)--an act of piracy---be something that needed to be condemned if one was doing it in line with what the Lord noted in serving His people rather than what men desired? The Underground Railroad is a famous example of what comes to mind too....very close to home for me personally (As a person of Color) when it comes to the ways slaves were smuggled out from the lands of their slave masters/delivered to freedom secretly--with raids somethings occurring. The freeing of slaves was viewed as stealing slave owners' personal property....and it was made worse whenever an owner's property was damaged in order to protect those abused in slavery, or slaves stole food from local food reserves to survive the trip.

Where these things may occur today when it comes to human trafficking today or freeing others trapped in certain lifestyles and denied justice, the subject becomes a very relevant issue (IMHO)...

And one that the scriptural context makes a big deal on since within the Word the issue of clarity on Laws also had categories within them rather than labeling all actions of a certain type as being wrong in all cases.

Taking it back to David and how he did things...In many ways, the way he acted seemed very much akin to what occurred within "Pirates of the Caribbean" when it came to the issue of how the general Pirate Code when it came to essentially having morality defined by what was deemed reasonable at the moment...and not being legalistic with the rules given without seeing what the need of the moment may be.

There are actually many Jews who've been in positions like the hero David throughout the ages and have actually become pirates, hiding their Jewish heritage and seeking to do wha they had to in order to survive. Within the Caribbean, there have been ALOT of accounts of Jewish piracy during eras when massive persecution occurred toward those who were Jewish--and yet no one ever knew of their Jewish heritage since they had to do what was necessary in order to survive.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by inconsequential

WRT heroes in general, how "anti" can a hero be and still be a hero? As much as I am inspired by noble, virtuous heroes, my pragmatism forces me to identify more with antiheroes because they seem more believable or "real".
​

I'm reminded of Methos in the Highlander series. He was the only good character that would employ overtly devious tactics in combat because he understood what a handicap nobility was in life or death battles. When Duncan was unable to kill Kristen because of his chivalrous code, Methos stepped in to finish her. When she asked who he was, he replied, "Someone who was born long before the age of chivalry".

So, can a hero be ruthless when that is the best tactic to save the world or is that a trait absent in a real hero?

In I Samuel 27:5-7, what's fascinating is David's decisions for travel. Gath was one of the five principal cities in Phillistia and Achish was one of the five co-rulers. David may've wanted to move out of this important city in order to avoid potential skirmishes or attacks upon his family. He may have also wanted to escape the close scrutinty of the Philistine officers. Achish let DAVID MOVE to Ziklag where he lived unti Saul's death (II Samuel 2:1).


I Samuel 27:8-9 is also fascinating when considering the raids he did on other groups--the Geshurites, Girzites and the Amalekites. David probably conducted these guerilla-style raids beause these three tribes were known for their surprise attacks and cruel treatment upon innocent people. These desert tribes were a danger not just to the Philistines, but especially to the Israelites, the people David would one day lead. While David was raiding these groups, he lied to Achish about his activities with them. Was David wrong in falsely reporting his activities? I'd say no because he may have felt justified in a time of war against a pagan enemy. DAvid knew he would one day be king of Israel...and the Philistines were still Israel's enemy, but this would be an excellent place to hide from Saul.

When Achish asked David to go battle against Saul in I Samuel 27:10-12, David agreed and pretended loyalty to the Philistines--and to a degree, perhaps having a bit of tolerance for them when it came to the larger goal he may've had. As the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend, not my enemy.."....and it does seem David was very much a pragmatist. Although he was essentially a Double-Agent, he was still able to remain true to his vision of helping Israel while being at peace helping the Philistines in achieving some of their goals.

.............................


Taking it back to David and how he did things...In many ways, the way he acted seemed very much akin to what occurred within "Pirates of the Caribbean" when it came to the issue of how the general Pirate Code when it came to essentially having morality defined by what was deemed reasonable at the moment...and not being legalistic with the rules given without seeing what the need of the moment may be.

There are actually many Jews who've been in positions like David throughout the ages and have actually become pirates, hiding their Jewish heritage and seeking to do wha they had to in order to survive. Within the Caribbean, there have been ALOT of accounts of Jewish piracy during eras when massive persecution occurred toward those who were Jewish--and yet no one ever knew of their Jewish heritage since they had to do what was necessary in order to survive.

If interested, the issue of others who were Jewish Pirates in the New World as David was for a time was discussed elsewhere alongside conversation concerning what one is to do in difficult times (as discussed here , here, or as discussed here, #5#39, #35, #36 , and #38 ). One can go here as well, concerning the ways that Jewish pirates were often considered heros for the things they did...even if others felt it wasn't the best.

There was also another conversation elsewhere on the subject of what others tend to do in difficult times---seen in the thread entitled the following:

• Love Your Enemies..unless it's Hitler" : MJism on how far one goes to save life....

It was in regards to Hitler and the many differing responses others had during his rise to power---some seeing his leadership as ordained by the Lord just as with other forms of government/being something one should not fight against..whereas others felt they needed to protest him and even go as far as to try and assassinate the man. War does indeed tend to bring out the worse in others---and having characters within stories who illustrate that can be helpful.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

WRT heroes in general, how "anti" can a hero be and still be a hero? As much as I am inspired by noble, virtuous heroes, my pragmatism forces me to identify more with antiheroes because they seem more believable or "real".

.... can a hero be ruthless when that is the best tactic to save the world or is that a trait absent in a real hero?

Perhaps it's just me...but I often have thought that perhaps the best people to define heros are those who were actually ready/able to lay their lives down on the line for what they believed. Sadly, there's a dynamic within the world of comics that has led to others thinking heros are the ones doing SPECTACULAR things...or amazing feats while being looked up to. But how many people daily lay their lives down on the line and are never remembered for that? How many often do the jobs no one wants to do since those jobs may not be as glamorous...or "heroish" as they were trained to believe?

When I think about all the solders....the Marines...the Covert Agents....and even others doing things none of us would be comfortable with and seeing things none of us wish to see when it comes to things like death/killing or deception of the enemy....what would they say defines a "hero" and how would they feel if others defined heros in ways that are not realistic? Even in saying someone's an "anti-hero", there's a level of assumption inherent that a certain is not to have certain attitudes..or mindsets.

But I do wonder when the rules were set for who is..or isn't a "hero"---and if those rules are really valid when it comes to either making stories or discussing concepts related to heros. Thoughts?

 

[inconsequential]

You mentioned the Underground Railroad. If you've never been and get the chance, you should visit Fr. Moses Berry in Ash Grove, MO. He is curator of the Ozarks Afro-American Heritage Museum. He has freedom quilts from the UR as well as many other historical artifacts, some of them belonging to his ancestors. He has a quilt top that his great grandmother never finished because she said that she wouldn't finish something in freedom that she began in captivity. It was an awesome experience, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in history.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You mentioned the Underground Railroad. If you've never been and get the chance, you should visit Fr. Moses Berry in Ash Grove, MO. He is curator of the Ozarks Afro-American Heritage Museum.

Love the work of Brother Berry--and thanks for bringing him up. I've kept up with him for a good bit. It was because of his work that I became aware of the many ways that African Christianity -starting with St.Moses the Black--was connected to the Early Church and that Black History was more than what developed in the Americas (counter to what I often heard growing up in many Protestant churches from a Euro-centric perspective whenever they said Africans needed to be brought to America in God's sovereign plan to have true "Biblical" Christianity).

Apart from Fr.Berry, I don't know how extensively I would have found out on blacks involved with Orthodoxy (like those from St.Mary of Egypt Orthodox Church).

Fr.Berry is truly a wonderful man...and although I've enjoyed interviews by him, I would have loved to visit him back when I was in MO (as my biological family is from there and I've gone twice). Next time I go up to St.Louis, M.O, I'll make it a point to check out the Muesuem he runs...as I'm a history buff and would love the opportunity to sit before the man at his feet listen---especially after enjoying so much of what he has taken the time to put out

Josiah Henson by Fr. Moses Berry
Unbroken Circle part 2​

• Brotherhood of St. Moses the Black
• Ancient Christian Defense: Josiah Henson by Fr. Moses Berry
• OCA - OCA News - The Brotherhood of St. Moses the Black ...
• St Moses The Black Ancient Christianity Conference - Ancient Faith
• Ancient Christian Defense: St. Moses the Black Ancient Christianity ...
• Fr. Moses Berry - Honoring A Shared Heritage ... - Ancient Faith Radio
• 18th Annual Ancient Christianity and African-American Conference... - Ancient Faith Radio

The discussions of how African Americans and their culture being connected with the Orthodox Church/worthy enough of discussing as extensively as they do in Protestant Movements is something that seems to be only a recent movement...but I'm thankful for others leading the way in bringing the issues home, especially folks like Fr.Berry. One book I'm glad I was able to learn from him is entitled "Unbroken Circle"--and I think you'd love it, if you've not seen it already:

​

One can go to the following for other reviews that can be helpful:

• 
  Logismoi: 'Timeless Preacher of Repentance'—St Moses the Black
• An Unbroken Circle: Linking Ancient African Christianity to the
• ArchangelsBooks.com » An Unbroken Circle: Linking Ancient African ...
• Review of An Unbroken Circle - Jackson Presbyterian | Examiner.com

He has freedom quilts from the UR as well as many other historical artifacts, some of them belonging to his ancestors.

That rocks..

He has a quilt top that his great grandmother never finished because she said that she wouldn't finish something in freedom that she began in captivity.

WOw. Powerful story...and drives home alot of points. Seeing the history of how things are, I'm always amazed at seeing how deep the resonances are between the faith of the early Church and the heartfelt Christianity born out of the slaves' experience on American soil...especially the "sad joyfulness" that characterized the African Desert Fathers and Mothers of the 4th century and that permeates traditional Christianity in the form of the legacy that came from the suffering Church of African-American slaves.....and Afro-Carribean as well as Afro-Hispanics.

It was an awesome experience, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in history

When did you go? And in your view, would you say the people of the UR (or those Fr.Berry speaks of) would be heros? Or are they different?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You mentioned the Underground Railroad. If you've never been and get the chance, you should visit Fr. Moses Berry in Ash Grove, MO. .

I wonder what his take on heros would be...for there were many condemning the revolts of slaves, especially those who were violent (like Nat Turner)--and others considered him a monster whereas others have called him a hero alongside other slaves who fought back. Some have wanted to make graphic novels out of their lives because of how complex they are.

 

[inconsequential]

I absolutely regard the people of the Underground Railroad as heroes.

 

[inconsequential]

While I can understand how Nat Turner could choose the path he did, he killed women and children, even babies. He was a murderous monster and earned the noose he found.

Please forgive me for the harshness but I've always struggled with a virulent hatred of racism and racists.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

While I can understand how Nat Turner could choose the path he did, he killed women and children, even babies. He was a murderous monster and earned the noose he found.

Please forgive me for the harshness but I've always struggled with a virulent hatred of racism and racists.

By no means did I intend to come off as if I was supportative of Nat Turner in his actions. For I don't think he was justified, no matter how much violence was done to slaves, in doing what he did...for that'd be like someone making another pay for what one of their relatives did to them. Like you, I too struggle with the issue of racism/racists, no matter where it is found.

The reason I bring him up is because I've always found it odd that many demonized him for his actions, saying how much of an "injustice" it was---and yet, to do the same to a slave...or to do the same to an American Indian, as was done systematically/repeatedly for centuries, was seen as a "heroic" act to the people who approved of it. To spread from "Sea to Shining Sea" (as Manifest Destiny goes) was a mindset that justified the destruction of so many people when it came to colonial expansion...while groups responding in kind were always deemed as "villians" and the people attacked as "innocents"--with those who were initially aggressors being deemed as "heroes" for seeking to address that.

To expand on the dynamic further, If studying U.S History, those in the American revolution are considered “freedom fighters” because of how they as “Americans” fought for their independence from Britain. However, if the British called those in the U.S “Insurgents”, the term would not be accepted gladly. Taking it further, if the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution were called “acts of terrorism” due to guerilla warfare tatics against the British, would it be deemed as “truthful conversation?” For similar situations today, consider Iraq or other places were an occupation occurred and those fighting back were called “terrorists”/ “rebels” even though they used the same term on the Occupiers.

Who is the terrorists and who is the fighter for liberty? It’s interesting witnessing what happens when one groups fights an invading party after being terrorized….and then are labeled as “terrorists” by those invading…or “insurgents.” ​

In our times today, Words and phrases euphemistically used by American and British mass media to refer to military operations not only sugar-coat harsh events, but also premeditatedly modify the addressee's correct perception of reality, so that what actually happens is no longer reflected in language. Thus, language becomes deceitful—but good enough for both sides to consider satisfactory.

Something else to consider is principles governing military euphemistic use. Many times, the intention is to minimise the effect that strong words might have on the reader/hearer. It is because of this that military discourse never uses words like "guilt," "murder," "assassination," "retreat," "spy," "torture," "lie," "siege," "mistake," or "invasion," for fear these lexemes might raise awareness of what really happens in the conflict area. The goal is to ensure that the "innocent" public can remain innocent, with sensitivities intact, never knowing the truth even as they may say they would like to have it.


In so doing, language is no longer informational, it becomes a propaganda tool, meant to hide too harsh a reality. By using euphemisms, the military discourse avoids enraging, or outraging the public, unless this is really meant, and makes world conflicts and military activities more agreeable. In the case of military euphemisms, the most important part is played by the media, whose means of manipulation include the use of such terms in order to conceal the truth.


For other examples. consider the terms often used whenever you see things discussed:

—Insurgents (local groups native to the area resisting occupation)
— permissive environment (unchallenging territory from the military point of view)
— border protection (deploying the Navy to intercept boats loaded with desperate Afghans and Iraqis)
— caught in the cross-fire (women and children shot dead by soldiers)
— ethnic cleansing (extermination, genocide)
— administrative detention (imprisonment without charge or trial)
— generous offer (demand for surrender)
— incursion (attacking with tanks and planes)
—air campaign (aircraft bombing)
— civilian casualties (innocent people death),
—Friendly fire (death inadvertently caused to one's own troops) and many others. ​

​

For many readers/hearers, these words are not loaded unless given in a context pertaining to the conflict situation in hostile areas such as the Middle East, the Persian Gulf or other places

All this is mentioned in order to emphasize the point that just as terms can be a bit misleading, so the term "hero" can also be put out of place....as well as "innocents." I admire others who were victims of the slave trade, although that doesn't mean I think all slaves were "innocent" or incapable of doing the same brutality as was done to them. And the same goes for the world of comics.

If making a comic about the life of a Monastic, there are noble terms we use to describe them (i.e. holy, pure, just, etc) and that we'd love to make a story out of. But if someone else were doing the same things and yet they didn't have the title "Monk", some would think the person wasn't being what they claimed.

Putting it into the world of comics, one can see the example of Superman. Everyone assumes He is a "hero" because of how he seeks to SAVE lives/use His powers for good. And yet to others, the view is that he is deluded. FOr who said that having great powers meant you HAD to use them to help others as Superman was doing? Others had the impression that he was exalting himself above men and doing things that people should have been doing themselves...and others feel that him placing himself into the role of a Superhero has caused damage to men since he is effectively causing others to worship him...and forget about all of the other people laying down their lives daily and yet it's not considered as "SUPER" as "Superman" because they can't fly.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I absolutely regard the people of the Underground Railroad as heroes.

Those people were truly amazing. And I'd say the same for the people involved who were not slaves, such as Levi Coffin...the "President of the Underground Railroad" and a Quaker who oversaw many come to freedom.

 

[inconsequential]

A friend I have often discussed how Batman's unwillingness to just kill Joker has resulted in countless deaths as he always escapes and people end up dying because of him. I guess that's why I like Rorschach so much, he's practical.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A friend I have often discussed how Batman's unwillingness to just kill Joker has resulted in countless deaths as he always escapes and people end up dying because of him. I guess that's why I like Rorschach so much, he's practical.

'Watchmen" always tended to bother me a bit, honestly..


Have you happened to hear of the Red Hood Saga?

Batman: Under the Red Hood - YouTube
Batman: Under the Red Hood - Batman vs Jason ...javascript:void(0)

Batman Under The Red Hood - Batman Vs Robin ...javascript:void(0)​

Very interesting, as it concerns Batman's protege (Robin) turning corrupt at one point due to seeing the ways that Bruce never punished the villians with lethal force--with that Robin (Jason Todd) eventually being killed by the Joker...but resurrected at one point. He was very angry at Bruce for never taking out the Joker and seeing how Bruce was always creating a revolving door effect and actually contributing to the continuation of injustice. He ended up being one of Batman's greatest foes..even though he is an Anti-Hero. Especially for his desire to fight crime like Batman and yet being willing to use lethal force...

 

[inconsequential]

Yeah, the nihilism really shows in Watchmen and it bugs me as well. I guess I just like Rorschach's willingness to meet the criminals on their level, speaking a language they understand, if you will, while never compromising his principles.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah, the nihilism really shows in Watchmen and it bugs me as well. I guess I just like Rorschach's willingness to meet the criminals on their level, speaking a language they understand, if you will, while never compromising his principles.

With meeting criminals on their level, it's like seeking to be a thug to a thug (i.e. use violence to match violence or brutality to address brutality).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah, the nihilism really shows in Watchmen and it bugs me as well. I guess I just like Rorschach's willingness to meet the criminals on their level, speaking a language they understand, if you will, while never compromising his principles.

Truthfully, I think Watchmen is perhaps close to the reality of how many cops feel in our times today.

 

[inconsequential]

With meeting criminals on their level, it's like seeking to be a thug to a thug (i.e. use violence to match violence or brutality to address brutality).

That is something I struggle with terribly, taking the violence and brutality of thugs and shoving it so far down their throats that they gag on it. Please pray for me.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That is something I struggle with terribly, taking the violence and brutality of thugs and shoving it so far down their throats that they gag on it. Please pray for me.

Will do. Knowing how to respond to violence is one of the ultimate battles, although thankfully there are ways to respond via self-defense/battle that may not require death.....and yet will serve to put others in check. Trying to grow in that as well.

You remember the character Aang from "Avatar"?