The Gay X-Men

[Blackknight]

Radio isn't even safe now. Maybe I'm just turning into a curmudgeon but aren't Bob & Tom a little raunchy for a morning show?

 

[JesusIsTheWay33]

I think the idea that the concept of diversity has been hijacked in the modern (or perhaps I should say, in the liberal) world is interesting. Certainly the brutal experience of cobweb's son seems to me to say that diversity is only acceptable provided it's within a very narrow set of norms. Or to put it differently: You can be different, so long as your different in the same way as everyone else.

This doesn't just apply to issues which are normaly treated under the term 'diversity', either; you can be religious, provided you're religious in the same way as everyone else; you can be intelligent, provided you think the same thoughts as everyone else, and so on. Diversity has become distorted to mean equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, at least in the UK. And the result is, I think, a society which actively celebrates and encourages mediocrity.

 

[Dorothea]

Radio isn't even safe now. Maybe I'm just turning into a curmudgeon but aren't Bob & Tom a little raunchy for a morning show?

True. I found many songs that I used to listen to in the 80s and 90s are really explicit in sex and such (without using the word many of the times), but I had no clue then because I listened for the beat because I liked that the most and to dance to. Clueless I was. Now when I hear some of those songs, especially the old skool hip hop/rap I used to listen to all the time in the early 90s to mid 90s, I am hearing the lyrics more clearly and I have to change the channel. I had to change it yesterday because it was a bit much. Even on the rock/pop mix stations sometimes I change the channel. I guess the only safe music is classical. I listen to that once in a while (not very often). I wish I liked it more and wasn't so stuck on the music I like and grew up on. Maybe some day I'll move away from it.

Who are Bob and Tom?

 

[Dorothea]

Actually, yes. The local kids taunt "r*****" (sorry swear filter caught it) when they pass our house. One of them stole his bike last year. A group of boys knocked him to the ground and made him eat sand while calling him a "re****ed freak". Teenagers at the zoo followed him around mocking the way he walks. I've even heard grown adults say nasty things.

You have to remember that as recently as 50 years ago autistic kids were regularly institutionalized.

People are mean. A few years ago he had to go to the hospital because he was threatening suicide.

That's terrible. I wonder how and where these kids got their meanness from. I even wondered that when I was a child, and the meanness and the bullies that were around then. I can't help but believe it has to do with their family life, and how their parents see others. Usually kids copy what their parents see and do or they are in the wrong crowd of kids or something.

 

[MKJ]

I've never seen the X-Men or any of those types of marvel comics/super hero shows since the first 3 Superman movies ages ago with Christopher Reeves, so I can't comment on the show.

What I do think is I get tired of the "be proud to be yourself," and "love yourself," and all this promotion of self-worth that turns into conceit, self-centeredness, and pride, if you will. It's all about whatever you are with your passions, sins, it's just who you are, and it can't change, and nobody can make you change! Just be who you are and be proud of it and stomp on anyone who dares to say anything against your ego!

That's the problem I see in this society, and the American culture as a whole for the past several decades....you know...the "ME" generation.

I think this can go different ways. It depends on what we mean by self-esteem and pride. It really is possible for people to be given a sense of self-loathing through upbringing, or even a whole group by the attitude of the culture.

 

[rusmeister]

I think the idea that the concept of diversity has been hijacked in the modern (or perhaps I should say, in the liberal) world is interesting. Certainly the brutal experience of cobweb's son seems to me to say that diversity is only acceptable provided it's within a very narrow set of norms. Or to put it differently: You can be different, so long as your different in the same way as everyone else.

This doesn't just apply to issues which are normaly treated under the term 'diversity', either; you can be religious, provided you're religious in the same way as everyone else; you can be intelligent, provided you think the same thoughts as everyone else, and so on. Diversity has become distorted to mean equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, at least in the UK. And the result is, I think, a society which actively celebrates and encourages mediocrity.

Well, if we think about the meaning of the word, take it's morphology and etymology into account - rather than merely accepting what a modern online dictionary may say - it's obvious that 'diversity' means simply 'differentness'. So let's substitute the one word for the other. As soon as we abandon the buzzword or the catchphrase, we begin to think and become able to see ideas in naked light. Diversity is praised as a virtue. But being different is neutral; it can be good or bad. It ceases to be a unilaterally good thing and can be bad as often as it is good. Our modern error is that we assume the good and fail to think about the bad.

Ditto for tolerance, multiculturalism and the other watchwords of pluralism. With "intolerance" we assume the bad and fail to think about the good. Some things SHOULD be tolerated. Others should not. But we say EVERYTHING should be tolerated (unless you don't want to tolerate the idea of tolerating everything - then we don't want to tolerate you).

There are good ideas in the X-Men stories. But the increasing adoption of and adapting to the platform of the gay lobby is not good, above all the idea that everything within us is good and should be embraced (by ourselves, at that). Not everything within us is good and we should not have a focus on loving ourselves or being proud of ourselves, but of accepting humility - and frankly, it is hard enough for us to strive for that truly Christian goal without society shouting the opposite message at us daily from every corner. If we are at the least consciously aware of it, we have a chance to resist and to try to acquire the mind of the Church. If we are not, then we have a constant diet of anti-Orthodoxy subtly influencing us to think and see things in un-Orthodox ways. And so we have, among other things, people in the Church defending the sin of Sodom and supporting gay marriage, and gradually falling out of communion with the Church.

 

[Dorothea]

I think this can go different ways. It depends on what we mean by self-esteem and pride. It really is possible for people to be given a sense of self-loathing through upbringing, or even a whole group by the attitude of the culture.

Yes, but I'm not talking about that. I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about the selfish "ME" ideology promoted in this society. I remember when I was in my early 20s and I had a low self-esteem. And yes, this is different and my problems would or could fall under your explanation possibly (I did not think I was worth anything). But what I remember the self-help books and constantly pushed on me was "Be assertive! Take charge and control and power!" "Wear that red to the interview! It's all about power!" "Don't let anybody tell you you're not good enough! You're the best!" In other words, don't let anyone get in your way to what you want in life, even if you have to step over a few bodies to get up those rungs and reach the top! Being overly confident and showing you had all the power was the way of how to be in the white collar work force. Being meek or shy got you nowhere. Go out there and schmooze it up! Make yourself out to be something you wish you really were! A self-confident, self-centered, power-hungry, inconsiderate, chameleon. People will like you. Then, later it was all about, "just be yourself," "Who cares what others think. You can't change, it's who you are and everyone should accept it or lump it."

Now it's "accept and tolerate everyone who has a cause or you're to lump it."


Nowhere in any of these ideas is there anything about suggesting to be humble, loving, or to change oneself - like Michael Jackson sang "I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. No message could've been any clearer. If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change." This type of change is not the same as the suggestions above.

 

[inconsequential]

...

 

[Kreikkalainen]

I'm going to suggest that self-loathing itself may in some cases stem exactly from the same "ME" ideology. When reality strikes and one realises that actually they are not the best in the world and they have weaknesses... that then makes them feel worthless. I've seen situations like that. How does the saying go, number one is number one and everybody else is nothing?

 

[Blackknight]

Who are Bob and Tom?

You're better off not knowing, really. I'm just surprised at some of the songs they play since it's a morning show and I was woken up at 8 AM by a song about a certain part of the female anatomy.

Now people will say "if you don't like it, change the station." But what if I don't like the influence that it is having on people's minds?

 

[rusmeister]

Yes, but I'm not talking about that. I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about the selfish "ME" ideology promoted in this society. I remember when I was in my early 20s and I had a low self-esteem. And yes, this is different and my problems would or could fall under your explanation possibly (I did not think I was worth anything). But what I remember the self-help books and constantly pushed on me was "Be assertive! Take charge and control and power!" "Wear that red to the interview! It's all about power!" "Don't let anybody tell you you're not good enough! You're the best!" In other words, don't let anyone get in your way to what you want in life, even if you have to step over a few bodies to get up those rungs and reach the top! Being overly confident and showing you had all the power was the way of how to be in the white collar work force. Being meek or shy got you nowhere. Go out there and schmooze it up! Make yourself out to be something you wish you really were! A self-confident, self-centered, power-hungry, inconsiderate, chameleon. People will like you. Then, later it was all
about, "just be yourself," "Who cares what others think. You can't change, it's who you are and everyone should accept it or lump it."

Now it's "accept and tolerate everyone who has a cause or you're to lump it."


Nowhere in any of these ideas is there anything about suggesting to be humble, loving, or to change oneself - like Michael Jackson sang "I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. No message could've been any clearer. If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change." This type of change is not the same as the suggestions above.

I'm going to suggest that self-loathing itself
may in some cases stem exactly from the same "ME" ideology. When reality strikes and one realises that actually they are not the best in the world and they have weaknesses... that then makes them feel worthless. I've seen situations like that. How does the saying go, number one is number one and everybody else is nothing?

Nominated for best posts in the thread. (except for my OP, because I'm the best, and if I'm not the best, I'm nothing. Give me liberty or give me death. If I can't be God I'll take hell. 'tis better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven...)

 

[Dorothea]

Nominated for best posts in the thread. (except for my OP, because I'm the best, and if I'm not the best, I'm nothing. Give me liberty or give me death. If I can't be God I'll take hell. 'tis better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven...)

I am honored! Thanks, Rus.

 

[Kreikkalainen]

I'm proud of the nomination .

 

[Blackknight]

I've been thinking about this a bit and it seems like when Christians denounce the trash produced by Hollywood and other media some how WE are the problem. We're old fashioned, we're out of touch, we're grumpy old men, etc. etc. People just aren't willing to take a step back and examine the type of entertainment that they are consuming. It DOES have an effect on your mind and your soul whether we like to admit it or not.

 

[Dorothea]

I've been thinking about this a bit and it seems like when Christians denounce the trash produced by Hollywood and other media some how WE are the problem. We're old fashioned, we're out of touch, we're grumpy old men, etc. etc. People just aren't willing to take a step back and examine the type of entertainment that they are consuming. It DOES have an effect on your mind and your soul whether we like to admit it or not.

I agree.

 

[ArmyMatt]

People just aren't willing to take a step back and examine the type of entertainment that they are consuming. It DOES have an effect on your mind and your soul whether we like to admit it or not.

QFT!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Raven doesn't have blue scaly skin. You're thinking of Mystique.

Mystique and Raven are the same individuals within the comic series, though the movie versions have her with scaly skin and some of the comics have adapted by portaying her as the same. I actually thought it was rather beautiful to see the ways that they portrayed her.....

When I watch x-men, I mostly think about race and racism.

I'm right there with ya.

Even with the X-Men films, it seems to me that the same dynamics of race/racism are very prevalent and hard to miss plainly. In the most recent X-Men film entitled "X-Men: First Class", I loved how they gave the characters so much more depth....especially as it concerns the relationship between Eric and Charles. What fascinated me more so than anything else in the film was how much it seemed very much like a reflection between the struggle for being proud of one's ethnicity and knowing how to address that. Wasn't surprising to see that, in light of how the background of X-Men developed during the Civil Rights era and the days of Martin Luther King and Malcom X---one side for integration and the other for segration, one side feeling like differing groups could work together and another side feeling as if it could never work.



For more, an excellent article on such can be found under the name of Black Politics, X-Men, White Minds 05/08/2003. For an excerpt:

"By any means necessary."​

The famous quote by black political icon, orator and legend Malcolm X is well known to many. However I couldn't help notice the surprise on a friend's face when he heard the line uttered not by the 1960s black visionary, but British actor Sir Ian McKellen in the role of another icon that rose to prominence in the turbulent 1960s: Eric Magnus Lehnsherr, better known as Magneto. The first of these luminaries may have been flesh and blood while the other exists only as ink within Marvel Comics X-Men Universe, but that didn't matter: because in that brief moment I had been vindicated.

Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), left, and Magneto (Ian McKellen), right, in X-Men movie. In this scene McKellen utters the famous Malcolm X quote.​

Let me rewind so you can better get my point….
When I first ran along the pages of the X-Men comic world as a kid, I was hooked. It was a fascinating story filled with characters with names like Wolverine, Storm and Nightcrawler. These were heroes with powers that boggled the mind: the ability to heal from any wound and brandish claws made of the strongest metal on Earth; control the weather to create cyclones or maelstroms with but a thought; or equipped with a body that could not only perform amazing acrobatic feats but teleport and reappear again with a quick smell of brimstone and a BAMF! These characters went off on adventures to far off worlds filled with Kree, Sh'iar or the terrifying Brood, battled prehistoric beasts in hidden jungle realms and even tangled with demon lord sorcerers in nether realms called Limbo.

From left to right, just a few characters of the X-Universe: Cyclops, Wolverine, Storm, Rogue and Gambit.​

But what set this story apart for me from so many other comic titles that sat upon shelves and racks was the theme it espoused.



The main characters (both heroes and villains) in the X-Universe belong to a group called mutants, humans born with a special "x" factor in their genes that gives them varied powers. These mutants are oppressed and hated by the majority, who fear them. They suffer acts of brutal violence, people don't want mutants in schools with their children, nor do they want them to have any type of equality. There are hate groups claiming to be for normal human rights that think mutants should be rounded up. In the 1980s mutants are enslaved in the mythical nation Genosha, which not only practiced mutant-apartheid but quite intentionally lay off the coast of South Africa. Like something from a modern day AIDS conspiracy theory, a terrible engineered disease strikes down many of them. There's even a derogatory word for mutants, "mutie." And of course those who sympathize with mutants are labeled "mutie lovers." Like some ultimate COINTELPRO operation, even the US government conspires against them, not above carrying out unethical medical experiments on this hapless and persecuted minority.

A familiar hateful slogan from history refitted for comic book fantasy.​

It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see the
parallels (all rocket-scientists out there however, keep up the good work).


As I thumbed through the pages of my X-Men comic book at a young age I would casually switch mutant for black, "mutie" for [place your racially charged expletive here] and gene for race. I was well aware that the subjugation of mutants was symbolic of various forms of intolerance, bigotry and persecution beyond the black plight. Yet it wasn't very hard to notice that it was the black plight that was initially used as the backdrop of the story. If the struggle against the dominant society wasn't enough to convince me of this fact, reading of the inner-struggle of this oppressed group confirmed matters.




Most mutants keep their powers hidden, hoping to assimilate into society and thus "pass." Others hate what they are and seek ways to change the way they were born. A few even think they are cursed. But most interesting in the X-Universe are the two major factions who vie for power among the mutant masses and react in similar, yet widely divergent ways to the hatred meted out to them by the larger human society.



One group of mutants (the X-Men) are led by Professor Charles Xavier, a wheel chair bound psychic with a peaceful demeanor who hopes for a better world where little mutant girls and little human boys will one day hold hands. The other group is led by Magneto, a powerful and fiery minded mutant with the ability to control magnetism. A survivor of Nazi persecution, Magneto pushes for mutant liberation: preaching mutant pride and declaring that his people should fight on their feet rather than live on their knees. Professor Xavier hopes a destructive gene war will never happen, and appeals to humanity's brotherhood. His one-time friend and ally Magneto however is more cynical, believing the gene war is inevitable and that mutant violence in the name of self-defense is not violence at all---but a struggle for freedom.



For years I had been telling many that Professor Xavier, the white leader of the X-Men, was a symbolism for the philosophies of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Like the Civil Rights icon, Xavier worked feverishly for better relations between humans and mutants, holding out for what was often referred to in the comics as a "dream." And Magneto, the equally white, impassioned master of magnetism who is more interested in mutant freedom than integration, was in my mind none other than an allegory for Malcolm X. I was usually met with scoffs and disbelief, with most telling me I was taking things too seriously. It was just a comic book they would say. True enough, I would concede to the doubters, the mutant dilemma symbolized many an oppressed minority group and was not singly focused on blacks. But I argued that the many interconnecting factors in the comic pointed to a Civil Rights vs Black Power ideological clash as its main symbolism, namely through Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

​

One of many ideological battles through the years between Magneto and Professor Xavier's X-Men​

Personal confirmation had come for me years ago in a Wizard magazine article. Therein it confirmed that comic book creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had indeed come up with the X-Men concept while following the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements of 1960s that unfolded daily on their television screens. In fact right before the release of the first X-Men movie, an Entertainment magazine article stated that the director for the motion picture version of the comic did not come onto the project until the X-Men was pitched to him as a classic battle between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

For my hardheaded friend however it would take Magneto's final words to convince them of my theories. So when I was in that dark theater watching the first X-Men movie and saw acceptance slowly settle onto his face, I couldn't help but smile with a smug "told ya' so."


But with confirmation also came disturbance.


When I first came to the realization that the comic book I was reading was not as vague as once thought, and was indeed borrowing greatly from elements of a specific real life struggle, I had to reexamine everything no longer from the perspective of just another comic book fanatic---but from that of the oppressed group in question, black folks. And I came to some interesting realizations.




Firstly, while the X-Men comic touts itself as a story with the theme of countering bigotry and intolerance---that's a bit of a misnomer. What the story really discusses, in the main, is how an oppressed group reacts to that bigotry and hatred. And it is a theme, using the black struggle as a central backdrop, borne entirely from white minds. Herein lies the critique.

To my knowledge neither Stan Lee nor Jack Kirby (creators of the X-Men and literal demigods of the comic world; may I not be smote for my sacrilege) conducted any large polling of black people when designing the X-Men. Neither spoke with Dr. King or Malcolm X to ask their take on things. I have no idea if the two delved into long and complex research on the variance of black political thought, but I seriously doubt it. Rather what we had were two white men who decided to tackle the oft-neglected problems of racism in America through the pages of fiction and symbolism (being certain in the racially charged 1960s to even use all white characters). And though it was a noble, well-intentioned deed, an idea hatched by two white men thinking themselves equipped and empathic enough to speak on the black struggle was bound to have inherent flaws.



What we get from the X-Men therefore is not really an understanding and accurate analysis of the black struggle, the multi-faceted ways black people have dealt with persecution, the overall problems of race and racism, or the goals and philosophies of Dr. King and Malcolm X. Rather the X-Men speak volumes more precisely on white perceptions of race, white ideas of racism and white views on the historical and political black reactions to such oppression. And even though these are liberal perspectives from two individuals who themselves know something of persecution (Stanley Lee was born Stanley Lieber and artist Jack Kirby was born Jacob Kurtzberg -- two men of Jewish heritage who were forced to take on monikers simply to work professionally), the ideas espoused still tend to fall way short of the mark.


In this white created world that hates and fears mutants, the two factions that arise among mutant kind are forever locked in a war---with each other. It is a classical white view on the turbulent 1950s and 60s. Furthermore Lee and Kirby created not only an opposition of political views among this oppressed minority but a clear white statement of who was right and who was wrong, in effect casting moral judgment on real life black politics and how blacks react to oppression



Make no mistake about it; the X-Men and Professor Xavier are the good guys, just like MLK and the Civil Rights Movement in much of the modern white psyche. What these "good mutants" fight for is right and just. They want to live with humans. They want integration. They fight for peace. And if they could be non-violent, they most certainly would be. The X-Men live for this "dream" of Professor Xavier. It is what he preaches: appealing to liberal humans in the hopes that "we can all just get along."

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah, when I hear "Mutant and proud!" I hear "I'm Black and I'm proud!" a la James Brown. Before anyone argues about "pride" and being Black let me say that you have no idea how shameful it was to be Black, have dark skin and Afro type hair and facial features for centuries.

Sister Monica,




I agree with you when it comes to noting that the entire concept of "Mutant and Proud" goes in line with the Black Power dynamic of the 60's/70s when it was the case that many blacks were no longer supportative of either doing things on the terms of whites....or thinking that they had to be ashamed of their culture. And I was glad that the X-Men film discussed that aspect plainly.


I also agree with you that the first things that come to my mind when seeing X-Men are not the subject of same-sex relations as much as the dynamics of racism/discrimination. Even as a child, as I was/still am an AVID Fan of X-Men, it seemed that the theme of racism was the most clear...and being raised as a Black Hispanic/having to contend with the issue of racial discrimination early on, it was not something was taken lightly.


Of course, I could argue that the themes of racism/discrimination that the film seemed to discuss in the spirit of the Civil Rights era are connected today with "gay rights" since the subject of gays was not something that other minorities were oblivious to even in that time frame. If ever hearing of a man known as Bay, one will see that plainly. For he was an African American man...AND Bayard Rustin is responsible for bringing Gandhian nonviolence to the civil rights movement in the American South. He was an officer in the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a war resister, a close advisor to Martin Luther King, Jr., and a key organizer of the 1963 march on Washington, D.C. He was also a gay man, a fact that landed him in jail, drove a wedge between him and other movement leaders, and made him the target of diatribes by Strom Thurmond on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Bayard Rustin​

For Rustin, gay rights was inextricably part of the larger struggle for civil rights. But Rustin’s legacy, which was often hidden in order to protect the civil rights movement from homophobic distractions, has been profoundly underappreciated. As another said best on the issue:

Rustin, who himself lived under the double-jeopardy of being black and gay in America, maps the route for us “From Montgomery to Stonewall.” Having to resist biblically-sanctioned and culturally condoned violence against one’s humanity is the tie that binds. And Rev. Sekou argues that living in a contemporary condition of existential uncertainty, denied opportunity and deferred democracy is why the gay rights movement understandably looks to the black freedom struggle as an example of how to resist the ["N.."ization process in America.


Cornel West contends that being [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ized should not be reduced to the dehumanization, economic exploitation, and political disenfranchisement of black people. He unracializes the term insofar as it becomes a much broader category to describe the bastardizing and impeding of democracy. Turning citizens into “intimidated, fearful and helpless subjects,” according to West, is what it means to be a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].


.... while Gay may not be the new black, with the passing of Prop 8 and other state constitutional amendments proscribing the lives and liberties of our gay brothers and sisters, “Gays Are the New...






​

For more on the issue and how other blacks have noted that calling someone"Gay" is now considered to be the new "n-word", one can go here:

• Gays Are the New "N..@#" < Killing the Buddha

• Bayard Rustin, 40 years after Stonewall / Waging Nonviolence ...
  
  
  

And for some excellent videos on the issue:

• 
  Rebellion and Compromise (1 of 2)
• Rebellion and Compromise (2 of 2)
• Brother Outsider - the Life of Bayard Rustin
• "Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin
• Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin | Brother ...

I'm definately not one who is supportative of the homosexual lifestyle, having dealt with it myself and seeing the death/destruction in it as well as the hopelessness involved in it....and unlike those who are black/had to deal with discrimination due to being born as they were, I don't see anywhere that it can be said that those seeking to be "gay" were "born that way"/unable to change it. Unlike being a minority, being gay is a choice predominately---and even with struggles one may have had to deal with naturally, I don't think its exactly the same as it is for minorites.


However, I do see many parallels alongside departures between gay struggle and black struggle when it comes to the many levels of discrimination simply because one seeks to live a same-sex lifestyle and wants to be treated fairly.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The mutants have to turn what makes them different into an asset and even an advantage. People with learning disabilities have to do the same. The same brain "abnormality" that causes one to jumble letters can actually enhance ones ability to visualize and design or solve problems. LD kids are born with these differences; struggle with them; often have to overcome "persecution" from peers and teachers who don't unsterstand them; hopefully find a Professor X who can help them channel their frustration and hone their talents; and eventually accept who they are and make a contribution to society.

M.

It is rather amazing to see how the "X-Men" mythology (in both the film and comic series) has often delved into VERY deep issues reflective of social issues and society.


We teach our children that it's our differences that make us special&#8212;even as we, like Professor Charles Xavier, suggest that not all societal norms are negative and that being different (as a mutant) isn't a bad thing. There was actually an article one of my sisters sent to me that spoke much on the issue...entitled Creativity and Mental Illness | Serendip's Exchange. The other was known asFamous People with Disabilities



Nonetheless, as much as I appreciate the X-Men series for speaking on the issue of celebrating differences, I think it can be dangerous when it fails to note that not all differences are created "equal" ....and just because its different doesn't mean mean the way it operates is right (as what occurs with evil mutants or those who naturally choose to be destructive/not for being concerned with others).

Within the series, the forces of intolerance are symbolized by the government and the scientists working to separate mutants from their power. And the language they use to describe those with genetic mutations hints that they, perhaps even more than Magneto and Co., are the real villains. One mutant that comes to mind is an individual named Angel...and Angel's father, for example, describes mutants as people who are "afflicted" and "corrupted" with a "disease" that needs to be cured. Worthington II (Angel's father) and some of the government officials have clearly rejected the idea that mutants have a place at the humankind table. Fear drives them to seek to control and find a "solution" to the mutant problem.

Magneto, meanwhile, is a mutant militant who will protect mutants "by any means necessary"---believing peace can never occur between mutants and humans. HE demands complete acceptance by society on his own terms...and rather than using the abilities that they possess to contribute to society, they use them to attack others who often seem to demean them for their differences. So, in reality, he's just as intolerant as the humans he so despises.

Somewhere in between these two philosophical extremes are the X-Men, who are trying to figure out what it really means to love and accept others, and to make the right choices in the process...and within X-Men, the message that every person is valuable and deserves acceptance comes through loud and clear. What's less clear at times is whether tolerance means embracing the choices other people make along the way.

 

[rusmeister]

Hi Easy G,
I appreciate that you have a lot of thoughts about the X-Men and it's association with racism.

Only that isn't what this thread is about. Please read the original post, and speak to THAT in some way. This is NOT a general X-Men discussion thread and racism is not the issue here. I don't mind non-Orthodox posters posting here (as long as they observe the rules of our little corner) but want thread issues to remain on topic, certainly on threads that I start, anyway. I think some of the ideas you bring up can be connected to same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD, or simply sad), but the discussion ought to be connecting them.