Steyn on Captain America

[bloodyminded]

I post this because I think it tells us something about differing perspectives. This little clip is less than two minutes long, but I think it aptly demonstrates the great gulf in worldview between such ignorant knobs like Steyn and ignorant sweetie-pies like myself.

I'm not a comics fan, but exactly what Steyn finds laughable and objectionable is what I would consider preferable, more rational and honest.

Oh...and listen carefully...you'll note that Steyn doesn't have a clue what the term "moral relativism" even means. It's utterly misapplied.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Wild Bill]

I post this because I think it tells us something about differing perspectives. This little clip is less than two minutes long, but I think it aptly demonstrates the great gulf in worldview between such ignorant knobs like Steyn and ignorant sweetie-pies like myself.

I'm not a comics fan, but exactly what Steyn finds laughable and objectionable is what I would consider preferable, more rational and honest.

Oh...and listen carefully...you'll note that Steyn doesn't have a clue what the term "moral relativism" even means. It's utterly misapplied.

Well, that's what makes us different, BM! I was a comic book fan since I was a kid. I even remember how Captain America re-debuted in the 60's. I totally agree with Steyn on the differences in focus between the two eras!

The Nazi era stories did have clear targets and a clear sense of right and wrong. Patriotism as a belief that America's values were superior to that of fascism and that of the Axis powers was strong in those comic book stories. It was a time when the bad guy always wore the black hat.

Marvel Comics in the 60's was a new wave in the industry, which had diminished to a shadow of its former self. Super heroes were almost entirely gone and comic books were pretty much all at the "Archie" and "Mickey Mouse" level, thanks to the efforts of the "Priscilla Goodbody" Comics Code organizations. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby re-introduced superheroes and deliberately wrote stories with moral conflicts. Characters suddenly had real lives with real problems. Spiderman would catch a villain and send them to jail, only to come home and find that his Aunt May needed a doctor and he didn't have the money.

Many of these stories echoed America's doubts about itself, particularly later during the height of the Viet Nam war. The X-Men were always a thinly-disguised metaphor for racism and the inner city troubles of the 60's. Just substitute "mutant" for "negro".

I watched your clip and thought that Steyn was making a perfectly valid comment about how during the initial years of Captain America the good Captain had far more confidence in himself and his value system than this counterpart of two decades later. America itself had lost self-confidence!

Perhaps America and western society needed a healthy dose of self-introspection but I believe Steyn is bang on when he talks about how it has gone on too long and too far, to the point where we start to give moral equivalency to some pretty savage cultures. America's culture (and ours!) is definitely superior to many fundamentalist Islamic cultures!

One might ask "By who's yardstick? That's a relative opinion!" The answer is "Our own!" And that's all we need! For if we don't have confidence in ourselves and our own culture, we will not be strong enough to resist the aggression of some other!

Steyn was really just mocking the old liberal cliche of how all cultures are equally valid, including those that stone women and practice genital multilation!

HIS Captain America would never even consider accepting Sharia Law as morally equivalent to America's own!

[bloodyminded]

Well, that's what makes us different, BM! I was a comic book fan since I was a kid. I even remember how Captain America re-debuted in the 60's. I totally agree with Steyn on the differences in focus between the two eras!

I have no doubt that there has been a change. That wasn't my point.

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby re-introduced superheroes and deliberately wrote stories with moral conflicts. Characters suddenly had real lives with real problems. Spiderman would catch a villain and send them to jail, only to come home and find that his Aunt May needed a doctor and he didn't have the money.

Exactly. More nuanced, more sophisticated, more troublesome and problematic...I see no problem with this.

I watched your clip and thought that Steyn was making a perfectly valid comment about how during the initial years of Captain America the good Captain had far more confidence in himself and his value system than this counterpart of two decades later. America itself had lost self-confidence!

Again, I'm not questioning the observation. I'm questioning the relative value he places on the distinctions proposed in the observation.

Perhaps America and western society needed a healthy dose of self-introspection but I believe Steyn is bang on when he talks about how it has gone on too long and too far,

Not nearly far enough.

to the point where we start to give moral equivalency to some pretty savage cultures.

Who does? I hear this a lot, but it seems thoroughly impressionistic. Who is saying that "every culture is equally valid"?

I've never once heard anyone assert it...and I have an arts degree from an Eastern university!

The only time I've ever heard it said is in criticisms of it such as yours, here. So I never hear the alleged original...only the critiques of this alleged original.

And yet I'm to believe it's so pervasive and all-encompassing that Western society has "gone too far" in its extreme forms of relativism and self-criticism?

Steyn was really just mocking the old liberal cliche of how all cultures are equally valid, including those that stone women and practice genital multilation!

I disagree. Steyn is wishing for popular entertainment to be self-aggrandizing propaganda about our own magnificence, and the evils that we (especially America) is bravely fighting.

And by the way...asserting that America is a force of inherent Good, flitting about an ungrateful world in its purely ethical attempts to fight Evil....that edges dangerously close to actual "moral relativism," if we must use the term.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[waldo]

And by the way...asserting that America is a force of inherent Good, flitting about an ungrateful world in its purely ethical attempts to fight Evil....that edges dangerously close to actual "moral relativism," if we must use the term.

yes, the term Steyn improperly associates to the Judeo-Christian based, "good/evil"... to the, as he stated, "mire that Captain America found himself within, in fighting Nazi's"!

by the by... in Hollywood's continuing flirtation with reviving comic-book heroes, saw this trailer yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sff8gNloRRs

[Shady]

I'm not a comics fan, but exactly what Steyn finds laughable and objectionable is what I would consider preferable, more rational and honest.

Do you usually look to comics for honesty and rationalism?

Oh...and listen carefully...you'll note that Steyn doesn't have a clue what the term "moral relativism" even means. It's utterly misapplied.

Not at all. Especially when you listen to the few minutes of the discussion prior to that clip.

[bloodyminded]

Do you usually look to comics for honesty and rationalism?

Don't be fatuous. The discussion is about larger issues.

I'm sorry of it all passed you by...though that begs the question of why you'd respond.

I note you don't take Mr. Steyn to task, for...some reason.

Not at all. Especially when you listen to the few minutes of the discussion prior to that clip.

Oh, Steyn has been perfectly clear all along about his lack of comprehension on moral matters generally.

Like openly mocking and laughing at the sexual humiliations and abuses of the Abu Ghraib detainees.

Great fun, wot wot?

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

I note you don't take Mr. Steyn to task, for...some reason.

For what? He's exactly right. They specifically changed the story of Captain America for political reasons. But then again, I shouldn't blame you for not understanding. You admitted earlier that you're not a comics fan. Perhaps you should leave said details to people who are. And know something about them.

Oh, Steyn has been perfectly clear all along about his lack of comprehension on moral matters generally.

Like openly mocking and laughing at the sexual humiliations and abuses of the Abu Ghraib detainees.

Sometimes he uses satire to get at larger issues. If that's your real reason for this critique of Mark Steyn, perhaps you should have said so, and posted something more significant. Instead of a Captain America movie issue.

[bloodyminded]

For what? He's exactly right. They specifically changed the story of Captain America for political reasons.

And the notion that America, as symbolized by the character, is all about "good versus Evil" is not political?

Give your head a shake.

And just for clarity--since you are exposing yourself as an illiterate as we speak--you asked me why I thought there was anything to be gained from discussing comic books; but I didn't intiate the conflation of comic books and politics: Steyn did. I was responding to the remarks he made.

And like I said, you don't take him to task for it; you take me to task for it. You defend him doing it.

But this is all beside the point, as much as you try to obfuscate.

The real point is that Captain America was always political, by definition. Even Steyn would agree that far. Your (and Steyn's) objection is not to the politicization. It's to the abandonment of pro-America propaganda, which you consider awesome.

But then again, I shouldn't blame you for not understanding. You admitted earlier that you're not a comics fan. Perhaps you should leave said details to people who are. And know something about them.

I don't understand the profound nuances of Captain America comics?

So, first it's unworthy of discussion (which is your critique of Steyn, though you remain bizarrely unaware); and now it's so complex and difficult to navigate that I don't understand "the details."

Ok, chief.

Sometimes he uses satire to get at larger issues.

What "satire"?

"Satire" is not some word you can use as justification every time someone exposes his or her ugly lunacy.

"Satire" actually means something. If he meant his mockery and laughter of sexual humiliations and abuses as "satire"...perhaps you could expand a little on this.

If not...why not?

If that's your real reason for this critique of Mark Steyn, perhaps you should have said so, and posted something more significant. Instead of a Captain America movie issue.

I thought it was a pretty good example of a pretty fundamental difference in worldview between some conservatives and some liberals...and certainly between Mr. Steyn and myself.

As I explained in my opening post.

[jbg]

I'm not a comics fan, but exactly what Steyn finds laughable and objectionable is what I would consider preferable, more rational and honest.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PmuwrcJYeE&feature=player_detailpage

I disagree with you on this.

Even in Viet Nam, we learned after the North's defeat of the South that the U.S. military's "brutality" was a walk in the park compared to the North's atrocities.

[bloodyminded]

I disagree with you on this.

Even in Viet Nam, we learned after the North's defeat of the South that the U.S. military's "brutality" was a walk in the park compared to the North's atrocities.

So what? Steyn, like many people, believe we should not focus on what we do wrong, but rather glare with laserlike fixity on the misdeeds of official enemies. Every coward agrees with him.

It's the exact opposite of every moral code worth its salt. (Arguably, Satanists would have some sympathy for his view.)

[bloodyminded]

edit: double

Edited March 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

So what? Steyn, like many people, believe we should not focus on what we do wrong, but rather glare with laserlike fixity on the misdeeds of official enemies. Every coward agrees with him.

I see your point but why should we only self-flaggelate?

[bloodyminded]

I see your point but why should we only self-flaggelate?

I'm not talking about "only," but about looking in the mirror without indulging in self-worship and nationalist hero-fantasies. Steyn and those who think like him wish to keep society in a state of continual adolescent moral dysmorphia. We should view positive national myths as inspirational, and aspirational....not as objective modes of existing Truth.

Nor am I talking about self-flagellation, but rather self-reflection.

[Pliny]

Mark Steyn - a brilliant writer. I'm sure he has a comment about comic books. And I'm sure he has an understanding of the term "moral relativism". Perhaps some self-reflection on your part BM, is the right prescription here. If no relief, try your prescription for America - some self-flagellation. It's all relative you know.

Steyn and those who think like him wish to keep society in a state of continual adolescent moral dysmorphia

Your call for self-reflection seems to indicate "adolescent moral dysmorphia" is more your wish rather than the clear cut, good guy/bad guy, white hat/black hat simplicity that Steyn is suggesting.

The Superiority of America is in it's ability to socially change and adapt. Not in the stultifying progressivism of the State.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Mark Steyn - a brilliant writer.

He's an accomplished writer. "Brilliant" might better be used to describe Martin Amis, Mordecai Richler, or other genuine geniuses with the language.

Anyway, my problem is not with Steyn's writing skill, which is well above average; it's with the lack of reasonable content to his writing.

I'm sure he has a comment about comic books.

Well, it's not as if it's debatable. You can watch the video.

And I'm sure he has an understanding of the term "moral relativism".

That's not so clear.

Perhaps some self-reflection on your part BM, is the right prescription here.

Hey, I'm not the statist moaning deliriously about the glories of the National Security State. That's Steyn's shtick.

If no relief, try your prescription for America - some self-flagellation.

Attempting honesty and realism in one's analysis of the behavior of the geopolitical entities known as "countries" is not "self-flagellation."

Seriously: consider what you're implying here.

It's all relative you know.

Yes; to moral relativists, who are deluded (by the State and its commissars, no less) to the point where they believe it ethical to forgive and ignore the transgressions of the most powerful nations, while simultaneously focussing with total fixity on the sins of official enemies.

Your call for self-reflection seems to indicate "adolescent moral dysmorphia" is more your wish

So...precisely that which I unequivocally condemn, and make criticisms of, to the point where you and some others argue with me about it and call it "self-flagellation"...is somehow my wish?

How so?

The Superiority of America is in it's ability to socially change and adapt. Not in the stultifying progressivism of the State.

Now you're getting mixed up, thanks to your obssession with your for-every-argument talking point about "the State."

My point is that Steyn--and those who agree with him, perhaps including yourself--are the actual statists. They are loyal to and highly defensive about the militarized, aggressive state; they believe that criticism of (in this case) American wars of choice are highly suspect, since we should "back our country" and "support the troops" in the common parlance (both being code words for supporting political policy).

Well, for the obedient lovers of Big, aggressive government, I suppose that's a satisfying stance; as is the (related) belief, akin to religion, that the Western demcoracies in general, and the US Republic in particular, are always right, and always benign....and that to oppose their military actions is to oppose freedom itself.

If nothing else, this underlines the continued relevance of Orwell.

Edited March 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

I post this because I think it tells us something about differing perspectives. This little clip is less than two minutes long, but I think it aptly demonstrates the great gulf in worldview between such ignorant knobs like Steyn and ignorant sweetie-pies like myself.

I'm not a comics fan, but exactly what Steyn finds laughable and objectionable is what I would consider preferable, more rational and honest.

Oh...and listen carefully...you'll note that Steyn doesn't have a clue what the term "moral relativism" even means. It's utterly misapplied.

Seems to me that Steyn is lamenting the fact that over the past 40 years Captain America has become more liberal. Indeed - since America herself has become more liberal over the past 50 years - that he has become a hero that people can identify with. Kind of like the 'darkness' of Batman. He completely misses on his brief comment about '300.'

These hero-transformations reflect a general change in the popular societal narratives from romance to tragedy - something a real genius writer like Northrop Frye told us about, well, 40 years ago. In romance, there is usually a clear trancendence of the hero through the hopeful and eventual triumph of good over evil. Tragedies are not as clear-cut and the heroic transcendence is more provisional with the line between good and evil not so simple. 300 was not a romance. The Spartans didn't go out and 'whomp' the bad guys. They were defeated and brutally killed in a hopeless battle. Their battle wasn't without purpose, but the overall tone of the movie was very tragic.

In modern comics and illustrated novels - both legitimate literary genres - the trend has been to move away from the self-absorbed motives of the protagonist to self-reflection of the hero upon themselves and their role in the environment. Something that Mark Steyn wouldn't understand for obvious reasons.

[bloodyminded]

Seems to me that Steyn is lamenting the fact that over the past 40 years Captain America has become more liberal. Indeed - since America herself has become more liberal over the past 50 years - that he has become a hero that people can identify with. Kind of like the 'darkness' of Batman. He completely misses on his brief comment about '300.'

These hero-transformations reflect a general change in the popular societal narratives from romance to tragedy - something a real genius writer like Northrop Frye told us about, well, 40 years ago. In romance, there is usually a clear trancendence of the hero through the hopeful and eventual triumph of good over evil. Tragedies are not as clear-cut and the heroic transcendence is more provisional with the line between good and evil not so simple. 300 was not a romance. The Spartans didn't go out and 'whomp' the bad guys. They were defeated and brutally killed in a hopeless battle. Their battle wasn't without purpose, but the overall tone of the movie was very tragic.

In modern comics and illustrated novels - both legitimate literary genres - the trend has been to move away from the self-absorbed motives of the protagonist to self-reflection of the hero upon themselves and their role in the environment. Something that Mark Steyn wouldn't understand for obvious reasons.

Thanks for supplying the excellent context, Shwa.

I should think Steyn would have some awareness of what you're saying here, as he used to write reviews and criticism of theatre. So surely he's aware that the movements in popular culture are neither simple nor sinister.

On the other hand, there is a precedence for politically-engaged, conservative cultural critics to appreciate the depths and self-reflections of Western narrative art...but to be hostile towards any such tendencies within popular culture.

Allan Bloom, the Classics professor who wrote Closing of the American Mind, is a prime example (and he in turn was heavily influenced by Leo Strauss, who is often credited--or blamed--for generating what is known as the "neocons.") On the one hand, Bloom could write of the complexities and difficulties of Plato's Republic, and posit Western cultural trends as having risen from Plato on one side and the Judeo-Christian philosophies on the other, culminating in the Enlightenment (of which Bloom was not a big fan, a rather unique, and uniquely conservative, stance).

But why should humanities professors and theatre critics evince such hostilty to the rise in sophistication and reflection in popular culture? At first blush, it seems downright bizarre. Steyn clearly does not dislike popular culture in and of itself; but he mocks the self-reflective liberalism that has taken it over. (It's for this reason, I guess, that most actors, writers, musicians, and artists generally tend towards the leftish end of the spectrum; a fact continually bemoaned by the conservatives who seem to love popular arts and entertainment as much as I do.)

I think part of it is that they have an elitist view of the arts generally (certainly Bloom did): there is "real" art, which is to explore society in large part through darkness and human frailty, inclined to a degree towards psychological and emotional realism, even naturalism (and in a different way, later, through postmodernism); and then there is popular culture, which is enjoyed by the masses, by the uninitiated...and its purpose is to be "instructive" in the most banal sense of the word. It is to carry forth traditions of God, family, country.

This is precisely what Steyn is talking about. He wants his Captain America to be without self-reflection, and without self-awareness; it's beside the point, in Steynworld. C.A. is to be pure symbol, and purely simple symbol: all that is Good (America) battling all that is Evil (most everybody else, presumably).

Bloom, too, was quite explicit about this, as was Strauss. The idea was that the sophisticated thinkers--the Blooms, the Strausses, the Steyns--could withstand the sight of the horrors of the abyss. (These are not particularly religious men; and some have deemed the Strauss/Bloom/neocon bipartite philosophy as fundamentally nihilistic.) However, most people cannot handle it. We're better served by patriotic myths, by religious belief, by "community" in its most simplistic and even banal ways.

Steyn is unequivocally preaching for patriotic propaganda. What's interesting to me is his bellowing, mocking laughter: to him, I think, it's obvious, it's self-evident , that nuance, reflection, and self-awareness have no place in our popular arts and literature.

He's calling for cultural regression. Fuck that noise.

Edited March 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

He's calling for cultural regression. Fuck that noise.

He is calling for cultural regression, but for what reason? Well for one, that would indicate a sort of anti-enlightenment stance too. So maybe there is an ethic - concious or not - at play with these types?

We hear this all the time - regress to a period where it is safe and comforting again. Where the lines between good and evil are not so blurred that they require careful and honesty producing introspection; where the discomfort of self-reflection gives way to happy thoughts of apple pie, bustling main street and 'us and them' dialectics. I mean, you can hear this rhetoric over and over and over in popular media. (often times resembling a child calling for the warm embrace of mommy)

But in fact there never WAS a period of safe and comfort, it is pure myth and can be determined with a glance at most history over the past 100 years. So why the stickler for this particular myth even as the culture moves forward into an ever increasing liberal attitude? To me, a stickler for myth is by defintion a romantic.

It is interesting that Steyn et al would persist with this notion despite all the evidence that must be available to them otherwise. I don't it's a problem of not wanting to see it, I just don't think they can, at least publically. Like an alcoholic who can't see their drinking is a problem.

[The_Squid]

I must say.... great posts/coversation Shwa & bloodyminded.

[bloodyminded]

He is calling for cultural regression, but for what reason? Well for one, that would indicate a sort of anti-enlightenment stance too. So maybe there is an ethic - concious or not - at play with these types?

We hear this all the time - regress to a period where it is safe and comforting again. Where the lines between good and evil are not so blurred that they require careful and honesty producing introspection; where the discomfort of self-reflection gives way to happy thoughts of apple pie, bustling main street and 'us and them' dialectics. I mean, you can hear this rhetoric over and over and over in popular media. (often times resembling a child calling for the warm embrace of mommy)

But in fact there never WAS a period of safe and comfort, it is pure myth and can be determined with a glance at most history over the past 100 years. So why the stickler for this particular myth even as the culture moves forward into an ever increasing liberal attitude? To me, a stickler for myth is by defintion a romantic.

It is interesting that Steyn et al would persist with this notion despite all the evidence that must be available to them otherwise. I don't it's a problem of not wanting to see it, I just don't think they can, at least publically. Like an alcoholic who can't see their drinking is a problem.

I had honestly never considered the idea that Steyn et al might be romantics. That's very interesting. Romantics who erroneously consider themselves, in contemporary right-wing thought, as "realists."

This actually makes me feel a little warmer towards them (in a vaguely patronizing way, I concede). For that alone, I thank you! Hostility doesn't suit my personality very well, believe it or not.

Edited March 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I must say.... great posts/coversation Shwa & bloodyminded.

Thanks, Mr. Squid!