Black GA Superhero? 0

[bluechip]

On 5/24/2017 at 0:42 PM, Bookery said:

Best Comics (1939)

 

Splash pages for 1 and 2

[bluechip]

[N e r V]

The cool factor would be if  that someone out there actually tried a lead black character in comics at a pretty terrible time in American history for the state of African American citizens.

Assuming it wasn't a colouring issue (I keep thinking back to Hulk #1 and any number of colorist "problems/changes" before and after that comic) if no one said a word to me beforehand I would have guessed he was supposed to be Indian or something close to it. The features lean more in that direction to me.

Either way a cool  curiosity in comics history.

Edited May 29, 2017 by N e r V

[bluechip]

On 5/29/2017 at 9:14 AM, N e r V said:

The cool factor would be if  that someone out there actually tried a lead black character in comics at a pretty terrible time in American history for the state of African American citizens.

Assuming it wasn't a colouring issue (I keep thinking back to Hulk #1 and any number of colorist "problems/changes" before and after that comic) if no one said a word to me beforehand I would have guessed he was supposed to be Indian or something close to it. The features lean more in that direction to me.

Either way a cool  curiosity in comics history.

It was definitely not a "colouring issue" (or, to be correct, a "coloring issue," since I am reading this in Amurka).  At least not, a coloring issue from the start.   The text makes clear that he is black.   And whether he's technically Samoan would most certainly be a distinction without a difference to the average newsstand customer in 1939, south of the Mason-Dixon line. 

[Straw-Man]

this was no boat accident!

[sarvajnatman]

In Canadian golden age comics there was a funny animal series called "The Doodlebugs" which was about a city of anthropomorphic insects and it appeared in Joke Comics. In the Joke Comics 14 Doodlebugs strip there's a politically incorrect parody of a brutally caricatured black character called Rufus Rifflesnoot who takes on the Glue Clucks Clan thinking he has super powers from a special potion, when ironically we know he doesn't. The book dates from late 1943. Weird....!! Here are some pics.

[Sqeggs]

20 hours ago, sarvajnatman said:

In Canadian golden age comics there was a funny animal series called "The Doodlebugs" which was about a city of anthropomorphic insects and it appeared in Joke Comics. In the Joke Comics 14 Doodlebugs strip there's a politically incorrect parody of a brutally caricatured black character called Rufus Rifflesnoot who takes on the Glue Clucks Clan thinking he has super powers from a special potion, when ironically we know he doesn't. The book dates from late 1943. Weird....!! Here are some pics.

[vaillant]

On 24/5/2017 at 9:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

Appreciate the replies, but I'm not looking for black caricatures or sidekicks. 

Serious question:  Someone on this site, could have been Jon Berk, once said that an early GA superhero was originally drawn as black, but later changed to white.  My recollection is the character was relatively obscure (at least to me), not DC or Timely. 

I swear the character name has some relationship to the color black (not necessarily "Black ________", but more like a word often associated with the color black or darkness) so the story made sense.

Anyone recall who the character was or even remember this being stated here?

 

Sidekicks are super-heroes. 

[rjpb]

7 hours ago, vaillant said:

Sidekicks are super-heroes. 

Not always. Even if we extend the definition to costumed hero with or without actual super-powers, that still precludes characters like Ebony Jones and Whitewash who wore civilian clothes and had no secret identity. Nobody thinks of Doiby Dickles, Woozy Winks or Percival Popp as superheroes either. 

[vaillant]

On 12/6/2017 at 6:53 AM, rjpb said:

Not always. Even if we extend the definition to costumed hero with or without actual super-powers, that still precludes characters like Ebony Jones and Whitewash who wore civilian clothes and had no secret identity. Nobody thinks of Doiby Dickles, Woozy Winks or Percival Popp as superheroes either. 

OK, but strictly speaking it’s not the costume that makes a super-hero. And I was referring to the original concept from Jack Kirby.
The Newsboy Legion, for example, were meant as ordinary boy heroes, even with the humour added. Jack himself told me the concept of the sidekick was just to make the kids feeling more involved in the stories, so even with humorous characters I would not treat them as separate entities like that statement implied.
I mean, not just Toro and Bucky can be considered (small) heroes.

[Electricmastro]

There was Abdul the Arab, but I suppose it depends on whether or not one counts a Middle Eastern character as black as opposed to an African character.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Electricmastro

[AJLewandoski]

1947's All-Negro Comics #1 featured a story of a character by the name of Lion Man. I would say say it hugs the border of Jungle and Super. The comic also has the distinction of being the first written and drawn by an all black team.

[Cat-Man_America]

While I do feel that bumping old threads can be done to excess, this one seems poignantly relevant today and key in any analysis of the GA.  The one phrase I’m going to avoid is “PC”, not because I’m concerned about getting dinged for it, but rather to more accurately discuss those times in contrast to the here and now.  

From the outset, black caricature was wrong then and it’s wrong now.  The problem isn’t whether comic relief should’ve been OK in comics, it’s whether the pervasiveness of those stereotypes damaged opportunities for racial inclusiveness and incentivized racial mistreatment for generations.  That said, comics should be seen in the context of their time, appreciated, criticized and judged according to their merits.  Weighing the faults means tolerating some depictions and discarding others from a collecting perspective.

I draw the line at racial caricature as pure comic relief because it visually demeans by appearance and/or language used for the purpose making a certain segment of the citizenry appear both physically and intellectually inferior.  On the other side of that line is caricature intended as patriotic propaganda which demonizes an enemy.  This is not employed for comic relief, but it does utilize clear stereotypes that are only appropriate during war. The most noteworthy example is depictions of Japanese soldiers in WWII.  IMO, there’s no inconsistency or hypocrisy involved in collecting war propaganda that utilizes some forms of stereotyping or exaggeration to depict enemy combatants.

It’s also important to note that efforts were made to mitigate the damage of racially insensitive stereotypes by artists and writers of the era even while still employing those tropes.  This would be an excellent topic for discussion if it can be done dispassionately.  The last thing I’d want to see in any discourse is argument over what individuals collect and why. For instance, while I try to avoid collecting GA covers that have comic relief racial stereotypes, that doesn’t mean I think there’s anything wrong with others collecting those books.  

In another resurrected thread someone mentioned Midnight by Jack Cole as utilizing the racial stereotype of a talking monkey as a parody of the Spirit’s Ebony character.  That discussion didn’t go very far, but the observation can certainly be made, except for the fact Midnight’s simian companion Gabby seems to have a better grasp of King’s English than Midnight or Doc Whacky (the hero’s other occasional sidekick).  If that connection via parody really was the intent, then perhaps Gabby is actually meant to be a parody of insensitive racial stereotypes.  Interesting thought, huh?

So, where does one draw the line as a GA collector or should there even be one?  In the past I’ve parted company with at least one high grade book after coming to the conclusion that I didn’t care for a racially insensitive depiction on the cover.  While it was only a vignette ...intended as simple comic relief... the cover troubled me.  It was an awesome book otherwise, but I sold it nonetheless, and don’t miss it.  Anyway, this is a good discussion topic if anyone has the cojones ...or the gender neutral alternative... to dive in & address it head-on.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Cat-Man_America

[Electricmastro]

4 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

While I do feel that bumping old threads can be done to excess, this one seems poignantly relevant today and key in any analysis of the GA.  The one phrase I’m going to avoid is “PC”, not because I’m concerned about getting dinged for it, but rather to more accurately discuss those times in contrast to the here and now.  

From the outset, black caricature was wrong then and it’s wrong now.  The problem isn’t whether comic relief should’ve been OK in comics, it’s whether the pervasiveness of those stereotypes damaged opportunities for racial inclusiveness and incentivized racial mistreatment for generations.  That said, comics should be seen in the context of their time, appreciated, criticized and judged according to their merits.  Weighing the faults means tolerating some depictions and discarding others from a collecting perspective.

I draw the line at racial caricature as pure comic relief because it visually demeans by appearance and/or language used for the purpose making a certain segment of the citizenry appear both physically and intellectually inferior.  On the other side of that line is caricature intended as patriotic propaganda which demonizes an enemy.  This is not employed for comic relief, but it does utilize clear stereotypes that are only appropriate during war. The most noteworthy example is depictions of Japanese soldiers in WWII.  IMO, there’s no inconsistency or hypocrisy involved in collecting war propaganda that utilizes some forms of stereotyping or exaggeration to depict enemy combatants.

It’s also important to note that efforts were made to mitigate the damage of racially insensitive stereotypes by artists and writers of the era even while still employing those tropes.  This would be an excellent topic for discussion if it can be done dispassionately.  The last thing I’d want to see in any discourse is argument over what individuals collect and why. For instance, while I try to avoid collecting GA covers that have comic relief racial stereotypes, that doesn’t mean I think there’s anything wrong with others collecting those books.  

In another resurrected thread someone mentioned Midnight by Jack Cole as utilizing the racial stereotype of a talking monkey as a parody of the Spirit’s Ebony character.  That discussion didn’t go very far, but the observation can certainly be made, except for the fact Midnight’s simian companion Gabby seems to have a better grasp of King’s English than Midnight or Doc Whacky (the hero’s other occasional sidekick).  If that connection via parody really was the intent, then perhaps Gabby is actually meant to be a parody of insensitive racial stereotypes.  Interesting thought, huh?

So, where does one draw the line as a GA collector or should there even be one?  In the past I’ve parted company with at least one high grade book after coming to the conclusion that I didn’t care for a racially insensitive depiction on the cover.  While it was only a vignette ...intended as simple comic relief... the cover troubled me.  It was an awesome book otherwise, but I sold it nonetheless, and don’t miss it.  Anyway, this is a good discussion topic if anyone has the cojones ...or the gender neutral alternative... to dive in & address it head-on.

I think that before the Comics Code of Authority came out and emphasized on the ridiculing jokes on racial minorities, I suspect it wasn’t really something that comic staffs really thought about in general unless it was personally pointed out to them, not necessarily out of malice, but more so out of blissful ignorance in just grabbing inspiration for jokes anywhere they thought they could get away with it. I want to emphasize is that people, whatever background they come from, shouldn’t judge someone they’ve never met based on what they see in comics, movies, TV, etc. because I feel that human beings have an obligation to do proper research when it comes to learning about groups of other human beings. That said, that doesn’t mean immigrant/race-related jokes shouldn’t be put into question. Even Jack Kirby did bad by drawing Whitewash Jones based on the unfortunately popular Sambo and minstrel blackface stereotypes, despite him later helping create the more respectable a Black Panther. With how racism can affect art today, I suppose a possible course of action to take is that only white people can be drawn with exaggerated caricatures, but I’m also not sure how that would hold up.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Electricmastro

[Cat-Man_America]

6 hours ago, Electricmastro said:

I think that before the Comics Code of Authority came out and emphasized on the ridiculing jokes on racial minorities, I suspect it wasn’t really something that comic staffs really thought about in general unless it was personally pointed out to them, not necessarily out of malice, but more so out of blissful ignorance in just grabbing inspiration for jokes anywhere they thought they could get away with it. I want to emphasize is that people, whatever background they come from, shouldn’t judge someone they’ve never met based on what they see in comics, movies, TV, etc. because I feel that human beings have an obligation to do proper research when it comes to learning about groups of other human beings. That said, that doesn’t mean immigrant/race-related jokes shouldn’t be put into question. Even Jack Kirby did bad by drawing Whitewash Jones based on the unfortunately popular Sambo and minstrel blackface stereotypes, despite him later helping create the more respectable a Black Panther. With how racism can affect art today, I suppose a possible course of action to take is that only white people can be drawn with exaggerated caricatures, but I’m also not sure how that would hold up.

Actually, the opposite was true as Judgment Day, originally published in Weird Fantasy #18 (April 1953), is the infamous pre-code story about racism that the CCA tried to censor when EC reprinted it.  

Spoiler

Note: The spoiler is provided just in case anyone hasn't read the story since only the final panel was linked at Wikipedia.

And here's the full link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_Comics#.22Judgment_Day.22

[Electricmastro]

39 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

, Actually, the opposite was true as Judgment Day, originally published in Weird Fantasy #18 (April 1953), is the infamous pre-code story about racism that the CCA tried to censor when EC reprinted it.  

  Reveal hidden contents

Note: The spoiler is provided just in case anyone hasn't read the story since only the final panel was linked at Wikipedia.

And here's the full link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_Comics#.22Judgment_Day.22

Hey, I said they emphasized on it. I didn’t say they always followed it buddy, among other occasions to the point of being considerably irresponsible.

I suppose it goes to show that progress doesn’t come in one big step, but with many little steps, likely sometimes tumbling onto the ground after misstepping in the process.

“Ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible.” - http://cbldf.org/the-comics-code-of-1954/

So indeed Cat-Man, while ridiculing/attacking racial groups was being put into question, suffice to say, there were others behind the scenes that evidently still needed to sort out their own issues, including certain fools working at the Comics Code office itself.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Electricmastro

[Cat-Man_America]

15 minutes ago, Electricmastro said:

Hey, I said they emphasized on it. I didn’t say they always followed it buddy, among other occasions to the point of being considerably irresponsible.

I suppose it goes to show that progress doesn’t come in one big step, but with many little steps, likely sometimes tumbling onto the ground after misstepping in the process.

http://cbldf.org/the-comics-code-of-1954/

No problem.  I just wanted to point out that there were occasionally thoughtful anti-racist stories in pre-code comics and when it came to progressive views on equality the censors over at the CCA were no saints.  

Regardless of what the code purported to do through it's wholesomeness creed, the CCA actually came very close to destroying the comics industry.  I'm persuaded that progress towards inclusiveness occurred in spite of the code, not because of it.

 

[Electricmastro]

40 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

No problem.  I just wanted to point out that there were occasionally thoughtful anti-racist stories in pre-code comics and when it came to progressive views on equality the censors over at the CCA were no saints.  

Regardless of what the code purported to do through it's wholesomeness creed, the CCA actually came very close to destroying the comics industry.  I'm persuaded that progress towards inclusiveness occurred in spite of the code, not because of it.

 

Yeah, I wasn’t necessarily saying that it happened solely because of it either, but merely put a spotlight on it even if all the people behind those words weren’t fully committed. A mixed bag indeed, but could still count as a step on the big ladder. It’s interesting, because there had been comics before that CCA incident which had portrayed black people in a positive light, like the highlight of Joe Louis’ achievements in Fight Comics #2 (February, 1940).

Edited January 28, 2020 by Electricmastro

[lou_fine]

On 5/24/2017 at 12:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

Black GA Superhero?

I have a vague recollection of someone on this board claiming the first black superhero was an early GA character that started black but became white in later appearances.  Ring any bells?

If you are referring to a real life black superhero, then I am afraid that he's just been arrested on drug charges:    

https://globalnews.ca/news/6473130/phoenix-jones-arrested-superhero/

 

[Electricmastro]

On 6/14/2017 at 5:15 PM, vaillant said:

OK, but strictly speaking it’s not the costume that makes a super-hero. And I was referring to the original concept from Jack Kirby.
The Newsboy Legion, for example, were meant as ordinary boy heroes, even with the humour added. Jack himself told me the concept of the sidekick was just to make the kids feeling more involved in the stories, so even with humorous characters I would not treat them as separate entities like that statement implied.
I mean, not just Toro and Bucky can be considered (small) heroes.

It’s weird, because looking back, I noticed that there were quite a number of feature and solo series which featured Native Americans as less so comedic and more heroic, not just Tonto, but also characters like the Bronze Terror, American Eagle, and Straight Arrow, even though many usually consider Native Americans as non-white. As @Cat-Man_America was talking about though, I’m not sure if the portrayals, whether positive or negative, of Native Americans had any profound effect on them in the sense of opportunities for inclusiveness and incentivizing certain treatments. Not to be ignorant of any artists that were drawing hurtful art of Native Americans, but also not to be ignorant of the mistreatment Native Americans had been experiencing long before comics, as well as the mistreatment of black people, and how that changed over time.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Electricmastro