Sure, but it’s not a context that applies here, because there’s a larger, more obvious context in which the work exists - that context being Asgard, and Dune, and Star Wars, and a thousand other works that present exactly the same concept. I feel its much more problematic to argue, effectively, that black people can’t exist in these stories in more than a token fashion because of a tenuous and largely coincidental resemblance to an unrelated racist stereotype.
Maybe I’m wrong. IS ritual combat to determine leadership a specific stereotype of Africa, that I’ve somehow missed out on?
The idea of ritual combat for control of a small tribe or gang is pretty common, but not specifically African - you can see it in stuff like the TV show Vikings, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. And certainly, there’s a stereotype that Africans are all primitive tribesmen. It seems like there’d be a lot of overlap between the two, but I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head.
I don’t get it. Are you saying that this story could not have been told at all without a monarchy whose monarch is chosen by ritual combat? I don’t agree with that. They could have had a slightly different kind of monarchy, one that didn’t involve a physical challenge. They could have come up with another somewhat-traditional system, like a council of tribal elders that chose the ruler
And I don’t really get why Dune, Star Wars, and Asgard are relevant at all to this point. Dune is a story about a completely alien civilization with completely different issues from our contemporary world. Star Wars is a pastiche of adventure cliches that has no logical societal structure. Asgard is based on an actual historical mythological system.
None of these settings are relevant to Wakanda. Wakanda is in my eyes a depiction of a somewhat idealized advanced black African culture in OUR current cultural milieu,
No, I’m saying that stories about technologically advanced societies with anachronistic political systems are a fundamental concept in speculative fiction, and having majority-black societies represented within that space is a desirable goal.
They’re relevant because they’re literally exactly the same thing, but with white people. Asgard is particularly relevant because it’s part of the actual narrative to Black Panther - it’s very hard to convincingly argue that the political system portrayed in BP is racist when it was preceded by three different movies featuring a society with the same political system, except starring a blonde dude.
Also, Dune is literally about Space Muslims from the Oil Planet, so you really couldn’t be more wrong about it not having to do with contemporary issues.
Well, there’s your problem. It isn’t that. It’s a fantasy lost kingdom based on super-tech and magic metal. You are straining at the gnat of monarchy while swallowing the camel of vibrainium.
I think Iron Man fought a camel of vibranium in the ‘90s…
The other thing here is that for a lot of folks–a LOT of folks–monarchy is an idealized form of government. I mean, we’re not exactly talking Camelot here, but–
–wait a second, yes we are. When we talk about a utopian government, we call it Camelot, because you really can’t get any better than the hereditary monarchy of merry Olde England.
You might expect that monarchy wouldn’t be so idealized in a literary genre predicated on the idea that some people are just born special and are better than everyone else, but I’m not sure why you’d expect that.
Monarchy isn’t a bug of Wakanda, it’s a feature.
But there’s nothing about the genre that requires all new fictional nations to have an anachronistic political system. And, specifically with respect to my discomfort in this case, there’s nothing that requires all new fictional nations to have a monarchy whose ruler is chosen by combat. It wouldn’t affect the genre at all to remove that element from this one particular fictional nation.
Why would it require that black people exist in only a token fashion? Just rewrite one small element of Wakanda to remove the kingship-by-combat element. Kingship-by-combat monarchy is not an essential element of fictional nations in the Marvel world, in the superhero genre, or in the fantasy genre generally.
There was nothing tenuous or coincidental to me. As soon as I saw the ritual combat challenge tribal kingship ceremony, the discomfort struck me immediately. It was entirely unnecessary.
It’s a desirable goal to have a majority-black society represented in the genre. The genre is not “societies with kingship-by-combat monarchy.” That’s not even a genre at all.
Wakanda means something a lot more to our real society than just a majority-black version of Asgard, etc. The way it has been taken to heart by African-American society, in particular, is notable. It’s the arrival of a majority-black culture in the superhero fantasy genre.
And it’s a majority-black society that works, that has advanced technology, that has educated, intelligent people—a lot of whom are women—in important positions in society. Yes, there are weaknesses. Yes, there are moral dilemmas (such as isolation to protect ourselves versus helping the outside world). But fundamentally, it is a symbol of achievement and equality and dignity for people of African origin, or, rather, black people. In that context, a primitive kingship-by-combat element is disappointing.
Unless the existence of Wakanda is somehow dependent on copying the political system of Asgard, I don’t see why this matters. Even if it had been, that doesn’t make it mandatory.
It’s not at all hard. Sometimes a depiction of black people doing something touches upon negative stereotypes in a way that doesn’t happen when it’s white people. That’s just one way that a heritage of racism operates in the world.
Okay, I forgot about that. Still, that makes it a very specific allegory that doesn’t have any relevance for Wakanda.
Okay, let’s call it Camelot. King Arthur didn’t win his throne by combat. He won it by pulling the sword from the stone and proving he was the true heir. When Mordred tried to overthrow him by combat, that didn’t bode well for the kingdom.
I’m a big believer that people who quote Monty Python in a conversation are enormous losers, but good lord you’re testing me here.
Let’s just say that you’re not exactly describing a superior basis for a system of government.
Of course it isn’t superior. That’s not the point. The point is that the specific element of Wakanda that I’m criticizing—kingship by combat—isn’t an essential element of any genre that anyone can say that Wakanda touches upon. It’s not a defining element of Marvel movies, of superhero fantasies, of fantasies in general, of fantastical monarchies. It represents a choice on the part of the writers/producers to include it. And all choices in stories are up for questioning.
It wasn’t necessary to include this element in the story. It didn’t have to happen. And I’m saying I would have enjoyed it better had it been left out.
Sure–it’s not essential, by any means. But superheroes is a genre steeped in the notion of the Chosen One, of superiority-by-birth. There’s a critique to be made of the entire genre from that perspective. More specifically, there’s a critique to be made of the glorification of monarchism in modern fantasies. I’m down with either of those critiques.
But you were saying that
and that claim is totally wrong. It’s not a stereotype of Africa at all; rather, it’s a stereotype of European-based fantasy (Asgard, Conan, King Arthur, and so on), migrated into a story about Africa.
I asked you, and I asked Miller, the same question; only Miller answered. If this is a stereotype of Africa, especially one that portrays Africans as savages, can you come up with a few other fictional examples of kingship-by-trial-by-combat set in Africa? Even one?
The stereotype that it touches on for me is that Africans and societies that they build are backward, primitive, violent, unenlightened, unsophisticated, undeveloped, uneducated, unjust, unfair, brutal, etc.
I don’t have a specific example of African kingship by combat in literature at hand, but that issue in my eyes is completely soaked with that general stereotype. Kingship-by-combat is arguably the most backward, primitive, violent, unenlightened, unsophisticated, undeveloped, uneducated, unjust, unfair, brutal, etc., form of government you can have, and that is exactly what they ended up choosing for the first majority-black advanced society at the center of a Marvel story.
You know what else is backward, primitive, etc.? The idea that there are Chosen Ones, people who are born into importance, who are superior by their genes. Why aren’t you criticizing Black Panther for that?
WITHIN THE GENRE, trial-by-combat isn’t a sign of being primitive, unsophisticated, etc. It’s literally how the gods do it.
You’re reaching really hard here, and the criticism you’re making just doesn’t work.
Maybe I should, but it’s not the one that jumped out at me. And maybe because in the world around me there seems to be a lot of people that really do kind of still believe in “chosen one” type thinking. Sure, I see it as fallacy, but it seems to be around. Whereas, I don’t really encounter a lot of normal people who seem to think it’s a good idea to choose leaders through combat.
I do have a problem with the “chosen one” vibe of Star Wars, etc., but it’s not one that strikes me as being particularly strong in Black Panther, as opposed to Star Wars, for example.
But we can argue about whether to object to that aspect to the story. It doesn’t serve as an answer to this particular complaint.
See, I still don’t get what genre convention you’re talking about here. As a reader/viewer, when I see this kind of a governmental structure, that’s what I get from it—primitive, etc. In 40-plus years of consuming fantasy and comic book genres, I have absorbed no viewpoint that says that this isn’t what it is.
Yes, there’s a genre convention that flimsy costumes somehow effectively mask someone’s identity. I get that genre rule. Yes, there’s a genre convention that extra-legal vigilantism isn’t reprehensible and evil. I get that genre rule. Yes, there’s a genre convention that certain laws of physics don’t work in the same way. I get that genre rule. Somehow, I’ve never absorbed the genre rule you’re talking about here.
I don’t think I’m reaching at all. It was instinctive to me. I saw ritual combat on the screen and my immediate reaction was “fuck, that’s messed up.”
And, going back to Asgard and Dune, those cultures are primitive, brutal, etc., so it doesn’t have the same implications.
The politics of Star Wars seems in part based on Caesar’s overthrowing of the Roman Republic in favor of the Roman Empire. The rise of the “chosen one” there becomes a messiah story. The culture of the Galactic Empire is staged as a throwback, not as an example of a contemporary civilization.
Not sure if this counts, but Tarzan kills Kerchak to become leader of the gorilla tribe.
Remember that it happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
A genre and an editorial house where the mostest specialest people tend to be the children of special-people parents, you mean*? Nah, can’t imagine why that would fit together.
- Franklin Richards, any Summers you care to name… Logan’s finally-retrieved memories made him Guardian’s ancestor, FFS!
Acsenray, “slamming each other before even exchanging a word” is pretty much the was superheroes meet; “whoever wins is leader” has been trotted out so many times it’s not so much a trope as a subgenre. The one who’s least powerful on paper is set up beforehand as being righter and since right somehow provides might and the whole genre is based on “whomever won is right”, they win every time.