Agreed, and nicely tied into the theme with the facehugger.
The link in the OP identified the slow or heritage-respectful introductions of the new characters in Wolverine and Thor: X-23 had been around for over a decade before taking on the mantle, and Jane Foster had been in the stories from the very beginning. I keep thinking of the debacle that the introduction of Kyle Rayner in Green Lantern in the last 90s. Established and respected character suddenly goes nuts. New character gets lucky finding a Guardian in a night club alley. New character happens to be half-Hispanic and has no back story. Massive schism in readership, and very loud voices of ridicule. But when John Stewart took over the role in 1988(?) when Len Wein was writing GL, there were no real complaints because Stewart had been part of the GL mythos since 1974-ish.
So, yes, the stories should be good, but also the lead-in should be long and the characters known. James Rhodes (black) could take over the mantle of Iron Man, as the character did in the past because Rhodes has been in the Iron Man mythos for decades, but this too new, black, female character will certainly fail.
Wouldn’t a hospital maternity ward have been more hygienic? 
It is. And it’s true. As a white Anglophone immigrant to the UK I find that many people here (those not paying close attention to my accent) assume I’m native-born. I blend in easily so I don’t set off “otherness” triggers.
So I was correct in not thinking that “The question is…”, unlike Miller who thought there was a question behind the aggressive sarcasm.
Since I never claimed that making super-man non-white would ruin the character, I have no idea why you’re pulling the “If you believe otherwise” schtick here. It’s especially divorced from reality since I specifically said in my original “If they’re doing a modern origin I wouldn’t have a problem with it…” and clearly (as I quoted above) stated that what would bother me is switching the race without addressing the effect of that race on his reception by other people.
Which is why I think that a superman story set in a location and time with a racist majoritarian culture would either have to be different or would be obviously ignoring a major piece of the background if he ‘happened’ not to look like the majoritarian race.
At this point “What if Superman were black?” should be considered a trope since it’s been done so many times now both literally and figuratively.
No. Because white people are not hurting for roles in Hollywood.
There are no equivalents with the majority race and any minority race. As a white person, I have no ethnic identity associated with my race. I just don’t. I literally do not ever think about the fact that I am white except in this sort of discussion.
No, you can’t celebrate being white, since that has absolutely no meaning other than “I’m not a person of color.” There is nothing else there. There is nothing to celebrate.
The only reason why minorities celebrate their race is because they have a shared cultural history, and they come together against the majority. We have nothing of the sort. White is just the word for “you are accepted as the default race.”
It’s like trying to have heterosexual pride. There’s nothing there. There’s no shared history to celebrate. There’s no oppression to celebrate fighting. There’s just nothing there but people getting jealous of minorities and wanting their own.
I can celebrate my Scottish heritage. I can celebrate Southern heritage (as long as I leave out the racism/sexism). I can celebrate the fights for people with mental disorders. I cannot celebrate that I am white, straight, or even male. There’s just nothing to celebrate when you are the cultural default.
Or, to put it another way, being the default means I’m already celebrated, and thus I have no reason to celebrate myself.
There is a difference between changing the race/gender/sexuality of characters and the legacies, sure. But some people want to discuss when it’s okay to change a character’s race.
I don’t think being a main character is the limit. The issue is simply whether or not they could believably have the same story. Peter Parker? Yeah, he basically could. Bruce Wayne? Not really. You might be able to pull it off if the Waynes adopt him, but then there’d be legitimacy problems that Bruce Wayne would need to deal with–is he really their kid? If you change his parents’ race, though, then the context of their shooting changes.
Superman needs to crash in a podunk town in the middle of the whiter part of America, and be adopted without anyone batting an eye. Yeah, he probably has to stay white. You change it, and Clark Kent is different. (Also, the more modern you make Superman, the less that origin works.)
I’d argue Dick Grayson could be pretty much any race, though. I don’t think you can make him female, as that would make Batgirl seem weird. (You can make Robin female, as we all know.)
My point is that the line is really just “what would work with the character that’s been established in the public consciousness?” Yes, that makes secondary characters easier, since they may not have established much in the public consciousness. But there are others that can be changed, too.
Of course, reality with the racial problems in Hollywood means there’s no reason whitewash. The goal is more diversity, not less.
I just don’t agree. Han Chinese can be proud of their historical civilization and its achievements. As can Egyptians. As can Arabs. As can Mayans. As can Indians (South Asians). And so can Northern Europeans, IMO.
This is always a bad argument. It basically implies you have no counterargument.
What you are saying is that things shouldn’t change since the last time you read a comic, which is just an arbitrary point.
The passion in which an argument is stated has no indication of its merit. I do not know why this dodge is so often seen as effective.
SlackerInc, a person can be proud of being Scottish, or Scandinavian, or German, or French, just as much as a different person can be proud of being Han, Egyptian, Arabian, or Mayan. But I don’t think there’s really any legitimate “pride in being northern European”, or “northern European civilization”.
And that leads directly into being proud of your “Aryan” heritage. As so many white supremacists are. That’s a road nobody should want to go down again.
Why then don’t you similarly caution Arabs to limit their pride to being Lebanese, Saudi, etc.?
Speaking of roads, they also liked Autobahns, and VWs. Hitler was fond of dogs. Do we have to swear off all those things too? :rolleyes:
Dogs and VWs are things. “Aryan heritage” is entirely imaginary, created for no purpose other than to denigrate and diminish others. It continues to exist today solely for those reasons. I’m comfortable with denouncing it as racist nonsense and any current supremacist practitioners as monsters.
You want to take another swing at that pitch?
I’m German, French, Irish, Welsh, English, and Swedish (plus 1/8 Native American). I have pale skin, blue eyes, and pride in my Northern European heritage. 
You don’t have pride in your Northern European heritage, because you don’t have a Northern European heritage. You have German heritage, and French heritage, and all the rest. Your Irish ancestors weren’t eating sauerkraut, and your German ancestors weren’t eating colcannon, because they were part of two different heritages.
I wasn’t trying to make a good argument there, champ. I was responding to someone who had grown hostile for no reason I could discern. People who do that don’t really deserve any good argument from me.
We’re talking about arbitrary tastes here. So, yeah. I’ll cop to it being an arbitrary point.
Passion is fine. Being an asshole isn’t.
My father was Prussian. You may now proceed to worship me.
I’m sure it’s just coincidence that you happen to believe that pale skinned, light eyed northern Europeans and Asians have superior genes for high intelligence.
They are all basically Vikings. Again, how does this differ from Arabs having a heritage that stretches across several countries?
No, they all have some measure of Viking blood, but they’re a lot more non-Viking than Viking, except possibly in the Swedish. And Arabs might not be the best-defined group, either, but they at least have a common language and a common religion.