Except that the entire point of the story is that everybody else was construing the actions of Superman as carrying the endorsement of the United States. Not surprising considering that he frequently serves as leader of a group called the Justice League of America and is also usually pretty buddy-buddy with whoever the current POTUS is. Superman fills a role in the DCU similar to that of Captain America in the Marvel Universe in many respects (and the latter has “losing my faith in America” spells every third day of the week given how many of his stories there are about that).
If Superman actually existed, nobody would for a second decline to blame the U.S. government for his actions just because he operated under some “I’m just doing my own thing” disclaimer, especially since he frequently engages in quasi-military actions.
I would also expect Superman to have a different conception of patriotism and citizenship than we do, considering that he can travel across galaxies and has had extensive contact with beings from other realities. I’m impressed with his ability to keep track of provincial matters like human politics at all.
That line of thinking, however, is taken from a view of “what would really happen if there were a Superman.” This plot, however, is not the product of that line of thinking, it’s the product of one or two writers who have their own agendas. So, it MAY be exactly what you’re saying, or it may be that they have a political point they want to slam us over the head with.
A slap in our collective face? I don’t feel anything. Playing the victim and acting insulted like that just goes to show that the backlash is a form of political correctness.
If a German in the 1930s renounced his citizenship and emigrated to the US, would that be unAmerican? Of course not. So being unpatriotic and unAmerican is usually not the same thing.
In fact, unpatriotism is less unAmerican than it is unGerman because we’re a more diverse and less regimented society.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party “patriots” embrace a set of principles that practically demand disloyalty to the government. And what was that about drowning the government in a bathtub?
So how do we parse it? Is one’s government and that-which-one-is-patriotic-about two completely different things? Is it patriotic to support the kind of freedom that would allow one to selfish and uncaring about the rest of society, but unpatriotic to support the kind of freedom that would allow one to go help make the world a better place at a higher level?
That’s not really the case though. The writer put Superman in a real-world setting (and a relatively topical one at that) precisely to deal with the question of “what would Superman do if <real world event> was going on around him.” Plus, it isn’t like the writer had Superman visit Guantanamo and then renounce his citizenship or something. Superman does what he does because he doesn’t want everything he doesn’t want his every movie to be construed as an extension of U.S. foreign policy, not because he thinks the U.S. sucks.
To be clear, I think it’s a very stupid story. It’s up there with “Why do you hate black people so much, Green Lantern?” in terms of heavy-handedness and silliness and makes Superman look like an idiot. It isn’t even clear to me that it is, or was meant to be, in continuity. Anniversary issues tend to have lots of throwaway stories like that in them. And other writers have done a much better job of dealing with Superman as a citizen of the world and dealing with sensitive political situations. Gail Simone comes to mind.
But it’s hardly the anti-American screed you’d expect from reading the outraged comments on the internet (most by people who haven’t read a comic in their lives, though I am not including you in that category, RikWriter). I suspect it will wind up being one of those “let’s just pretend that didn’t happen” stories.
