 |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
As most 'old-timers' will know, SUPERMAN couldn't actually fly in his early years - he jumped. Hurdling a skyscraper or leaping an eighth of a mile was how he got around at the start of his career and that's pretty impressive when you think about it. I'd certainly be happy with being able to do that, wouldn't you? Then something changed - he seemed to be no longer just propelling himself through the sky by the power of his legs, but hovering in mid-air, changing direction, etc. Just how did the 'Man of Tomorrow' acquire this startling new power? Simple - he started to fly simply because he looked as if he was flying. And he first started to look as if he was flying in the MAX FLEISCHER cartoons of the early '40s.
If you watch these cartoons today, you can clearly see that Superman is launching himself into the sky via the method of leg-propulsion - jumping, in other words. However, this is Supes we're talking about - he can't simply be careening through the clouds in an uncoordinated, haphazard manner. Superman has to be in charge of the situation (and himself), has to appear graceful, noble, dignified, to say nothing of 'god-like' - someone who is as much at home up in the heavens as he is down here on Earth. That's why, once he was airborne, the animators depicted him as being able to twist, turn and hover, quite unaffected by gravity. However, he wasn't really flying (or, at least, in the early cartoons, he wasn't supposed to be) - it just looked as if he was.
And because he looked as if he was flying, audiences came to think that he was flying. And because audiences thought he could fly, it was thus ordained. "People think he can fly - so make 'im fly!" Simply put, the thought became father to the deed. It wasn't long before Superman was flying in the cartoons and the comics.
******
Call me cynical, but it seems to me that's how certain minority interest groups who exist on the fringes of society gain ground. Whatever agenda they're pushing, their first step is to silence dissent by slyly casting doubt on the motivations and credibility of anyone who is the slightest bit dubious or critical of their aims - and embarrassing or bullying them into silence.
Then, in the seeming absence of criticism, over time it looks as if there's no resistance to them - that they've been accepted and approved by the mainstream. Then, because it appears as if they've been assimilated into the wider community, people eventually come to believe that they have been. And because people believe it to be the case, it thus becomes so. Like rushing water erodes the rock beneath it, we are eventually worn down into submission - without even realizing it or how it happened. Then we wake up one day and the world has changed - and not necessarily for the better.
Perhaps we should all exercise caution in what we allow ourselves to believe, eh? And not just believe or accept it because it appears to be the case or because we are told that it is so. As someone who I'm sure was very wise once said: "Appearances can be deceiving."
So let's not be deceived.
19 comments:
It sounds like your opinion on minority groups might be back to front? It's they who are often bullied, when all they want is society's acceptance. Whether physically or mentally challenged, immigrants, gay, or whatever, they've been subjected to prejudice. Cut them some slack, yes?
Firstly, you're presuming you know exactly what groups I have in mind and that my post is restricted to them. Secondly, some of the ones you mention want far more than acceptance. Thirdly, some of them seem to have plenty of slack already - too much in fact. Fourthly, everyone has been subjected to prejudice at some time in their lives for one thing or another. No one group has a monopoly on experiencing prejudice.
There are lots of minority groups who are promoting an agenda: decriminalisation of drugs, government approved brothels - lowering of the age of sexual consent, etc., etc. Caution in what we allow ourselves to accept in society is not necessarily a bad thing. That's all I'm saying.
Perhaps if you'd been less vague with your initial comments it would have avoided any confusion?
I think most people in the UK would agree with you about not wanting the lowering of sexual consent or decriminalisation of drugs, or brothels on their doorsteps, but the physical/mentally disabled, gays, and people of different races should always be accepted as our equals in my humble opinion.
Not "vague" - merely not restricting it to any one group. And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion - not everyone (religious organisations) would agree with every category you've included 'though. Nor should they be obliged or compelled to.
Oh lawks, is this you having another go at the gay community again? If so, they're not "on the fringes of society", they're widely accepted in British society now. Perhaps not in your neck of the woods.
Do keep up, Jase. We've already established that I'm talking about a principle that applies to a wider range of subjects than just your pet one.
And they might be widely tolerated, but it doesn't mean they're widely accepted - despite certain sections of the media doing their best to create such an impression.
All religious organisations should be more tolerant of the disabled, gays, foreigners and accept them as being as equal and normal as anyone else. Any religion that preaches otherwise isn't making a very good job of bringing people together in harmony is it?
You presume that the sole or primary purpose of religious groups is to bring people together in harmony. And, in a way, it is - but it's a harmony that comes from living a righteous life according to certain tenets. (Righteous as defined by how most religious groups understand the concept, admittedly.)
As far as I'm aware, no religious group preaches that it's a 'sin' to be disabled or foreign, but all the major ones whose sacred writings touch on the subject teach that homosexuality IS sinful. (Regardless of whether you or I or anbody else agrees with that or not.)
That being the case, for them to suddenly abandon their principles on the topic would mean that they weren't doing a very good job of living according to what they're supposed to believe, wouldn't it?
People can't help it if they're gay so any religion that tries to label them as sinners would be more deserving of your disapproval rather than the "minority groups" you frown upon.
Unless you belive homosexuality is a sin yourself of course.
Thanks for listening.
As I've said before, I wouldn't presume to tell people what they're allowed to be shocked by. You say that people can't help it if they're gay - that's something on which the jury is still out. Sexual responses CAN be shaped or influenced. Regardless, however, people are not defined by their impulses, but by their choices.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of a society where "anything goes" - and that's the direction in which our society is going.
"all the major ones whose sacred writings touch on the subject teach that homosexuality IS sinful"
and it's a sin because...?
You're perfectly capable of doing the theology homework yourself. I'm not here to promote the religious view on the matter - I merely pointed out that their 'mission statement' wasn't exactly as 'anon' described it. Take it up with them.
So you don't know. That's fair enough. Sorry to have troubled you.
Oh, I certainly DO know - but I'm not here to argue their case for them in the kind of detail you seem to require.
Religions have tenets, and fundamentalist Christianity and Islam DO preach that homosexuality is sinful. They also teach that any sex outside of marriage is a sin. Members of those religions have rights, too, including the right to practice their religion, as long as they don't try to force it on the rest of us. It does not violate my rights if you go to church on Sunday; it would violate my rights if you put a gun to my head and forced me to go against my will. Similarly, it does not violate my rights if a same-sex couple moves into the house next door. But if they go to a church and demand that the minister marry them, then they are forcing their values on people who have different beliefs. And not all religions are about "bringing people together in harmony." Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims believe that all "non-believers" will be condemned to eternal punishment. Sigh. Ironically, a lot of people who call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" are bigots. They are for "freedom of choice," as long as the available choices are all politically correct. For the record: (1) I'm an agnostic, meaning I don't know and neither does anyone else, and (2) I do believe that what goes on between consenting adults (especially in the presumed privacy of their own homes) is their business and no one else's. And I'm not against gay marriage, as long as it's civil, not religious marriage. As mentioned, Christians have no right to force their beliefs on gays and liberals, but the reverse is also true. -TC
P.S.-on a lighter note, I read somewhere (maybe Jim Steranko's History of Comics), that Superman began flying because the makers of the animated cartoons said that he looked too silly "leaping around like an anthropomorphic kangaroo." Even so, the opening narration to the radio and TV shows remained, "Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound." -TC
That seems eminently sensible, TC, and I pretty much agree with a lot of it. However, it seems that 'acceptance' (as opposed to tolerance) of certain aspects of gay culture has been pretty well forced on the rest of society for a good few years now.
Regarding the flying, I've read both versions of its origins, but he seemed to be flying pretty early on - even when he was 'officially' supposed to be leaping. It could have been a bit of both 'though - they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Your point is close to the one I was trying to make (maybe not clearly) with the hypothetical example of a gay couple demanding that a Christian minister perform their wedding ceremony. Maybe not so hypothetical; a same-sex couple in New Mexico took legal action against a wedding photographer who refused to photograph their ceremony. I suppose it was out of the question to hire another photographer. This shows how pressure groups keep moving the goal posts. First, it's legal. Then, it's a right. Then, society has an obligation to provide it. Then, having to shop around for a different wedding photographer is a violation of one's rights, right up there with being denied admission to a hospital, or being imprisoned in a concentration camp.
Exactly. Did you know that the words 'mother' and 'father' were removed from the NHS guide to childbirth (or some such booklet) because gay couples complained, saying that it made them feel excluded? Bloody ridiculous.
Post a Comment