FEBRUARY 2013

Welcome to a new year of eclectic thoughts and dialog. This month, we discuss some of the branches of Islam and we include some newer arguments for the existence of God. We investigate modern attempts to deify Obama, and we ponder whether there is a racial bias in modern superhero films.

Also, we have some more great post-election feedback from one of our readers. Feel free to send your thoughts and responses to any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Thanks for reading and stay eclectic!

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: A Demonstration of Grace, Ephesians 2:7

. . . In order that he may demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness upon us in Christ Jesus.

A great way to begin the new year is to recognize that believers in Christ are living demonstrations of God’s grace that He desires to pour out upon the earth. In Ephesians 2, that demonstration of grace is put in contrast to the pouring out of wrath that God is saving for the end of this age (Eph 2:3, 5:6).

Ephesians 2:1-6 is a concise treatise of God’s activity of regenerating believers, and verse 7 explains the purpose of this redemptive plan. The focus on purpose is indicated in the beginning of the verse by the Greek word hina, a conjunction of purpose or result. God saves and seats believers (v. 6) in order to “demonstrate” (v. 7). The word “demonstrate” is endeiknumai, meaning “to show” or “to give an indication of” something. It usually indicates an exhibition of truth or virtue to a large group of people (Rom 9:17, 22; 1 Tim 1:16; Titus 3:2; Heb 6:11).

Specifically, God intends to demonstrate through the salvation of believers “the surpassing riches of his grace.” The “riches” (ploutos) of God’s attributes are referred to frequently in the first half of Ephesians (1:7, 18; 2:7; 3:8, 16). The profound quantity of God’s grace for believers is accentuated when Paul places the word “surpassing” before the word “riches.” The Greek word for “surpassing” or “immeasurable” is huperballō (literally meaning “to throw something beyond or above”). That word is used elsewhere in Ephesians, specifically in 1:19 to describe the awesome extent of God’s power and also in 3:19 to describe the love of Christ which “surpasses knowledge.” It is a word used to hint at the indescribable nature of something which is far beyond human reckoning and calculation.

Here, Paul highlights God’s “grace,” which as the Apostle has already remarked, God has caused to abound upon his people (Eph 1:7-8). The abundance of his grace is reflected in his “kindness” (chrestotes). This grace is exhibited upon “us” referring to believers (vv. 4, 5). This transaction takes place “in Jesus Christ,” which is intended to be an all-inclusive phrase describing our relationship with God through what Christ has done and continues to do. That is, grace (favor from God), peace (with God) and eternal life (with God) can only be found through faith in Christ’s substitutionary death and literal resurrection.

The timeframe for this demonstration is “the coming ages.” Usually the impending age is referred to with a form of the Greek word mellō (Matt 12:23, 1 Tim 6:19, Heb 6:5). It refers to the time after this present age, but that coming age usually has some influence on the present age (Heb 6:5). The phrase in Eph 2:7 is similar to the phrase in Mark 10:30 (see also the parallel in Luke 18:30), except it uses the word aiōnios instead of aiōn. Reference to the “coming ages” in Eph 2:7 reminds believers that there is a future, yet unrealized aspect of our faith which will bring vindication for believers and judgment for those who mock and revile God and God’s people in the current age. There is here also certainly a contrast with the “age” of this world mentioned in Eph 2:2. It is to the present sinful age, as well as to the age to come that God wants to demonstrate his overwhelming grace.

Modern gospel presentations focus too often on the benefits that the believer receives by trusting Christ. These benefits shouldn’t necessarily be minimized since they are used as motivators. However, in Ephesians 2:7, the purpose of God’s grace and kindness is to display His own glory and goodness both now and forever. Believers are inestimably fortunate and should be exceedingly grateful that God would use us as display cases of his mercy and grace. This should drive or efforts and passion to reflect this kindness and grace to a watching world.

INSIGHTS ON ISLAM: Branches of Islam

*** This series of articles “Insights on Islam” is intended to raise the awareness of Islam among Christians. I am, of course, not a Muslim, nor do I intend to convert. I do not claim to be an expert in Islam, but I have studied it enough to know how important it is for Christians to have a basic working understanding of Islam. Thus, we will be better equipped to pray for Muslims as well as to converse intelligently with any that God may bring across our path. Also, some basic information about Islam will help Americans to see thought the falsehoods that are often portrayed about Muslims in modern media.***

You have probably heard the terms “Sunni,” “Shi‘a,” “Shikism,” and “Baha’i” in the news, but you probably don’t know how they are related to Islam.

Many Westerners often assume that other religions are much more unified and cohesive than Christianity. We reason that other religions surely cannot be as fragmented as our faith! But many other religions are just as tattered by the divisiveness and pride of human beings, and Islam is no exception.

There are three main branches in Islam, and these first two especially are heard often in the news because of their skirmishes with each other. Sunni is considered the “orthodox” branch of Islam, and includes about 85% of Muslims. The Sunni branch of Islam followed Abu Bakr Siddiq, Muhammad’s father-in-law as the first caliph after the death of Muhammad in 632. Shi‘a, on the other hand, is the branch that believes Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali, was the rightful successor of the Prophet. They believe that successive Muslim leaders should be descendants of the Prophet. Each of these major branches are divided into other schools of thought as well. While both affirm the Quran as the fundamental Muslim Holy Book, Sunni and Shi‘a adhere to different sets of Hadiths, which are collections of sayings by Muhammad. A third branch of Islam, Sufi, is a mystical movement that arose in the late 600s. It is named after “wool” which early adherents commonly wore to symbolically protect themselves from the alleged decadence of contemporary Islamic leaders.

Beside these major branches and all of their internal divisions and sects, there have been two smaller world religions that may be classified as offshoots of Islam. Both of them are syncretistic mixes between Islam and another religion.

For instance, Sikhism was founded around 1500 AD by Guru Nanak (1469-1539), who sought unity between Islam and Hinduism. Sikh means “disciple” in the Punjabi language; a Sikh is a disciple of God and of the teachings of the Ten Sikh Gurus. Sikhism condemns blind ritualism and encourages thoughtful belief. It affirm that there is only One God; he is the same God for all people of all religions, but he is often associated with Allah or alternatively, with Vishnu, a chief Hindu deity. As with Hinduism, Sikhism sees that the problem of the world is the cycle of human death and rebirth (reincarnation) and the need to escape this cycle through good deeds. “The true path to achieving salvation and merging with god does not require renunciation of the world or celibacy, but living the life of a householder, earning an honest living and avoiding worldly temptations and sins” (from http://www.sikhs.org/summary.htm). The sacred writings of Sikhism include the Adi Granth, a compilation of hymns assembled by the fifth Guru, Guru Arjan (1581-1606), and the Dasam Granth, or Granth of the Tenth Guru, which is a compilation by Guru Govind Singh of his own writings in the late 1600s. There are about 26 million Sikh adherents, mainly in India, including about 350,000 in the U.S.

Another syncretism is Baha’i, which is an amalgam mainly of Islam and Christianity. Baha’i was founded in 1863 when Bahá’u’lláh, who is seen as a messianic figure, alleged that he began receiving divine revelations from God. Any of the over one hundred volumes of his writings are viewed as divinely inspired and authoritative. For Baha’is, god is a generic all-powerful, all-loving deity that can presumably fit into any religion’s version of god. Prevalent in Bahá’í thought is a concern for social sins perpetuated in evil societies and by outmoded religious principles; people are either encouraging total social equality and world peace or they are hindering it. Though the afterlife is not a significant concept for Baha’is, there is the belief that after death, souls either travel nearer to or further from God. They do not adhere to a literal heaven or hell, but see these as states of being that one creates for oneself and those around him or her. There are about 8 million adherents to Baha’i, mainly in Asia and Africa, but it has representation in over 200 countries, including 150,000 followers in the U.S. Baha’i, more so that Sikhism, demonstrates that a mixture of two religions, again, in this case, Islam and Christianity, really has the effect of marginalizing the distinctives of both of them.

So where do Louis Farrakhan, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood fit into this system? We’ll address those iterations of Islam in our next installment of “Insights on Islam.”

MOVIES: The Most Miserable Part of Les Misérables

*** Spoiler Alert: The following may contain spoilers for both the musical and movie rendition of Les Misérables. ***

So, full disclosure: I am really more a Phantom of the Opera kind-of-guy. I don’t mind Les Misérables much, but I am much more into the “classic” musicals (ya know . . . Fiddler, Music Man, West Side, etc.) than the newer ones, again, with the aforementioned exception of Phantom. But my wife and I had to see Les Misérables; and with one miserable exception, the film didn’t disappoint. The movie was epic from the ridiculously huge ship in the opening scene to the implausibly large, but very cool barricade in the film’s last shot.

I was most impressed with the score of the film. The problem with the original Broadway cast recording (hereafter, “OCR”) is its frequent reliance on synthesizers which annoyingly pierce through the orchestral sections. And, I am a big fan of synthesizers, but just not in musicals, especially musicals set in a pre-synthesizer era. The use of synths in the OCR creates a historically inauthentic feel and also generates a cheesy, amateurish sound for songs that should have more texture and depth. On the other hand, there are no cheesy synth sounds in the movie version that I remember hearing; just pure orchestra. This made even the songs that I didn’t care for as much far more tolerable.

Several magnificent points of cinematography grace the film, the power of which would be almost impossible to generate in a stage version. As Valjean sings “What Have I Done?” he paces back and forth as a sign of his indecision and inner turmoil. After this “conversion,” he rips up his parole papers, which float, like his soul, airily into the sky. During the song “Stars,” the camera shows Javier’s feet as he literally walks on the edge of the roof of a tall government building. This effect is revisited in “Javert's Suicide” when he walks on the edge of a high bridge, and on the edge of another critical decision-point of his life. As Valjean sings “Bring Him Home” of his potential son-in-law, a giant graffiti eye gazes down sovereignly over Valjean’s right shoulder. Certainly the capacity to create both evident and subtle effects is immensely easier to do in film than on stage. The cast of the movie Les Misérables was stunning – again, with one miserable exception. I have always liked the diverse roles that Hugh Jackman has portrayed, but I only expected him to be great in this movie. In my opinion, his rendition of Jean Valjean was astounding, with only a few negligible glitches along the way. Anne Hathaway also deserves high praise for her acting and vocals. Eddie Redmayne was commendable as wide-eyed and impressionable Marius, and Samantha Barks nailed the difficult role of Éponine, which is supposed to elicit sympathy but not too much affection. Though I am neither a Borat nor a Brüno fan, I quite enjoyed Sacha Baron Cohen as Thénardier; conversely, though I almost always enjoy the roles performed by Helena Bonham Carter, I did not care for her portrayal of Madame Thénardier; she was simply too caricatured and therefore, distracting and implausible. And as soon as the Bishop opened his mouth early in the movie, I was delighted by this clever casting decision; the Bishop was played by Colm Wilkinson, who portrayed Valjean in the OCR of Les Misérables.

And then, there is Russell Crowe, indeed the most miserable part by far of the entire show. He presented a pathetic and wooden performance of an otherwise dynamic and compelling role, namely Javier. It was only the spectacular nature of the rest of the film that prevented his miserable performance from ruining the movie. Note to Crowe, no more singing; leave it to people who can carry a tune and who can put some feeling into their roles!

One should not ponder the logistics of a musical too hard, lest one uncover oddities, inconsistencies, or plot holes; musicals are not meant to be dissected literarily. I was struck, however, by a few such oddities while watching the movie. For instance, Valjean is on the run, trying to keep under Javier’s radar . . . so he becomes a prominent factory owner and a mayor! I would think that a fugitive on the lam would try to keep a lower profile. Of course, this inconsistency may not be a product of the movie as much as it is of the musical, or of the book (which, admittedly, I have never read). Also, the movie features a few montages where Valjean and Cosette are fleeing by carriage and seem to be traveling a great distance through wood and forest, only to find out that they have merely relocated to another part of the city. And again, if he is still on the run, trying to flee from Javier, one would think that Valjean and Cosette would move far away from Paris. In fact, it seems implausible that Valjean would hide his identity from Cosette for all those years, or conversely, that Cosette did not ask earlier why they are moving from place to place so often. But perhaps I am analyzing plot points of a musical too finely.

Les Misérables is a cinematic triumph, and, despite that one miserable exception, it is an artistic treat. It is perhaps miserable that there are not more superb musical-to-film renditions like this one.

POLITICS: A Messy Messiah

So, Obama won a second term. As we pointed out in the December 2012 edition, this “victory” was won by a popular vote margin that was half that of his 2008 victory and with 33 less electoral college votes (or about 3 to 4 states’ worth of support) this time around. Despite this frightfully narrow victory and a demonstrably declining popularity relative to 2008, the left continues to be gripped with a delusional “Obamessiah” mentality.

I have great admiration for Ronald Reagan, and it has been humorous to even hear liberal pundits appeal to the wisdom of his administration. But I have never even once heard him venerated by anyone as a messiah, a savior or a god. Yet such language, used both during the 2008 campaign as well as before and after the 2012 election, is unabashedly utilized by the left of Obama.

For instance, in June 2009, Evan Thomas, editor of the magazine Newsweek, used divine terms of awe declaring to Chris Matthews on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God” (click here for the video clip). Note how Chris Matthews doesn’t try to curb or defy Thomas’ deification of Obama, but cheerfully concurs with a reverential “Yeah.” Evan Thomas’ zeal should not be surprising in light the November 22, 2010 edition of Newsweek which shows Obama resembling a multi-armed Hindu deity and simply states “God of All Things.” Note the conspicuous absence of a question mark at the end of this statement, as though there would be any doubt of his elevated status. I didn’t read the Newsweek article because the content or conclusion of the article is entirely beside the point. The question is, what does it say about modern American journalism when they label a highly controversial president with the tag “God of All Things”?

More recently, at the 2012 Soul Train Awards, Jamie Foxx stunningly framed the newly re-elected president in Messianic terms. The entire quote is: “It’s like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama. Barack Obama!” (see the video clip here). At first I thought that he was joking, or perhaps, I assumed he was, until he repeats “Barack Obama” more loudly and emphatically. Many have laughed this off as a gag or a PR stunt. However, the amount of affirmation from the audience seems to suggest that they didn’t see the Obamessiah comment as just a joke.

Some of the Obamessiah fervor is simply delusional. After Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008, now defunct former senator Jesse Jackson, Jr. proclaimed: “I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years. What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. . . . The event itself is so extraordinary that . . . another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance” (see the quote from the Washington times here). Actress Halle Berry seems to have her own John the Baptist complex when she refers to her reverence for Obama: “I’ll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear” (see quote in the Politico here).

As early as February 2008, aforementioned “journalist” Chris Matthews declared in the New York Observer about Obama and his influence: “I’ve been following politics since I was about 5 . . . I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising.” According to Edward Klein’s book, The Amateur, Micah Tillman, lecturer in philosophy at the Catholic University of America called Obama “the Platonic philosopher king we’ve been looking for the past 2,400 years” (p. 62). Also, that book asserts that David Axelrod privately calls Barack Obama “Black Jesus” (p. 59).

But apparently, Obama’s influence goes far beyond even the New Testament. An Iowa newspaper reported that on a campaign stop in Des Moines in December 2007, Oprah Winfrey said of Obama: “We’re here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth.” Russell Crowe used similar New Age (or Obama Age?) language on October 21, 2012 when he tweeted: “I don't endorse politicians. Not my thing. However, Obama is the light & the future. Keep going towards the light.”

And, usually, ages in history are divided based on the lives of epic religious figures such as the incarnation of deity (as with Christianity), an allegedly divinely appointed ruler (as with the Japanese calendar) or the activity of an allegedly divinely-sent messenger (as with Islam). Spike Lee suggested back in 2008 that we add Obama to this list of epoch-altering figures: “It means that this is a whole new world. . . . You can divide history. BB: Before Barack. AB: After Barack” (see video clip here).

Obama doesn’t have to walk on water; he just has to make good decisions that encourage improvement for our economy, our military, our liberties and our standing in the world. Yet he hasn’t done any of those things over the last four years, and certainly not anything to deserve such praise, especially along the lines of being a new messiah or a deity. Eventually any national figure who is hailed as a savior, an epoch-altering hero, or a god will use those undeserved accolades only for his own ungodly advantage.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: New Arguments for the Existence of God

Up to this point in this series we have been dealing with “Classic” arguments for the existence of God that were developed in the middle-ages mainly by theologians and scholars like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas (you can see the previous articles here and here).

To their list, I would add two other arguments that help us verify, if not irrefutably prove, the existence of God. The first of these arguments is one that I have read about from other sources, and the second I have been developing myself, though I am sure that I am not the first to explore it. These new arguments for the existence of God are less cerebral than the classic arguments. They speak more of subjective (but still verifiable) realities, and as such, they may connect better with an increasingly post modern audience.

The first “new” argument that I will list in this article is the “Moral Transformation” argument, and it basically states: Volitional, or voluntary, moral transformation over time in an individual or community substantiates God’s existence (John 3:21; Gal 5:22-25; Col 3:12-15). In The Evidence for God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined, Paul K. Moser (Chairperson of the Department of Philosophy at Loyola University, Chicago) describes this evidence-based argument by stating that willful, moral transformation “becomes personifying evidence of God’s reality,” a phrase he uses with minimal variation several times throughout the book (pp. 2, 15, 16, 26, 31, 39, 43, 86, 102, 106, 112, 149, 160, 205, 209, 228). The moral behavior in question cannot be coerced, nor just for the purpose of conforming to the rest of the group, but rather, should be a voluntary yielding to God’s transformative work within the individual. Moser criticizes non-theistic naturalism for failing to provide purely naturalistic explanations for moral betterment or for failing to provide evidence of morally transformative agents apart from religion.

This argument somewhat related to Moral Argument discussed in our September 2012 article. However, the focus of the Moral argument is demonstrating that moral absolutes points to the existence of a morally perfect being. The focus of the Moral Transformation argument is that naturalism cannot explain moral betterment, which points to the supernatural reality as a transformative power.

The idea of moral transformation is, of course, deeply embedded in the pages of the Bible. The weakness of this view, however, is the that adherents of every religion claim that their deity or deities transform them in morally positive ways. They cannot all, of course, be right, because most of these religions are mutually exclusive. Polytheistic religions exclude monotheistic ones, and Christian Trinitarianism excludes all other religions. Another difficulty is verifying what activity and behavior is moral transformation generated by legitimate supernatural sources and what is mere psychological self-transformation.

The next argument is a new one that I have been thinking through for a few years, though, again, I am sure that I am not the first to consider it. I refer to it as the “Hostility” Argument: Hostility against God and His people is often non-rational, and thus indicates a supernatural origin of that hostility. It therefore, betrays the real existence of the object of that hostility (John 3:19-21; 15:18; 1 John 3:13; Rev 11:7; 12:17; 13:7).

Consider this: You don’t hate something that doesn’t exist. I don’t hate Santa Clause, protest against him, write against him, or create an ad campaign against him. I don’t feel nor act upon antagonism toward him because he simply doesn’t exist. I have no hostility nor animosity against the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, either. I may not be too happy that so many parents propagate these fairy tales to their children whereas I chose not to, but that does not stem from hostility or hatred of these fictions. More to the point, I don’t hate Allah because, again, he doesn’t exist. He and other false gods, such as Ba’al, Zeus, Vishnu, or Amaterasu, are not real, or at best, are mere fabricated masks behind which frivolous demons lurk.

However, the fact that such deep, non-rational hatred exists against Christ, God, the Jewish people, and Christians proves that this hatred is driven by real supernatural forces toward a real object, namely God Himself. Again, the verses above verify that this hatred is real and that it is directed toward real and true entities. Examples of such antipathy toward God are plethora, but I will select a few from the past several years. In December 2010 buses in Fort Worth, Texas were plastered with the provocative message: “Millions of Americans are good without God.” This anti-God campaign was funded by the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason (see article here). Speaking of Texas, International Blasphemy Day was first held on September 30, 2009 in Dallas, TX. It is organized by the Center for Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression and is attempting to make September 30 globally recognized as the International Blasphemy Day. Again, why work so hard to blaspheme and marginalize a deity that allegedly doesn’t even exist!?

In addition to movements, many authors and speakers have angrily attempted to minimize faith in Someone they claim isn’t real. Victor J. Stenger, an American particle physicist, author, and outspoken atheist says, “Irrational faith is absurd and dangerous, and we look forward to the day, no matter how distant, when the human race finally abandons it” (Victor J. Stenger, “What’s New About The New Atheism?,” Philosophy Now, Apr/May 2010, p. 12-15). I quite agree that “irrational faith” (such as atheism!) is absurd and dangerous; however, Christianity, the prime target of Stenger’s comments, is neither of these. Similarly, Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great, told a crowd at the University of Toronto in November 15, 2006: “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” The name of the topic was, “Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate.”

Other examples of God-hate in academia abound. In 2010, religious expert and author Stephen Prothero wrote a work called God Is Not One, in which he ironically describes himself as “religiously confused” (p. 23). Novelist Thane Rosenbaum, in a review of Prothero’s book, makes some insightful comments about atheism and its own unreasonable hostility: “Atheism can take on its own religion, one dedicated entirely to disparaging the god-fearing, and, in doing so, become as nasty, hostile and ill-informed as the religious fanatics they so thoroughly condemn.”

Again, most people don’t hate something that doesn’t exist. Their hatred and irrational animosity is a clear evidence that God exists, and verification that those who deny it, deep down, know that he does.

So what do you think of the Moral Transformation argument and the Hostility argument? Do you think that these have some validity to them? Do they hold up intellectually and logically? We would love to hear what you think; send your thoughts and responses to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll post good feedback anonymously in a future edition.

AMERICAN PANTHEON: Superman or Super White? Racist Hegemony in the Modern Hero Genre

OK, this one is a little outside the box, even for a web journal that is a bit outside the box, but let's just do a little thought experiment.

Here’s the question: Is the modern superhero genre racist? I’m a big superhero movie fan, and I appreciate the recent plethora of superherofilms in the last decade. But are there latent racial (and racist!) strains in these movies?

In The History of White People (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2010) African-American historian Nell Irvin Painter traces the long history of race comparisons and categorization from the ancient Greeks up to modern times. She argues that only more recently has “race” been seen strictly in terms of skin color. Previously considered factors related to race included stature, cranial size and even aesthetic qualities (ibid., 61-62). “White” has been used by those with political or academic authority to distinguish themselves not merely from black, Asian or Indian, but from anyone who was “non-white” or, not white in the same way that they were. She scrutinizes certain moments in history and analyzes racial assumptions in those moments, such as the attitudes of Americans toward European immigrants in the early 1900s.

The nascent superhero genre may have similarly been infused with racial assumptions from early on. One can trace a gradual development of the idea of “superman” from its philosophical genesis in Nietzsche’s übermensch (roughly the German equivalent of the phrase “superman”), whom he saw as a unique, ideal figure based on German nationalistic sentiments. Some of these ideas are discussed in George Bernard Shaw’s 1903 play “Man and Superman” and ideas of racial superiority encouraged early twentieth century disenfranchisement efforts and eugenics. Some of those ideas of an exceptional extra-mortal were institutionalized into Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster’s 1938 incarnation of the character “Superman” (it is, perhaps, ironic that both of these men were Jewish, and they intentionally or inadvertently borrowed Nietzsche’s concept). From early on, Superman was a caricatured, muscle-bound, European-looking white savior.

Those latent assumptions regarding race seem to perpetuate a race hegemony in superhero cinema; minorities are often assigned as villains, side-kicks or secondary characters. In the 1983 movie Superman III African-American comedian Richard Pryor plays a foppish and unwitting villain, who concurrently serves as the movie’s comic relief. Like the Lone Ranger’s frightfully stereotyped sidekick Tanto, minorities are relegated into subordinate roles. In the multiple comic book, radio, TV and movie incarnations of The Green Hornet, the title protagonist has an ambiguously Asian martial-arts sidekick Kato, who does much of the technological and crime-fighting work for the duo, but receives disproportionately little credit. Mr. Incredible’s sidekick in the 2004 animated movie The Incredibles is a caricatured black hero with the ability to freeze water and with the not-so-subtle super moniker “Fro-zone.” Similarly, Iron Man’s occasional assistant War Machine is the mechanized version of the African-American character James Rhodes.

African-Americans are leading men in superhero cinema only as obscure vigilantes. The 1997 movie Spawn features an African-American hero (as well as a Colombian-American antagonist) who, after death, is re-spawned to lead Hell’s armies on earth, but eventually decides to fight for justice. Despite the blockbuster scope of the movie it was only number 34 on the top grossing films for the year. The Blade trilogy (1998, 2002, 2004) about an ethically vague half-human, half-vampire character was portrayed by black actor Wesley Snipes. The first of these films ranked at number 29 for the year, but that dropped down to number 59 by the third outing. Another recent non-white superhero protagonist includes the morally ambiguous Catwoman (2004), but that movie only ranked #75 for the year. The 2008 movie Hancock was somewhat of an exception to the lack of popularity for a non-white protagonist, and it ranked #4 that year. However, note how this hero (or anti-hero?) is initially characterized as just a homeless bum; the audience is first introduced to him when he is asleep on a bus stop bench, still apparently foggy from the previous night's boozing. I personally thought that it was a great movie, with a fresh perspective on the superhero trope; I especially enjoyed the first half and its self-referential tone. But though the movie was a relative box-office success, few thought highly of it and a Hancock sequel is struggling to find traction.

This picture of racial exclusion applies to superhero teams as well. The “trinity” of the Justice League reflects how “whiteness” is the common thread between an alien (Superman), an Amazonian goddess (Wonder Woman) and an industrial baron/ vigilante (Bruce Wayne/ Batman). Similarly, iterations of the Fantastic Four, from their comic book introduction in 1961 to the 2005 and 2007 movies, have all featured exclusively white individuals. African-American mutants fare poorly in the X-Men movies as well. An African American mutant, Darwin, rounds out the new recruits in 2011’s X-Men: First Class, but he is the only one of this group to die, and this happens relatively soon after the film introduces these characters. In X-Men: Wolverine teleporter John Wraith (a.k.a., “Kestrel” portrayed by African-American actor will.i.am), is also one of the first protagonists to be done in.

Other “superhero clubs” feature entirely white primary casts, such as in the comic book series The Ultimates (2002) or the movies Watchmen (2009; OK, one is blue, but he didn’t start that way!) and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) (the only non-white member of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is the notorious Captain Nemo the son of an Indian Raja). The 1999 superhero spoof Mystery Men is headed by four white characters. The extensive cast, however, does include a female protagonist (played by Janeane Garofalo), an African-American protagonist (played by Kel Mitchell) and a Native-American actor (Wes Studi) who plays a caricatured wise man. The African-American protagonist’s superhero moniker is “Invisible Boy,” and in light of the tongue-in-cheek nature of the project, one wonders if this is not an ironic allusion to Ralph Ellison’s 1952 novel Invisible Man about an young black man trying to forge his identity despite social obstacles.

The cinematic portrayal of Harvey Dent is an interesting case study regarding race in superhero cinema. Harvey Dent is the Gotham city District Attorney who becomes part of Batman’s gallery of enemies when acid burns half of his head and he becomes “Two-Face.” Several early comic book renditions of Harvey Dent/ Two-Face portray him as an African-American. Similarly, the 1989 movie Batman positions him as a pre-disfigured African-American D.A., played by Billy Dee Williams. By the third movie of that same series, the 1995 film Batman Forever, the character of Harvey Dent has become the antagonist Two-Face, but, oddly, this time played by Caucasian-American Tommy Lee Jones. In the movie The Dark Knight (2008), the second film of the more recent Batman series, Harvey Dent/ Two-Face is also played by white actor Aaron Eckhart. The question remains as to whether these two series highlight Dent as white to avoid the racial tensions involved with portraying a black villain, or whether these casting choices are motivated by racial exclusion.

Again, American culture boasts of its racial diversity and tolerance. However, superhero media reflects a subtle movement away from minorities among protagonists as well as antagonists, making the American superhero mythos, to use Nell Painter’s words, a history of super white people. Thus, while superheroes engender some of the most valued virtues of our culture, our vigilante cinema contradictorily conveys some of the most resistant bigotry in our society.

FEEDBACK: More Post-Election Thoughts

One insightful reader submitted the following feedback as a balance to our December 2012 article: “The Bright Side of Getting Your Buns Kicked”:

I just read your analysis on the election and had some ideas on the subject. First, I do not understand how the Republicans could have been so confident before the election. The last month before the election all of the major polls showed Obama ahead. The Republicans disregarded this even though polls over the last 20 years have been very accurate. Had they faced facts, they might have done some things differently such as a stronger stance by Romney in the last debate. This over-confidence was a mistake.

I understand what you are saying about the decline in votes for Obama in this election vs. the first one, but I'm not certain that will mean anything in 2016. Less Democrats got out and voted this election, but they are still out there. The fact that Romney got about a million more votes the McCain is not very encouraging. McCain did not run a good campaign and after 4 years of Obama any candidate should get a million votes more. I do not think any loss in the Democrat base or gain in the Republican base will have any effect come 2016. The 4 million people that voted for Obama in 2008, but not 2012 just did not vote in the last election. If they had voted, I am certain most would have voted for Obama. People no longer vote for the best candidate. They vote party, race, gender, religion, economic status, or any other reason that might get in the way of logical thought. In polls before the election over 70% said they thought the Romney would make the best President, but that did not mean they would vote for him.

Romney made some mistakes during the campaign such as:

1. His 47% remark.

2. Picking Ryan as his VP candidate. Ryan brought no additional votes to the Republican effort.

3. Being too soft on Obama in the final debate. I think due to overconfidence.

4. Not doing enough to combat the so-called Republicans War on Women.

A change on any one of these might have won the election.

I have heard people say that Obama won the election because he got all the welfare and handout votes, because all the African-Americans voted for him, because the Hispanics were for him, and that the Democrat voter was uninformed. The fact that he got these votes is true, but is not enough to win the election. I think a bigger problem is the vote of women today. If just 50% of the white female voters had voted for Romney, he would have won. Feminist propaganda and women's social issues have taken their toll on conservative ideas. We have all laughed about the feminists at times, but when it becomes possibly one of the biggest problems in our society, it is no laughing matter. I am not down on women, but facts are facts and some are awfully misguided.

Thanks for the feedback; keep sending your thoughts, ideas and suggestions to feedback@eclectickasper.com.