MARVEL Madness! Black Bucky???
Yesterday I added a new Dark Stars character to my collection when I posted about Bucky. When I finished reading this issue, I was annoyed at the fact that yet another Black superhero was tagged with a busted moniker. It’s true that in World War II, Captain America had a young white sidekick named Bucky Barnes, but, it didn’t sit right with me that this new Captain America had a Black sidekick with the same name. For the hardcore fanboy out there, I’m aware of the fact that Lemar Hoskins was originally part of the BUCkies (Bold Urban Commandos) before officially becoming Captain Americas sidekick.
There are some racial implications that come into play when I consider the given name for this new superhero. First, this new sidekick is big, strong, and Black. He has a solid superhero presence and proves he’s got game on the battlefield more than once in Captain America, #334. Definitely a complimentary character to be paired off with this new Captain America. For me, the name Bucky applied to this Black superhero sounds demeaning. When I read it, I see buckwheat. Was that the intention by Marvel? Of course not, however, it’s readers perception that rules the flavor of how it tastes. As an equal to Captain America, the name is weak in stature by comparison.
Secondly, the fact that this new sidekick is named after the original implies that there are some boots to fill. Right out of the blocks, this new Bucky has a strike against him, as he naturally will need to live up to any status held by the original for acceptance. This isn’t an issue in the origin tale for the character — Captain America only notes that the new Bucky wouldn’t be mistaken for the original (when commenting on his outfit). Naturally, one of you cats out there reading this post will be quick to point out that this could be the case for any sidekick stepping up as a successor. In this case, Black Bucky won’t be mistaken for the original, because he is twice his size, stronger, and Black. Still, it was necessary for that to be pointed out in the issue — even though the jab by Marvel is subtle.
As many of you know, this cat didn’t hold the name of Bucky for long. By Captain America #341, this characters name was changed to Battlestar. Lemar Hoskins (a.k.a. Bucky) changed his superhero title after being convinced by another Black hero that the name was a flagrant foul and was a tool used by the Man to keep him down. In reality, I’m told by several sources that Marvel received letters soon after the appearance of Hoskins as Bucky which facilitated the immediate rebranding to Battlestar.
I’m pretty confident the political correctness movement was in full swing by the late 80’s when this new sidekick appeared on the Comics scene. It’s likely that movement is what caused Marvel to acknowledge a campaign to change the name of this character due to it’s racial connotations. The bigger question meltin’ my noodle is why wasn’t Marvel clued about this beforehand??? Surely this type of lazyness gets no play in this millenium! There are going to be a lot of people out there reading who are asking what’s the big deal? My rebuttal would be, why wouldn’t this be a big deal??? Let that marinate, then hit me back. Bahlactus has spoken.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:29 am
I’d read somewhere that a Marvel staffer actually went to the writer of the story like “What in the world is this?!” and clued him in on the offensive name, causing the change.
I want to say that it was Priest, but I checked his site and couldn’t find anything on it. Maybe Kurt Busiek? I’m not sure.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Actually, Marvel changed his name in response to a letter from one of the readers, explaining that “Bucky” was a derivation of a derogatory name for black men in the South.
Mark Gruenwald, the writer, and the editorial staff at the time got right on it and changed his name up a few issues later. I think it was in a back-up tale in #341 or so.
Priest was also at marvel at this time, too, I believe. He was editing the Spidey books and went under the name Jim Owlsley.
Hope that helps out.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I really like the Gruenwald cap stuff, but the whole bucky situation was a little too obvious. I’m happy they rectified it tastefully instead of avoiding the issue.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Imagine that. An office full of uptight white men who managed to consistently prove themselves ignorant on racial issues called a character a name just shy of Lawn Jockey.
(Yeah, I have a real problem with the casual racism that plagued the industry in the 80s.)
January 6th, 2007 at 2:24 am
[…] MARVEL Madness! Black Bucky??? - Bahlactus continues to look at Lemar Hoskins, the black Bucky, and gives us some historical perspective (from Always Bet On Bahlactus) […]
January 6th, 2007 at 9:44 am
[…] would be, why wouldn’t this be a big deal??? Posted by Lisa Fortuner in News & Views [ Permalink ] [] […]
January 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Bahlactus, great points. I was a huge fan of the series when it came out, and I think what’s important to point out is that Mark Gruenwald’s Captain America was unabashedly progressive, in the sense that he battled against totalitarianism and for individual liberty against a repressive, clearly Republican government. So the question is . . . how did this leak into his work? After all, Gruenwald would be someone who would seem to be much more sensitive to such an issue.
I remember reading the “apology” comic and being kind of shocked. As a pre-teen in Alabama, I’d already heard a host of derogatory terms for African-Americans, but I’d never heard “buck” before, and I was a few years shy of hearing Nina Simone’s tribute song ( http://www.boscarol.com/nina/html/where/buck.html ) . By this time, the term had largely fallen out of any use.
Of course, just because a 12-year old white kid didn’t know it doesn’t mean a thirty-something New Yorker shouldn’t have.
I think Battlestar was a great character–I thought he was awesome and hoped at the time that he would become the new Cap–and I wonder if Gruenwald just stumbled accidentally into an offensive term because of how archaic it was. He seemed to care for the character and its development, but there’s something more at work here–just not paying enough attention to the larger cultural implication of the comic as a work of art. Far too often the standard response to informed race-and-gender criticism is that “it’s only a comic,” or “it’s written predominantly for white males, anyway.” This is a weak attempt to side-step owning up to outdated attitudes and ignorance.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Gorjus, thanks for stoppin’ through bruh and lending us some flavor on how the issue impacted you. I don’t think Gruenwald was really aware — and really, I’m not sure how much due diligence could have been done prior, you know?
The timely response by Gruenwald and MARVEL was a solid move on their part and it would seem Battlestar had a decent run post-Bucky. Thanks for the link on the Nina Simone joint, too. Be easy.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I feel bad for Marvel in regard to this. They were in a lose-lose situation, and all things considered, they may have followed the best possible path to satisfy as many readers as possible. Bear with me here as I try and give them the benefit of the doubt.
If they had named him Battlestar right off the bat, then it’s possible legions of fans would have stood up and shouted that this was a betrayal of Marvel history and they were distorting the legacy of Captain America to appeal to some political correctness bug, angry letters would follow and possible sales would have tanked. So instead they came out of the gate naming him Bucky, and a few issues later changed his name, all the while explaining it with a very succinct and powerful page that even a white 15 year old kid from the stone cold white New England suburbs could understand and empathize with. There was no way an argument could be made that Marvel was changing history with no regard for character. They were honoring history and moving forward into the future.
Please understand that I am not saying they should have kept the name, I’m only saying that they have a bottom line to feed based on a majority of people that openly despise change of any sort. Money is a powerful motivator They needed to trick these people into accepting the change, and at the same time they taught them (and me) about how language can affect perception, however unintended.
Given the obligations to make money and be more culturally aware, I think they did a good job. Of course, they could have made John Walker black in the first place and avoided this whole problem. But then when they turned him crazy a few issues later, how would this have played out?