![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerSee this icon? It's the Green Lantern and Green Arrow. Not only superheroes, but best friends. Thing is, Hal (GL) and Ollie (GA) share radically different political views. And as such, every so often these colleagues and best friends are ready to tear each other's heads off.
Hal is the police officer of space, assigned to protect his own sector of the galaxy, taking his orders without question from his bosses, the Guardians. He is a firm believer in the importance of laws ("they are the glue that holds society together, the wisdom accumulated over the centuries") and working within the system to accomplish justice. I think Hal would acribe to my DMV analogy: you can hate the DMV, you can bitch and scream and badmouth them all you want, but that still won't get you your license. You have to work within them, play by the rules and, if possible, use their own rules against them, to get what you want.
Ollie, on the other hand, would say "fuck your licenses, you fascist pigs!", possibly destroy the DMV, and drive off. Olliver Queen is a former capitalist billionaire who, after losing all his cash, became absolutely disgusted with the suffering and abuse of human beings, of minorities and the poor, and he soon gained a serious distrust with all forms of authority. These include his fellow superheroes ("We shouldn't be up here in a satellite, lording over them like Gods! We should be down there, among them, in the streets!"). He's outspoken, to say the least, never one to shirk from a confrontation with cops or villains alike, and is ready and willing to go to whatever lengths (short of cold-blooded murder) to see justice done.
When Hal and Ollie first met, GL had just saved a man from being beaten by a group of slum kids. Just as he was satisfied that justice was served, GA started chewing him out, revealing that the man he saved was actually a greedy slum lord who'd been bleeding the tenants dry without offering any repairs or services. He accused Hal of being like so many, seeing things in black and white ("Beat it, Lantern! Go fight a mad scientist or something!"), protecting the galaxy but ignoring the everyday crimes of poverty, prejudice, and hunger ("You serve the blue skins and saved the orange skins, but you hadn't even bothed with the black skins!").
So these two heroes took a rusty old pickup truck to hit the road on their own Steinbeckian search for America, along with one of GL's own Guardians. Each adventure brought the growing conflict between these two friends closer and closer to a head, until finally they came upon a situation involving crooked land developers trying to cheat some Native Americans off of their land. While Hal flew to Washington DC to organize the appropriate paperwork, Ollie rallied up the residents to get them to fight for their land by any means necessary. When Hal arrived back, he just barely stopped the natives and the developers from killing each other, and demanded that until the issue is resolved legally, they groups were to disperse and go home. Ollie told Hal pretty much to fuck off and go back to Guardians.
At which point Hal dropped his ring, Ollie dropped his bow, and the two began beating the living crap out of each other with their bare fists.
Just imagine this for a second. These two men are best friends, closer to each other than most superheroes are with just the masks on, and yet there they are, standing waist-deep in river water, trying to destroy one another. In the struggle, the masks are ripped away, no words ever exchanged, and in that moment the whole struggle is reduced to its starkest terms. Both men love their country and love their people, they share a common goal, but because they cannot reconcile their differences they are left with no other option than to smash each other with their fists until at least one of them falls. In the end, their own struggle loosens a stack of huge tree logs in the river, and they are knocked out cold.
I have to wonder how many people realized just how hugely symbolic this story was when it appeared in the mid-70's. Hell, I probably read much more into it than the writer imagined. But for me, this is the greatest example of the problem with people and political issues. Especially with the more passionate issues, like those that have been raised here from time to time. So many people seem content to simply rant about their issues with no interest to hear that the other side has to say. And so many people would rather ascribe their opponents as faceless fascists rather than human beings who believe just as strongly as the other side that their position is right.
Each side is ready to look down on the other and call them wrong and evil, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides (usually) have legitimate reasons to support their beliefs. Neither side are monsters, they're human beings. They're the same thing, and when it gets down to it, more often than you'd like to think these two sides share a common goal. And then there the extremists, the loudmouths, the radicals who hurt their own side just as much, if not more, than their opponents.
No one's opinions will be changed, no matter how many marches or protests or parades someone has. Like Hal, we have to work within the system (not just of law but of society in general) and like Ollie, we need to be down-to-earth and work to accomplish justice one person at a time. Because unless people are ready and willing to give genuine respect and understanding for the other opinions, best friends will be at each other's throats and in the end, nothing will ever be accomplished.
All right, I'm off the soapbox. Carry on with HP slash and whining romantic problems. Oh wait, that last one's mine ;)
Hal is the police officer of space, assigned to protect his own sector of the galaxy, taking his orders without question from his bosses, the Guardians. He is a firm believer in the importance of laws ("they are the glue that holds society together, the wisdom accumulated over the centuries") and working within the system to accomplish justice. I think Hal would acribe to my DMV analogy: you can hate the DMV, you can bitch and scream and badmouth them all you want, but that still won't get you your license. You have to work within them, play by the rules and, if possible, use their own rules against them, to get what you want.
Ollie, on the other hand, would say "fuck your licenses, you fascist pigs!", possibly destroy the DMV, and drive off. Olliver Queen is a former capitalist billionaire who, after losing all his cash, became absolutely disgusted with the suffering and abuse of human beings, of minorities and the poor, and he soon gained a serious distrust with all forms of authority. These include his fellow superheroes ("We shouldn't be up here in a satellite, lording over them like Gods! We should be down there, among them, in the streets!"). He's outspoken, to say the least, never one to shirk from a confrontation with cops or villains alike, and is ready and willing to go to whatever lengths (short of cold-blooded murder) to see justice done.
When Hal and Ollie first met, GL had just saved a man from being beaten by a group of slum kids. Just as he was satisfied that justice was served, GA started chewing him out, revealing that the man he saved was actually a greedy slum lord who'd been bleeding the tenants dry without offering any repairs or services. He accused Hal of being like so many, seeing things in black and white ("Beat it, Lantern! Go fight a mad scientist or something!"), protecting the galaxy but ignoring the everyday crimes of poverty, prejudice, and hunger ("You serve the blue skins and saved the orange skins, but you hadn't even bothed with the black skins!").
So these two heroes took a rusty old pickup truck to hit the road on their own Steinbeckian search for America, along with one of GL's own Guardians. Each adventure brought the growing conflict between these two friends closer and closer to a head, until finally they came upon a situation involving crooked land developers trying to cheat some Native Americans off of their land. While Hal flew to Washington DC to organize the appropriate paperwork, Ollie rallied up the residents to get them to fight for their land by any means necessary. When Hal arrived back, he just barely stopped the natives and the developers from killing each other, and demanded that until the issue is resolved legally, they groups were to disperse and go home. Ollie told Hal pretty much to fuck off and go back to Guardians.
At which point Hal dropped his ring, Ollie dropped his bow, and the two began beating the living crap out of each other with their bare fists.
Just imagine this for a second. These two men are best friends, closer to each other than most superheroes are with just the masks on, and yet there they are, standing waist-deep in river water, trying to destroy one another. In the struggle, the masks are ripped away, no words ever exchanged, and in that moment the whole struggle is reduced to its starkest terms. Both men love their country and love their people, they share a common goal, but because they cannot reconcile their differences they are left with no other option than to smash each other with their fists until at least one of them falls. In the end, their own struggle loosens a stack of huge tree logs in the river, and they are knocked out cold.
I have to wonder how many people realized just how hugely symbolic this story was when it appeared in the mid-70's. Hell, I probably read much more into it than the writer imagined. But for me, this is the greatest example of the problem with people and political issues. Especially with the more passionate issues, like those that have been raised here from time to time. So many people seem content to simply rant about their issues with no interest to hear that the other side has to say. And so many people would rather ascribe their opponents as faceless fascists rather than human beings who believe just as strongly as the other side that their position is right.
Each side is ready to look down on the other and call them wrong and evil, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides (usually) have legitimate reasons to support their beliefs. Neither side are monsters, they're human beings. They're the same thing, and when it gets down to it, more often than you'd like to think these two sides share a common goal. And then there the extremists, the loudmouths, the radicals who hurt their own side just as much, if not more, than their opponents.
No one's opinions will be changed, no matter how many marches or protests or parades someone has. Like Hal, we have to work within the system (not just of law but of society in general) and like Ollie, we need to be down-to-earth and work to accomplish justice one person at a time. Because unless people are ready and willing to give genuine respect and understanding for the other opinions, best friends will be at each other's throats and in the end, nothing will ever be accomplished.
All right, I'm off the soapbox. Carry on with HP slash and whining romantic problems. Oh wait, that last one's mine ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Sometimes you must reason with the bear. Sometimes you must shoot it.
Date: 2004-04-27 01:17 pm (UTC)(When was this GL/GA story published, btw? I don't follow comics nearly as much as you, and quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this was published in 1960.)
As for me, both GL and GA are right, sometimes. It seems clear that the Right Thing to do in society is never absolute; it's always a function of several fundamental arguments, many of which conflict. It's like a 12-way tug-of-war with 12 ropes tied to a ring in the middle. In some cases, some arguments are stronger or work better than others, and in other cases it goes the other way. We look at the twelve arguments when we should really be looking at where the ring is.
One could interpret this as an argument for waffling, I suppose.
Re: Sometimes you must reason with the bear. Sometimes you must shoot it.
Date: 2004-04-27 01:59 pm (UTC)And waffling though it may be, it's still better than blindly ahering to a single POV, in my opinion.
Re: Sometimes you must reason with the bear. Sometimes you must shoot it.
Date: 2004-04-27 02:03 pm (UTC)Is there an option for finding a cogent opinion and defending it intelligently, and altering it as the facts change?
Probably...
Date: 2004-04-27 02:12 pm (UTC)Me, I think your option works well enough, as long as it's remembered that at the end of all things it's opinion, not fact. That's what I think, anyway.
I posted this up here today for a reason, one which I'm not sure everybody will get. I at least hope this ideal of mine will be listened to and considered, which is all I'm asking for anyway.
Re: Sometimes you must reason with the bear. Sometimes you must shoot it.
Date: 2004-04-28 08:20 am (UTC)The three drug abuse story arc issues of Amazing Spider-Man were from #96-98 (May-July '71). Back then, the Comics Code Authority did NOT approve of the issues. Stan Lee didn't care, thinking the issue should be addressed and ran the storie, and the issues did NOT have a Comics Code Authority stamp. Intestingly, when the stories were reprinted in Marvel Tales, the covers did bear the CCA stamp. It's expensive and hard to find those issues, however, you can perhaps find a copy of Marvel Tales #191 which reprints the arc for a couple of bucks.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-27 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-27 02:00 pm (UTC)Thou Shalt Not Skydive
Date: 2004-04-27 02:37 pm (UTC)Cats, my friend, I'm happy to say you have no future in politics. I'm kidding actually. Politics needs more of this unifying viewpoint. I should really cut down on the cynicism a little. And you should get more readers.
I gradually learned empathy-for-the-other-side through high school and college, largely after seeing armies of pro-choicers and pro-lifers battle it out on talk.abortion. To say I now take both or none of the sides would be inaccurate. Rather, I now admit feelings I'd had all along at how Oppressed I would feel if I were told I couldn't do X with my own body, whether I really wanted to do X or not. That combined with the feeling I'd had about knowing someone could be killed with no say in the matter.
By being honest with myself, I think I identified with both sides of the issue much more, and this extended to other issues as well. This is why others have told me they get the impression that I'm refusing to take sides, that I'm trying to be a judge, or that I'm abstracting an argument up to some meta-level. It's actually me seeing two people making no progress in a debate (or about to come to blows), and wanting to see who's really right, not who's the best at rhetoric or fisticuffs.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-27 04:26 pm (UTC)