NEW BLACK PANTHER COMIC BOOK - John Ridley's Inverse interview

[Salustrade]

I don't even know why Emp bothered with that deflecting "Enlightened Negro" who gallivants around and constantly opts for black dudes to put everyone before themselves. While the opposite is rarely done for them, by said groups.

I don't even know why Emp bothered with that deflecting "Enlightened Negro" who gallivants around and constantly opts for black dudes to put everyone before themselves. While the opposite is rarely done for them, by said groups.

Thanks Sal and Booshman. I tried to keep it mostly civil, even after the cursing and name calling, which I did find funny in retrospect, with bitch being a horrible misogynist word, and it is, but being 'bitch made' is perfectly acceptable to use as an insult. But once we get to the name calling stage the conversation is pretty much over as far as I'm concerned.

I think some black folks think being for 'everyone' proves their moral superiority and that being a nice person will make them seem less threatening and will get results. That if we extend our hands, 'in love' (like Common suggested), hands will extend back to us, and we'll all hold hands together as we skip down the road of togetherness to Wonderland. What often has come back instead is not an extended hand, but a fist.

And even the allies who aren't swinging on us, aren't rushing to our defense. They are too busy getting with the people doing the swinging or trying to. They use us when its convenient but discard us at a moment's notice once our usefulness as cannon fodder and symbols is over. And then they have the gall, or the wizardry to use figures, songs, quotes, and other Civil Rights stuff often to 'reinforce' their points.

Now does that mean that every member of the groups of our 'allies' does that? No. It does not, but those numbers are minuscule and not something I think we should be wasting our time trying to find out. If you ride with us, you ride, but its a waste looking for the 'good' people among our allies. Wasn't it Socrates that went around with a torch looking for one honest man? Who has time for that. 
 
People respect strength and power, they don't respect weakness and begging. They don't respect people trying to fit in. At best they pity them. And it's funny as well that some feminists would likely decry strength and power as 'masculine' but at the same time some feminists will celebrate seeing Furiosa or Rey kick ass, and what are they displaying exactly? Strength, power, agency. So its not a matter of those things as concepts being 'wrong', its who is using them, or who is displaying them. But some people, IMO, get it twisted and go whole hog, buying the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker. And if they are in fact wrong, then some of these feminists are wrong or hypocritical for praising them. But wait? Feminists, or members of the LGBT aren't wrong, ever, it seems for some folks.

Quoted for undiluted truth.

[Booshman]

I don't even know why Emp bothered with that deflecting "Enlightened Negro" who gallivants around and constantly opts for black dudes to put everyone before themselves. While the opposite is rarely done for them, by said groups.

Thanks Sal and Booshman. I tried to keep it mostly civil, even after the cursing and name calling, which I did find funny in retrospect, with bitch being a horrible misogynist word, and it is, but being 'bitch made' is perfectly acceptable to use as an insult. But once we get to the name calling stage the conversation is pretty much over as far as I'm concerned.

I think some black folks think being for 'everyone' proves their moral superiority and that being a nice person will make them seem less threatening and will get results. That if we extend our hands, 'in love' (like Common suggested), hands will extend back to us, and we'll all hold hands together as we skip down the road of togetherness to Wonderland. What often has come back instead is not an extended hand, but a fist.

And even the allies who aren't swinging on us, aren't rushing to our defense. They are too busy getting with the people doing the swinging or trying to. They use us when its convenient but discard us at a moment's notice once our usefulness as cannon fodder and symbols is over. And then they have the gall, or the wizardry to use figures, songs, quotes, and other Civil Rights stuff often to 'reinforce' their points.

Now does that mean that every member of the groups of our 'allies' does that? No. It does not, but those numbers are minuscule and not something I think we should be wasting our time trying to find out. If you ride with us, you ride, but its a waste looking for the 'good' people among our allies. Wasn't it Socrates that went around with a torch looking for one honest man? Who has time for that. 
 
People respect strength and power, they don't respect weakness and begging. They don't respect people trying to fit in. At best they pity them. And it's funny as well that some feminists would likely decry strength and power as 'masculine' but at the same time some feminists will celebrate seeing Furiosa or Rey kick ass, and what are they displaying exactly? Strength, power, agency. So its not a matter of those things as concepts being 'wrong', its who is using them, or who is displaying them. But some people, IMO, get it twisted and go whole hog, buying the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker. And if they are in fact wrong, then some of these feminists are wrong or hypocritical for praising them. But wait? Feminists, or members of the LGBT aren't wrong, ever, it seems for some folks.

Yeah....I agree with all of this, but most notably the bold. I don't subscribe to that pathetic and capitulating "New Black" bullsh*t ideology. It's both idealistic and naive, because it relies on "hope". Which is, whether people want to admit it or not, a pretty irrational notion. Especially when it's directed at EVERYONE in the degenerate class, in group that "New Blacks" target. Which should be viewed as pure insanity, by any moderately intelligent and functioning adult. Because you're supposed to drop that "hope" nonsense, when you also stop believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

And don't get me started on the rampant hypocrisy of feminists and the LGBT community. Which seems to take a backseat, in terms of pointing out, because it's "safer" to point at what black dudes are doing/not doing.

[Kimoyo]

I believe it was Diogenes who searched for an honest man.  Echoing Brother Sal on Brother EJ's "undiluted truth"...

"I think some black folks think being for 'everyone' proves their moral superiority and that being a nice person will make them seem less threatening and will get results. That if we extend our hands, 'in love' (like Common suggested), hands will extend back to us, and we'll all hold hands together as we skip down the road of togetherness to Wonderland. What often has come back instead is not an extended hand, but a fist."

We, "black folks" tried this.  History underscores the truth of our return on the "olive branch" which was no more fruitful for indigenous Americans.  The most dominant human instinct is self preservation.  Only "self" determination can insure satisfaction.  Sure the fates sometimes align and  some individual human interests can be commonly enjoyed.  Yet, as I and several other Wakandan brothers have stated and the BP runs of Priest, Hudlin...and Hickman have shown, our interests are better served by "ourselves."  Hence the "hope" for Mr. Coates and Mr. Stelfreeze.

P.S.  What are you saying about Santa Claus Boosh!.! 

Peace,

Mont

[A.Curry]

I don't even know why Emp bothered with that deflecting "Enlightened Negro" who gallivants around and constantly opts for black dudes to put everyone before themselves. While the opposite is rarely done for them, by said groups.

Sigh...same Booshman..how did I know when my personal friend who posts on here called to tell me about others posting in this discussion you would be one of them using this as an opportunity to continue your petty personal feelings towards me?...and even though I've called you out on at least on two occasions to settle this particular "beef'" in person you still have with me after these many years...you've still avoided it. 

And how stupid are you to still think that feminism or womanism and LGBT issues are some "other" cause when many black women are involved in it and say the same thing I've been saying on here and there is a huge segment of black LGBT people? 

Or like some on here, they're simply invisible to you or you just don't acknowledge that it's a concern for black people who are different from you too?



In regards to your summation...I don't "gallivant" around opting black dudes should put anyone before themselves and don't believe that...there's a difference between putting someone before yourself and considering people ALONG WITH yourself.  You can do two things at once.  But of course, some negros feel threatened at the very mention of simply considering, for a moment, some other cause or someone other than themselves....even IF those people are black too.

And you obviously have no idea what "new black" is since nowhere did I say racism doesn't exist anymore.

You and most others on here don't consider anyone but yourselves and your own fragile male egos....and of course this page I notice is now devoid of any black women and any Black LGBT people at all...because you've pretty much made it a place where only straight black men can bitch about their own oppression with no regards to how non straight black men are oppressed in different ways...or how just because two black LGBT women are in a comic book you feel threatened that another "agenda" is taking over your own causes.

Thankfully Coates, who has written about racism along with other issues his entire life, is more multi-functional and progressive than that.  Which is why of course he is where he is...and he's writing what he's writing.

Continue on with this small hotep boys club...the world outside, and Coates himself, will continue on without you

[Emperorjones]

Thanks Kimoyo for that clarification.

As for A. Curry...here we go again with the straight black male shaming. "Fragile'? Seriously? That's the best you can do? No, people are expressing disagreement so you don't like that. But of course, you can't be wrong. You read about intersectionality in a book or heard about it in a lecture, you heard the women you 'f*cks with' talk about feminism and/or womanism so it has to be right, right? So anyone that disagrees, they are wrong, they have the problem, its because of their "fragile" male egos. None of these responses I've read in disagreement to you sound 'fragile' at all. But you have to demonize, vilify, and insult to bolster your own position.

I don't think anyone here has put up a sign that says no LGBT or black women are allowed, and once again you are connecting the two even though you said you have not. There have been female posters here, but maybe they've left for a variety of reasons. You don't know for certain, but you are certain you have the answer, or rather the problem which is straight black males (surprise, surprise). You keep referring to 'large' numbers of LGBT people, but there are larger numbers of straight black males, relatively speaking, inside this country and definitely worldwide, but their perspectives aren't as important and suspect perhaps in your eyes.

And it's a shame that you attack the people who disagree with you as not having any other other concerns' beyond their own. I think that's unfair and you have no evidence to back that up, but enlightened males don't need proof though. Just like you these men have families, communities, pasts, you don't know what they've gone through or do now, you don't know what they care about. But we know what you care about, because you honed right in on criticism of an LGBT storyline.

Kimoyo pointed out how important, vital, and realistic it is to have self-determination, to highly value self-preservation, because just about every other group but blacks are doing that. If we follow your magnanimous example we would be lucky they will give us a pat on the head, or not step too hard on our heads as they ascend the ladder we're holding up for them, excuse, for everybody, because that's what it should all be about. We should be last, they should be first, it's the selfless thing to do. Some feminists and LGBT members are fighting hard as hell for the issues that matter most to them, but you see no problem with that. However if a black guy speaks up, one that isn't promoting feminism or LGBT issues, then he's selfish. I bet you don't get on forums with majority feminists and LGBT and say they 'bitch' about their oppression. You sing along with them.

Being against racism helps all black people. Now there are divisions among black people, sure, but fighting against it is important to the whole. But Coates is 'more' progressive now than writing about racism in your words. So racism is something that isn't important as the 'real' issues, like feminism and LGBT rights. Have you ever thought that since Coates is now 'beyond' writing about racism that that was the reason he was chosen to write Black Panther? And are you going to tell me, in all honesty, that most white people would rather hear about racism and colonialism than what we've seen so far in Coates's book?

And for your parting shot, the "Hotep" jab. I've been reading or hearing derision for the Hotep label for a while. I mean, its like you and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill are taking talking points directly from some feminists and some LGBT people.

[A.Curry]

See, here's the thing...Ayo and Aneka"s relationship doesnt affect ME personally because Im not gay...this assumption you keep making just because im mature enough to care about other people's issues and that im able to judge other straight black men like me and myself in our communities is the problem...you assume I MUST be gay and all these false and bitch made defensive claims of me saying "straight black man is evil" and how "its a surprise to me that straight black men call out misogyny" is telling of your overall view.  Im a straight black man who f*cks women who calls out misogyny and homophobia.  so please, miss me with the subtle guilt trip for judging straight black men bullsh*t.  youre talking to one.

I wasn't sure if you were gay or not, but since you attacked me, accusing me of not supporting something because it doesn't personally affect me, and you've been riding hard on the homosexuality issue, for this instance particularly I did wonder if that was the case. Also the way you wrote about Shuri and gay black women's perspective regarding her, I wasn't sure. But find the evidence where I have made this assumption repeatedly? You can't, because I haven't. It's not an issue of straight black men calling out misogyny at all. If you read my post you would see that I said that some straight black men have done so. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I don't like misogynist lyrics in rap. I don't get the insults here coming from you.

I just happen to be a progressive male that can care about more than one issue affecting black people at a time and even champion issues that dont affect me directly.  Because im f*cking human. Just like Coates obviously is. Go figure. 

You're assuming things about me again, but you've been doing that from jump, so no difference there. You're a progressive male, bravo for you.

And stop bullsh*tting dude.  You HAVENT been just talking about issues that affect you personally, of course you can do that...what youve been doing is talking about issues that affect you personally and using them to compare and dismiss the ones bought up in this book.  FOH.

So ,wait I haven't been talking about issues that affect me personally or have I? And I haven't dismissed the issues brought up in this book. I've speculated on why those issues were put in the book first and foremost. I think you are very defensive and accusing for such an allegedly progressive person.

I dont want to see the images of black men brutalizing women either and not sure why Coates has Wakandans doing that, but that has nothing to do with the topic weve been talking about and the reality of homophobia or sexism that exists in the black community.

What is the topic we're talking about then? Black men brutalizing black women doesn't fit within a discussion of sexism in the black community? And how the imagery of black brutes has been used to demonize black men shouldn't be discussed? So please tell me what should I talk about? You've been good at putting words in my mouth so far, you might as well write them too.

And see, I never said that Black Panther's comic SHOULDNT focus on racism and never complained when it did.  Youre the one for three pages now who has a problem with homosexuality being depicted in it or being in the forefront after one issue.  I said it could do both.  See how inclusion works?  You dont have to exclude one group to include another.

You're going on about exclusion when you display an exclusionary mindset for anyone who doesn't co-sign your 'progressive' views. I didn't say they shouldn't be in the book, but you're right about my wishing they were not at the forefront. The book is supposed to about Black Panther. It's not about Aneka and Ayo. Black Panther was on the cover (s). The book has been marketed as a Black Panther book. Now it might remain so, or it might turn into something else. If the story is going to be about Aneka and Ayo Marvel and Coates need to be honest about that up front and not use Black Panther as a cover to promote Aneka and Ayo.

And youve been redirecting or refocusing by bringing up one issue to compare and combat or dismiss another.  You did it with your "hey, what about misandry?" point when misogyny was bought up, and you did it with using racism when homophobia was bought up. THAT has nothing to do with you saying anything in the black community doesnt exist.  Keep up and focus on whats actually been said.

Now I'm redirecting as well? In addition to refocusing. I guess I can only discuss what you want me to talk about. I brought up misandry to put things into context. I wasn't dismissing misogyny at all, like you seem to think I was.

And if you werent victim posturing why come up with the silly "evil black male" line when no one said that sh*t? And what's up with you saying...yet?  Dude, in your assumption that Im gay or maybe a woman youre trying to manipulate in a subtle way the viewpoint that straight black men are hated and villified. Again, FOH with the bullsh*t.  Thats you trying to lead others reading this into an assumption thats not even there.  And its hugely dishonorable.

You've been knocking straight black males from early on in your posts. I did say that the term evil was one you didn't use, however you seem to have an issue with straight black men, and perhaps feel it is your self-appointed progressive straight black male duty to set all the rest of us Neanderthals straight (not 'straight' straight of course, but in terms of making us see 'reality' or 'truth' or reality as you see it.)

And why shouldnt we straight black males be criticized if some of us do dumb sh*t thats sexist and homophobic? Black men, women, and others are doing the criticizing and sure, they can be criticized as well but not in an attempt to redirect the argument like youve been doing.  Take the criticism and deal with the damage some of us do in our own communities.

Once again you seem to be telling me how I can talk and what I can talk about. So you also deem what's relevant to discuss and how to discuss it? Oh well. I never said straight black males shouldn't be criticized. I've done so myself. Even regarding President Obama. Look at some my posts over the years about him on this forum for example. But I don't like the idea that straight black males are THE problem. Criticism with context, or if necessary nuance, is what I prefer. Just slamming black men, without looking at historical and economic and other factors, without looking at other groups and what they are doing-if similar-and then dropping the mic, I'm not cool with that. That's not fair. And it continues to paint the picture of black men as dangerous, threatening, etc.

And nothing in that line you answered said anything about you saying homophobia was outside the black community.  you may make fun of academia but it could help you with your reading comprehension because nowhere in that line did I say that.

You wrote about that regarding homophobia so I was responding to that. And academia is not an end-all-be-all. You can be an educated fool, or rather a miseducated one.

And why ask why this has to be in a Black Panther comic?  Why shouldnt it be in a Black Panther comic?  Black Panther focuses not just on Tchalla but an entire nation of people...so none of them may be LGBT and it cant be in his comic?  Would you ask that question if the focus was on a soldier in a wheelchair?  Or a blind Dora? Or a wakanda soldier with PTSD or who was a former child soldier?  Of course not. Any and all of these images or topics can be approached in a black Panther comic along with LGBT because all of it affects black people.  So again, why shouldnt it e in this comic?  There are other issues that various Black people face other than racism.

Assuming again. Yes I would ask that question for all those examples. The book is supposed to be about Black Panther. I'm paying my money-in fact this Black Panther is one of the first books I ever subscribed to-because I was led to believe this book will be about him, his travails and his triumphs. I want him front and center. I don't have a problem with supporting characters in comic books, even prominent supporting characters, but I do have a problem with a supporting character (s) that reduces the ostensible main character to a background or supporting role.

Flipping the question, would you be riding so hard for this if any of those supporting characters were not LGBT? If one of the Midnight Angels was involved with one of the Hatut Zeraze for example?

And why?  Why cant it simply be that Coates thought this was an interesting and important topic to focus on along with other other topics he may focus on in the near future?  Why is it so hard to find a reason why a straight black male like him or even myself would actually care about these issues that dont directly affect us, but other black people we may know and love or simply have empathy for?

That very well may be the case that Coates is doing exactly what you're saying. He obviously feels strongly enough about the issue to put in the first issue of this series and from the preview will likely continue to develop Ayo and Aneka into major characters during his run. I don't find it hard at all for straight black males to 'care' about other issues, though I am disappointed that you are making an implication that I, or straight black males who might share my perspective-don't. Or that even LGBT black people 'care' more than about their own particular set of issues. To me, its assumed that LGBT people and some black women are given the benefit of the doubt, but certain straight black males seem to be the villains in your perspective, unless they are enlightened like you and Coates, excuse me, 'progressive'. You pretend to be embracing and open but you've been very exclusionary throughout most of our exchanges and dismissive especially during this latest screed.

Rhetorical question...I already know the answer

Thank you for answering for me. You're very good at assuming about me anyway.

[/quote]

Emperor I didn't really bother to read your last post...as I told the obsessive Booshman who really only came in on this because of an obsessive thing he's had with me for years now...I came back on because my personal friend on here called to tell me about the the last few posts...and there's no need to keep going back and forth after a certain point.  It gets to be circular after awhile.

For the most part I'm glad to have enlightened you somewhat on some issues that you yourself stated you weren't aware of...but for the most part you've made your own assumptions as well.  And my assumptions about you were born out of ways you tried to manipulate and misinterpret what was said...and the obvious projection tactics with the "evil straight black male" bullsh*t which was never said nor stated was a way of trying to lead people into thinking what I was saying was about hating on black men.  It wasn't and only the most fragile of black male egos would see criticism of some of us, especially coming from another black male and often black women and black LGBT who FIGHT FOR BLACK MEN ERRYDAY THEMSELVES  as "hating" black men or seeing them as "evil".  That was some erroneous bullsh*t.

And let me be clear, I fully expected your argument or views would get props on this board...though once in awhile there are severe disagreements on here most of the dudes on here (mostly all straight black men, no women or even LGBT people for the most part posting...Maxine Shaw and others seem long gone and it's very apparent why) think and feel exactly like you do.  Anyone with views that don't go solely and only along with talks about racism and JUST that would hardly get any support on here...I was surprised by bluezulu's polite but excellent statement that started this actually.

But again let's be clear, considering other things that affect black people outside of racism IS NOT putting those things ahead of racist issues its putting them alongside them.  nowhere did I say that racism isn't important to focus on, but other issues affecting black people who deal with those issues from their own community and outside of it is important too.  Coates understands this and the LGBT women who are a focus in the book doesn't take away from also focusing on racism.  But I'm nearly certain you and most others on here disagree with that.

We are also losing support...the attitudes on here have already driven away quite a few black women and black LGBT people who have stood with us (again, a black LGBT couple like Ayo and Aneka started black lives matter) but never feel many of us stand with THEM on their particular issues...and in many ways their causes are condemned or "put on the back-burner" as you stated about your own causes.  Many times they're even virulently attacked by their own for being gay.

Do with that info what you will...we can keep sectioning off our own causes and ignoring and excluding the causes of other black people in the same black communities while we keep getting shot in the street and losing the support of a segment of our own people...Hey, at least you're safe here pontificating and excluding black people who aren't straight and male on a message board.

I have some issues with what Coates is writing in the first issue and the pics I've seen of future issues posted on here...but him centering on a gay Dora Milaje couple and possible other gender issues isn't one of them...THAT I applaud him for for now...

[A.Curry]

Thanks Kimoyo for that clarification.

As for A. Curry...here we go again with the straight black male shaming. "Fragile'? Seriously? That's the best you can do? No, people are expressing disagreement so you don't like that. But of course, you can't be wrong. You read about intersectionality in a book or heard about it in a lecture, you heard the women you 'f*cks with' talk about feminism and/or womanism so it has to be right, right? So anyone that disagrees, they are wrong, they have the problem, its because of their "fragile" male egos. None of these responses I've read in disagreement to you sound 'fragile' at all. But you have to demonize, vilify, and insult to bolster your own position.

I don't think anyone here has put up a sign that says no LGBT or black women are allowed, and once again you are connecting the two even though you said you have not. There have been female posters here, but maybe they've left for a variety of reasons. You don't know for certain, but you are certain you have the answer, or rather the problem which is straight black males (surprise, surprise). You keep referring to 'large' numbers of LGBT people, but there are larger numbers of straight black males, relatively speaking, inside this country and definitely worldwide, but their perspectives aren't as important and suspect perhaps in your eyes.

And it's a shame that you attack the people who disagree with you as not having any other other concerns' beyond their own. I think that's unfair and you have no evidence to back that up, but enlightened males don't need proof though. Just like you these men have families, communities, pasts, you don't know what they've gone through or do now, you don't know what they care about. But we know what you care about, because you honed right in on criticism of an LGBT storyline.

Kimoyo pointed out how important, vital, and realistic it is to have self-determination, to highly value self-preservation, because just about every other group but blacks are doing that. If we follow your magnanimous example we would be lucky they will give us a pat on the head, or not step too hard on our heads as they ascend the ladder we're holding up for them, excuse, for everybody, because that's what it should all be about. We should be last, they should be first, it's the selfless thing to do. Some feminists and LGBT members are fighting hard as hell for the issues that matter most to them, but you see no problem with that. However if a black guy speaks up, one that isn't promoting feminism or LGBT issues, then he's selfish. I bet you don't get on forums with majority feminists and LGBT and say they 'bitch' about their oppression. You sing along with them.

Being against racism helps all black people. Now there are divisions among black people, sure, but fighting against it is important to the whole. But Coates is 'more' progressive now than writing about racism in your words. So racism is something that isn't important as the 'real' issues, like feminism and LGBT rights. Have you ever thought that since Coates is now 'beyond' writing about racism that that was the reason he was chosen to write Black Panther? And are you going to tell me, in all honesty, that most white people would rather hear about racism and colonialism than what we've seen so far in Coates's book?

And for your parting shot, the "Hotep" jab. I've been reading or hearing derision for the Hotep label for a while. I mean, its like you and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill are taking talking points directly from some feminists and some LGBT people.

It's a term that fits so well for certain types of people though.  AGAIN, there are feminists and LGBT people who are BLACK.  Black feminist women who actually love black men as a whole and are in relationships with them came up with the term themselves for a segment of black people who think a certain way and try to "police" how black people should act based off of faux "Afrocentric" laws and such.


Why do you keep talking about feminists and LGBT people like they aren't black?

It's funny you mention Dr. Hill...he uses that word because once he posted an article being politely critical of Frances Welsing and her views on homosexuality after she died that another writer wrote and "hoteps" came on his board and did everything from call him a "fag" and "on the DL" to basically saying they were going to end his career and his life.  Most were black dudes with a few black women being critical like this as well.

And seriously, do you have reading comprehension problems?  I said Coates is progressive because he can talk about BOTH issues, not one over the other and I said racism IS an important thing to still focus on but other issues that are often ignored in our community deserves focus as well.  Like he's doing now.

What the f*ck don't you get about that statement and where does it say I said Coates should never write about racism again??  It's about INCLUSION, not excluding one over the other.  I'm not even saying these issues should be talked about more than racism but included more often. Damn.  I've said this several times now.  Why do you fear so much after one issue of this Coates isn't going to ever write about racism again...even in this comic??

Sigh...and it's NOT about what "most white people want to read or hear about"...you realize your arguments center a whole lot on what white people think?  It's about what black people outside of the straight male norm wants to see.  It's about other black people being included.

And again I'm addressing black women and LGBT people as two seperate groups that Coates has said he's addressing in the book and is obviously addressing in the first issue.   Not sure what you don't get about that as well because obviously the words "LGBT" and "gender" issues Coates used made some of you on here lose your minds.  He's obviously addressing both groups.

And honestly black women tend to be more supportive and connect with black LGBT people moreso than black dudes...though some do.  That's possibly why as well.

[A.Curry]

Thanks Kimoyo for that clarification.

As for A. Curry...here we go again with the straight black male shaming. "Fragile'? Seriously? That's the best you can do? No, people are expressing disagreement so you don't like that. But of course, you can't be wrong. You read about intersectionality in a book or heard about it in a lecture, you heard the women you 'f*cks with' talk about feminism and/or womanism so it has to be right, right? So anyone that disagrees, they are wrong, they have the problem, its because of their "fragile" male egos. None of these responses I've read in disagreement to you sound 'fragile' at all. But you have to demonize, vilify, and insult to bolster your own position.

I don't think anyone here has put up a sign that says no LGBT or black women are allowed, and once again you are connecting the two even though you said you have not. There have been female posters here, but maybe they've left for a variety of reasons. You don't know for certain, but you are certain you have the answer, or rather the problem which is straight black males (surprise, surprise). You keep referring to 'large' numbers of LGBT people, but there are larger numbers of straight black males, relatively speaking, inside this country and definitely worldwide, but their perspectives aren't as important and suspect perhaps in your eyes.

And it's a shame that you attack the people who disagree with you as not having any other other concerns' beyond their own. I think that's unfair and you have no evidence to back that up, but enlightened males don't need proof though. Just like you these men have families, communities, pasts, you don't know what they've gone through or do now, you don't know what they care about. But we know what you care about, because you honed right in on criticism of an LGBT storyline.

Kimoyo pointed out how important, vital, and realistic it is to have self-determination, to highly value self-preservation, because just about every other group but blacks are doing that. If we follow your magnanimous example we would be lucky they will give us a pat on the head, or not step too hard on our heads as they ascend the ladder we're holding up for them, excuse, for everybody, because that's what it should all be about. We should be last, they should be first, it's the selfless thing to do. Some feminists and LGBT members are fighting hard as hell for the issues that matter most to them, but you see no problem with that. However if a black guy speaks up, one that isn't promoting feminism or LGBT issues, then he's selfish. I bet you don't get on forums with majority feminists and LGBT and say they 'bitch' about their oppression. You sing along with them.

Being against racism helps all black people. Now there are divisions among black people, sure, but fighting against it is important to the whole. But Coates is 'more' progressive now than writing about racism in your words. So racism is something that isn't important as the 'real' issues, like feminism and LGBT rights. Have you ever thought that since Coates is now 'beyond' writing about racism that that was the reason he was chosen to write Black Panther? And are you going to tell me, in all honesty, that most white people would rather hear about racism and colonialism than what we've seen so far in Coates's book?

And for your parting shot, the "Hotep" jab. I've been reading or hearing derision for the Hotep label for a while. I mean, its like you and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill are taking talking points directly from some feminists and some LGBT people.

Oh, and one last thing Emperor...to two or three of your points I skimmed over...

1.  I wouldn't have to ride as hard for a Dora in a relationship with a Hatut Zeraze because you nor anyone else on here would have a problem with it.  You wouldn't see that as an agenda replacing your own causes or one overtaking fighting racism.  That would be entirely supported on here and not seen as something that doesn't have a place in a Black Panther book.

Sorry but that was a silly question.

2.  Black feminist and LGBT sites actually DO include talks about overall racism and even racism against black men in particular on them ALONG WITH issues concerning black feminism and LGBT and issues within the black community itself...so again, I don't have to include speaking on racism overall because it's already included in their posts and discussions and I have spoken on all these topics within them.  Coates is probably doing the same but after one damn issue focusing on an LGBT couple it's like the world is coming to an end.  Try sites like "For Harriet"...started by a black woman and and named after Harriet Tubman.  Racism along with the issues I'm railing for on here are discussed and posted about overall because again it's about being multi-faceted and inclusionary of various issues facing various black people.

[Emperorjones]

First off, before I get into this, I do want to thank you for the suggestion of the For Harriet website. It was not my intention to get into a row with you, but once its on, its on. I wanted to better understand where you were coming from, but I'm not going to be down with slamming either me, or other straight black men, just because.

As for Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, what you consider 'polite' criticism was him co-signing an insulting post about Dr. Welsing. And also Dr. Hill did a video, perhaps on Huffpost Live about "Hoteps" which conveniently didn't include any members of the alleged Hoteps but feminist critics of them, which of course Dr. Hill co-signed. How is that for a free exchange of views? And you can't see how feminists and LGBT activists in turn could also do the same thing you say they say about the "Hotep" people (I said people because I would think there are female Hoteps as well, though it is often derided as a male thing), by policing black thought and behavior?

You say I am twisting your words, manipulating the conversation, well I know you have twisted mine. You keep harping on the 'evil' black male thing, and I said pages ago by now that you didn't say that, that was my words. Yet perhaps you skimmed over that as well.

Fragile ego male thing again? No one here has said anything about not criticizing each other, or the unenlightened straight black males. People disagree on these boards all the time. And you skimmed over what I said before about criticism of black males, and that I have done so myself. It's not criticism per se, it's the who, the why, and if it is justified? And does it go in the reverse as well? What's fragile about that? I'm not going to let you attack me, especially if it is unfair, and there is no push back. It's unrealistic to think that people are going to sit there and get bashed and not respond to it. Fragility has nothing to do with that. Fragility would be bowing to that criticism, especially if it is unwarranted or flat out wrong.

So is it only unenlightened black males that deserve to go the wood shed? Black people are often criticized in this country, talked to the way other groups are not, and its been going on for so long and we've accepted our subordinate status in so many ways, that we accept it, we think its actually a corrective of sorts. I'm not going to add on to that criticism-if it is unwarranted-and if I do criticize I'm going to try to do it with an understanding of the social, economic, and political forces that have warped black life for half a millennium. I'm not going to bash black men because it gets me in the good graces of some feminists, intellectuals, or activists.

Unlike you I am skeptical when it comes to mainstream media or comics saying they will discuss racism 'later'. Later often amounts to never. And its not the end of the world that Ayo and Aneka are in the book, stop exaggerating. My major issue with that is why they were at the forefront of the first issue. You seem to have skimmed over my saying I've read other comic books with gay characters. But for Black Panther I do want Black Panther to be the star, not two new characters. And if these two characters were heterosexuals, I doubt they would have been given the same spot light.

Black feminists and LGBT members are black, no one said they aren't. But I also know that feminism and LGBT issues are transracial causes as well, and I can easily see the whites among each group putting their interests first and the blacks going along with that. Except when they don't, which is why you do have discussions about racism in both of those camps, and black feminists renamed themselves womanists as a result of that. And talking about gay issues is not as threatening to white people as it is talking about black issues because white people can more easily see themselves in gender and gay issues, whereas they can't if race is emphasized. So you're saying that black feminists and black LGBT aren't focusing on what white people think? Black feminism is an offshoot in large part from white feminism, so how can you separate the branch from the root?

Comics are in the business of selling and how it has generally been done, by getting white readership and support. Priest attempted to do so, Hudlin went in another direction, but I would argue the post-Hudlin writers went back to trying to make Panther amenable to white readers. I don't think its a stretch for Coates to do the same, and focusing on an LGBT storyline would make white readers less uncomfortable than one about racism or colonialism. And if you couple that with T'Challa mired in failure and images of black men abusing black women all the more good. Time will tell if the increase in feminist and LGBT readership, which you think Coates has gotten, will keep the book afloat. I'm thinking that Coates new support is from white liberals who like his work at The Atlantic and became of his celebrity status.

So are you saying straight black men don't talk about issues affecting feminism or LGBT? I'm sure there are websites that do that, even ones that focus on geek stuff, like Black Nerd Problems. But surely you won't find any black males on sites like TheGrio or TheRoot not supporting feminism or LGBT issues.

One more thing, you talk about non straight black people wanting to be included in mainstream comics. That's fine, but you're assuming that straight black people are included which is an exaggeration at best, but which I feel is erroneous. You can probably count on one hand how many black creators are at either major comic book company right now. Coates, David F. Walker, John Semper (coming up on Cyborg), Christopher Priest (coming up on Deathstroke). I can't think of any others. And how many books exactly right now are headlined by black characters? Cyborg, Captain America, The Ultimates, We Are Robin, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, Power Man and Iron Fist, and Black Panther.  That's pretty good compared to some years, but not a lot, so its not a situation where you have had a ton of straight black books, written by straight black men or straight black women. I think your perception of straight black male advantage of straight black male privilege in comic books is skewered.

[A.Curry]

First off, before I get into this, I do want to thank you for the suggestion of the For Harriet website. It was not my intention to get into a row with you, but once its on, its on. I wanted to better understand where you were coming from, but I'm not going to be down with slamming either me, or other straight black men, just because.

As for Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, what you consider 'polite' criticism was him co-signing an insulting post about Dr. Welsing. And also Dr. Hill did a video, perhaps on Huffpost Live about "Hoteps" which conveniently didn't include any members of the alleged Hoteps but feminist critics of them, which of course Dr. Hill co-signed. How is that for a free exchange of views? And you can't see how feminists and LGBT activists in turn could also do the same thing you say they say about the "Hotep" people (I said people because I would think there are female Hoteps as well, though it is often derided as a male thing), by policing black thought and behavior?

You say I am twisting your words, manipulating the conversation, well I know you have twisted mine. You keep harping on the 'evil' black male thing, and I said pages ago by now that you didn't say that, that was my words. Yet perhaps you skimmed over that as well.

Fragile ego male thing again? No one here has said anything about not criticizing each other, or the unenlightened straight black males. People disagree on these boards all the time. And you skimmed over what I said before about criticism of black males, and that I have done so myself. It's not criticism per se, it's the who, the why, and if it is justified? And does it go in the reverse as well? What's fragile about that? I'm not going to let you attack me, especially if it is unfair, and there is no push back. It's unrealistic to think that people are going to sit there and get bashed and not respond to it. Fragility has nothing to do with that. Fragility would be bowing to that criticism, especially if it is unwarranted or flat out wrong.

So is it only unenlightened black males that deserve to go the wood shed? Black people are often criticized in this country, talked to the way other groups are not, and its been going on for so long and we've accepted our subordinate status in so many ways, that we accept it, we think its actually a corrective of sorts. I'm not going to add on to that criticism-if it is unwarranted-and if I do criticize I'm going to try to do it with an understanding of the social, economic, and political forces that have warped black life for half a millennium. I'm not going to bash black men because it gets me in the good graces of some feminists, intellectuals, or activists.

Unlike you I am skeptical when it comes to mainstream media or comics saying they will discuss racism 'later'. Later often amounts to never. And its not the end of the world that Ayo and Aneka are in the book, stop exaggerating. My major issue with that is why they were at the forefront of the first issue. You seem to have skimmed over my saying I've read other comic books with gay characters. But for Black Panther I do want Black Panther to be the star, not two new characters. And if these two characters were heterosexuals, I doubt they would have been given the same spot light.

Black feminists and LGBT members are black, no one said they aren't. But I also know that feminism and LGBT issues are transracial causes as well, and I can easily see the whites among each group putting their interests first and the blacks going along with that. Except when they don't, which is why you do have discussions about racism in both of those camps, and black feminists renamed themselves womanists as a result of that. And talking about gay issues is not as threatening to white people as it is talking about black issues because white people can more easily see themselves in gender and gay issues, whereas they can't if race is emphasized. So you're saying that black feminists and black LGBT aren't focusing on what white people think? Black feminism is an offshoot in large part from white feminism, so how can you separate the branch from the root?

Comics are in the business of selling and how it has generally been done, by getting white readership and support. Priest attempted to do so, Hudlin went in another direction, but I would argue the post-Hudlin writers went back to trying to make Panther amenable to white readers. I don't think its a stretch for Coates to do the same, and focusing on an LGBT storyline would make white readers less uncomfortable than one about racism or colonialism. And if you couple that with T'Challa mired in failure and images of black men abusing black women all the more good. Time will tell if the increase in feminist and LGBT readership, which you think Coates has gotten, will keep the book afloat. I'm thinking that Coates new support is from white liberals who like his work at The Atlantic and became of his celebrity status.

So are you saying straight black men don't talk about issues affecting feminism or LGBT? I'm sure there are websites that do that, even ones that focus on geek stuff, like Black Nerd Problems. But surely you won't find any black males on sites like TheGrio or TheRoot not supporting feminism or LGBT issues.

One more thing, you talk about non straight black people wanting to be included in mainstream comics. That's fine, but you're assuming that straight black people are included which is an exaggeration at best, but which I feel is erroneous. You can probably count on one hand how many black creators are at either major comic book company right now. Coates, David F. Walker, John Semper (coming up on Cyborg), Christopher Priest (coming up on Deathstroke). I can't think of any others. And how many books exactly right now are headlined by black characters? Cyborg, Captain America, The Ultimates, We Are Robin, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, Power Man and Iron Fist, and Black Panther.  That's pretty good compared to some years, but not a lot, so its not a situation where you have had a ton of straight black books, written by straight black men or straight black women. I think your perception of straight black male advantage of straight black male privilege in comic books is skewered.

1) you're welcome

2). It's on?  Lol...is it really? 

3) I see...so were you one of the people coming on Hill's page saying he was a fag and going to ruin his career? Lol...the article was hardly insulting it was just critical of some of her views as I actually read the whole thing...personally though she had some great views in some things she sounded like a crackpot and the article was being way nicer than I am...but of course any critical look at a community hero is going to be seen as insulting if it isn't completely praising her by certain types.  The same types that take any critical look at black people or men in particular as an attack upon them and hating them.  This and other reasons is why the term you seem fond of repeating from me is used about fragile egos.

4) of course you think Coates support will come from white liberals because you've shown you really don't consider the other black groups of people I'm speaking about...but even if it is mostly white liberals where the added support comes from...IF...it's worth it for a segment of our people to see themselves represented in places they usually aren't.

5) "So it's only unenlightened black males that deserve to go to the woodshed"?  Sigh...the projection is getting tiring...you keep on exaggerating this into some ugly attack on black men..."wood shed"?  Really?  And you wonder why with projected, overly sensitive reactions like this I'm using the term about fragile male egos.

6) plenty of black men do talk about these issues since you asked, but arguably even more have reactions to it like most of the ones on here.  Look at the Marc Hill thread and the ugly comments made we spoke about earlier.  Look at that for Harriet website I told you about and look. At the comments made whenever something about LGBT black people are posted.  Hell, you should've seen the ugly comments regarding the gay black women who started black lives matter when a story was posted about their wedding. But yes, fortunately some black men do talk about and support these issues within our community.  Coates obviously is one of them.

7) yes these issues are transracial...and many black women and LGBT will say that and fight against being overtaken by white people in this regard  along with racism as well.  Many still do this while feeling unsupported in these particular issues in their own community.  Doesn't mean their issues should be ignored or excluded or not portrayed as characters in a Black Panther comic.  We're dealing with these issues within the community, outside of it is a seperate issue.

7) YOURE ASSUMING, yet again, that I'm assuming that straight black people are always included in comics...I don't exaggerate nothing but you yet again are making that assumption simply because I'm bringing up a struggle of a segment of black people that you're not a part of.  I'm friends with a few black comics creators that share with me stories of racism in the industry...but let's compare: you have Black Panther who is getting a big push and movie, Falcon is in the Cap movies and has taken the shield and his own comic, Cage is coming out with his own TV series, Cyborg has his own book, War Machine is in the movies...Miles Morales is getting a big push as THE Spider-Man,...I could go on but out of those...

how many are black women or black LGBT?  Oh...none.   There ABSOLUTELY should be more black characters and black creators, no doubt.  But again, some can push for more inclusion of other types of black people ALONG WITH more black characters and people in general.  This again is what I mean by fragile male ego...you keep responding with defensive and reactionary stances as if I'm saying racism overall or the inclusion of straight black people in comics for instance shouldn't be fought for when I'm saying that SHOULD be fought and included along with these other things that affect women and non straight black people.  I've repeated this several times and you're still not getting it because you're emotionally reacting on the defensive and acting like I'm saying the things you're talking about should fall to the wayside and be excluded when I'm simply saying these things should be included.

It's amazing you're still not getting that.

We're done..again didn't read the whole post just skimmed it for a few reactions to answer. But this could go on all week and there are some things you're obviously not getting because you can't look past your own issues that are important to you and many others to see issues affecting others that are black too and fighting racism like you are, but other things as well.

I'm glad you got some things out of our chat though.

[Booshman]

I don't even know why Emp bothered with that deflecting "Enlightened Negro" who gallivants around and constantly opts for black dudes to put everyone before themselves. While the opposite is rarely done for them, by said groups.

Sigh...same Booshman..how did I know when my personal friend who posts on here called to tell me about others posting in this discussion you would be one of them using this as an opportunity to continue your petty personal feelings towards me?...and even though I've called you out on at least on two occasions to settle this particular "beef'" in person you still have with me after these many years...you've still avoided it. 

And how stupid are you to still think that feminism or womanism and LGBT issues are some "other" cause when many black women are involved in it and say the same thing I've been saying on here and there is a huge segment of black LGBT people? 

Or like some on here, they're simply invisible to you or you just don't acknowledge that it's a concern for black people who are different from you too?



In regards to your summation...I don't "gallivant" around opting black dudes should put anyone before themselves and don't believe that...there's a difference between putting someone before yourself and considering people ALONG WITH yourself.  You can do two things at once.  But of course, some negros feel threatened at the very mention of simply considering, for a moment, some other cause or someone other than themselves....even IF those people are black too.

And you obviously have no idea what "new black" is since nowhere did I say racism doesn't exist anymore.

You and most others on here don't consider anyone but yourselves and your own fragile male egos....and of course this page I notice is now devoid of any black women and any Black LGBT people at all...because you've pretty much made it a place where only straight black men can bitch about their own oppression with no regards to how non straight black men are oppressed in different ways...or how just because two black LGBT women are in a comic book you feel threatened that another "agenda" is taking over your own causes.

Thankfully Coates, who has written about racism along with other issues his entire life, is more multi-functional and progressive than that.  Which is why of course he is where he is...and he's writing what he's writing.

Continue on with this small hotep boys club...the world outside, and Coates himself, will continue on without you

Ohhh....ya....."your friend" told you about this page. Chances are you've been F5ing this page like the lonely loser you clearly are for, for a while. Hence why you've been adamant on meeting me in person "to squash our supposed beef." Which reminds me....

Who the hell are you again, that I would meet you in person? You're hardly important enough to warrant me meeting you. You're just an internet idiot who through his own lack of self-awareness, conflates how own self-importance, with being actually "that" important. Get the f*ck over yourself.

The reason that more women and LGBT people don't post here is the same reason that this isn't CBR or Comicvine. Because this has generally been an extremely obscure fan page. Not because of supposed "fragile egos", and your nonsense riddled implication that we're anti-women/LGBT. Which we're not. So again, you're being disingenuous; and AGAIN you're putting the onus on black dudes, instead of the people who are actually at fault for what YOU consider to be a problem.

As for "New Black". You posting the most extreme position of them, and then propping that up as the norm, so you can disassociate yourself from them, under that condition is more dis-ingenuousness from you. Moderate "New Blacks" begrudgingly accept the existence of racism (and sometimes say it mainly/only comes from black people), tend to make excuses for everyone but black folks, put the responsibility on black people for not capitulating (which they mislabel as "working alongside people"), and then call use the dismissive and feel-good label of "Hotep" for anyone who's not 100% self-sacrificing for women and LGBT. It's a piss poor attempt at shaming.

They, like you, are laughably transparent.

The rest of your moronic rant I won't even bother wasting the keystrokes over, as it's just you strawmanning and engaging in hilarious personality projecting. As usual.

[Emperorjones]

I'm not going to respond to everything AC Curry said, but a few points...

You are right about the presence of black male characters in movies and I'll throw in television too, though you are forgetting about Storm, Catwoman, Amanda Waller, Tigress, Claire Temple, Lady Cop, and Vixen, all derived from the comics. And also Fish Mooney, created for the show Gotham. And Misty Knight will be in Luke Cage. So will I agree with you that there has been a serious dearth of roles for black females, its not the complete desert you describe. Let's keep it real here, if it's taken so freaking long to get a Wonder Woman film and she's the best known female superhero out there, do you really think that you are going to see a Monica Rambeau film before her? And the one black female superhero film that did get made, Catwoman was a disaster, so already if there is an uphill battle to get films based on female superheroes, and black female superheroes, then Catwoman's failure gave Hollywood the excuse it needed to not try again.

But all that being said, you seem to ignore that black men are not controlling who gets movies or who gets comic book series. If they are lucky they get to work on those series, if they are lucky, but its white men who are running the show. However your ire seems directed at straight black men, like it somehow straight black men's fault that there is a dearth of black female or even LGBT roles in comics. That being said, Arrow introduced Curtis Holt, their version of Mr. Terrific, who is a married gay man in the Arrowverse.

I've never been on Dr. Hill's page, so here you are ASSuming again. It's far easier for you to do that than to listen to what I have to say, especially if you don't agree with it. It's easier to deal with villains, that confirms your ideas about certain straight black males. I mention fragile egos because YOU keep talking about them. That's your best insult or rationale because you can't comprehend that people who disagree with you aren't troglodytes.

Coates has white liberal support. He works at The Atlantic, not a bastion of black thought, even though he has carved out a space there. Where he works is not made up, a lot of support he gets in the white media is not made up. Is he where he is because of a groundswell of support from black feminist and black LGBT activists? Or was he put on by white folks?

I didn't say that the lesbian Midnight Angels issues shouldn't be explored in a comic. Find the quote where I said that. But I have questioned and criticized why that subplot was given priority in the first issue of Black Panther over other things. And I speculated as to why that is. And to keep it real, I feel if this story line continues to develop and Black Panther is on the side lines then it will be an issue of Marvel/Coates using Black Panther as the brand to really have a story about two new lesbian characters. That is deceptive. It might shock you but I've read, and liked, some stories about Batwoman, a lesbian character. When I read those stories I was reading them expecting Batwoman to be front and center. If her straight sidekick had dominated the story and Batwoman was on the side line I would think that wasn't cool. That's not what I bought the book for. But once again you have to find something nefarious in that response, to reconfirm your own dark imaginings about unenlightened straight black men.

Regarding my alleged emotionalism, I think you are getting way out of joint due to what some people say on the internet about LGBT people on Dr. Hill's or For Harriet's, just like you have on this forum. On this forum, a handful of people have responded and expressed displeasure with aspects of Coates's first issue, but you've blown it way out of proportion to an attack on black women and LGBT. Seriously, internet commenters are going to ruin Dr. Hill's career? That dude has been a go-to Negro on FOX News and now CNN. He's been on Huffington Post, he's good. But the idea that he is above criticism, if Dr. Welsing is not above criticism then the people you revere like Dr. Hill are not above criticism either.

[Ezyo]

Can we knock off the who has a bigger stick and get back to the topic please? Squash the beef and move on.. Or don't but mkve that to private messages, this is suppose to be about BP and what's going on with him.


I wonder here how the terrorists organization "The people" if the woman in green is apart of that and if she has done sort of ties to T'Challas past. She looks Wakandan and there has to be something for why she is doing this. Any thoughts?

[Booshman]

Can we knock off the who has a bigger stick and get back to the topic please? Squash the beef and move on.. Or don't but mkve that to private messages, this is suppose to be about BP and what's going on with him.


I wonder here how the terrorists organization "The people" if the woman in green is apart of that and if she has done sort of ties to T'Challas past. She looks Wakandan and there has to be something for why she is doing this. Any thoughts?

Might be the daughter of some potential asylum seekers that T'chaka turned away, decades ago.

[Ture]

What Do We Walk Away With...

While we "enjoy" the inaugural issue of Coates' Black Panther, a few things stick out. First we witness scenes of rioting, attempted rape and possible human trafficking, misguided capitol punishment, anger, aggression and hatred. I want to give Coates the benefit of the doubt that there is some diabolical under current going on because how else does one explain Queen Mother Ramaonda's sentencing when it all on video. Not to mention Aneka humbled in a slave collar.

Secondly this first issue did not serve to highlight T'Challa the Black Panther. The opening page has him taking a knee while suffering from a head wound. He is castigated by his ancestors, enemy and his adored ones. We witness T'Challa casually saying "I will kill her for this." mirroring his mother's premature and fallacious judgement. Aneka and Ayo have the only standout moments and they're brand new to the mythos of Black Panther. I guess they're being set up to fly solo in the first African Lesbian ongoing. How well will this serve as a introduction to the Black Panther.

Thirdly, what maybe inferred about the nation of the Black Panther. The disturbing images shown in the wordless preview posted below may not be Wakanda. The men firing guns is a clue. Maybe it's Niganda or some other country. To make it Wakanda would be asinine, even if the creative team tries to explain it as due to Wakanda being a vast country (like the USA) with multiple regions and sprawling cities. For something like this to slip below T'Challa's radar would be the height of insult to everything the Black Panther is. Such an insult occurred under MCGregor's pen when crack was introduced into Wakanda.



Regarding Shuri I postulate that maybe what she is suffering from currently maybe either post the incursions or a result of her choosing not to have her spirit inhabit her body until she repairs the rift between T'Challa and his ancestors. Shuri on the spirit side could produce some interesting stories.

All in all what we (especially newbies) walk away with in terms of the first issue is not the most flattering presentation of Black Panther or Wakanda. I'll just have to imagine a Black Panther comic that sells over 300,000 copies with pages of Afrakan people living and functioning in the most  spiritually and technologically progressive nation on earth while utilizing and advancing traditional Afrakan culture.

A Black Panther comic that highlights the power and intelligence of T'Challa as a capable leader and inspiration for his people and ancestors. A super hero who is a major player in the Marvel universe. A lover who has chosen two Dora Milaje (one being Okoye) for intended wives. We get to witness their complicated, mature relationship and beautiful scenes of romance as they engage in high octane adventures. Concurrent with this we see Shuri as she courts two potential husbands in the Hatut Zaraze. Talk about diversity, I'm still waiting to see this.

And remember this could all be achieved while having them confront another nation's upheaval if such a story of despair, rioting, attempted rape and possible human trafficking, misguided capitol punishment, anger, aggression and hatred needs to be told. If one were so inclined it could easily be a European nation on whose behalf Wakanda chooses to intervene. The public reason for them invading Latveria maybe? Of course before such intervention, pages of Wakanda helping to advance the infra structure and technology of half the countries in Afraka would be appreciated. Lots of stories to tell.

A lot of things affect the Afrakan community. Debating perspectives is admirable if true understanding is achieved. Arguing for gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, human rights, hell, animal rights is just wrong.
Argue for Afrakan self empowerment.