Cosmic Revelations and Enslavement for the Damisa-Sarki Coate's Black Panther

[Emperorjones]

I mean, it is better. Yes it has an absolute monarch, But anyone can challenge for the throne, the black panther facing the challengers is at a disadvantage, and its also about leading by example. Wakanda has free education and health care for its people, they are free to go wherever they want, and they live very comfortable lives on terms of their basic cable package. They aren't really xenophobic in the MCU. And in terms of government, for all the talk about how great a democracy is, when it comes down to it. The people only have the power to change their own local government. Who becomes president, it doesn't matter, the people have no say in the matter. Their states representatives do, and depending on where you live, your state has little impact on the electoral college.

So it's not as though a Monarch can't work. Plus the terms are challenged more often in Wakanda

From what I took from the film only certain people could challenge for the throne, though in the comics it seems more democratic. In the film, Killmonger was able to challenge because he had royal blood.

Regarding monarchies, I mean they've existed far longer than democratic governments, so I can see your point. However, with our concept of what a futuristic, super technological society like Wakanda should look like it does seem a bit at odds with an absolute monarchy and a tight control of power by only a few clans. Now, that goes back to me to the comics. I mean it has long been a strange mix that this technological powerhouse nation had people dressed like they were in a Tarzan movie. I see it as both Kirby and Lee, etc. adhering to the stereotypes about Africa but also subverting them. Perhaps they couldn't fully conceive of a Wakanda that looked like Kirby's New Gods, or didn't think their prime audience was ready for that yet and could better accept a Wakanda that looked like how they 'knew' Africa to be.

[Emperorjones]

And people wonder why Cooglers BP resonates so well.
It moves away fro. The tropes, speaks of respect, unity and black love. 

I don't completely agree. Though there was much to admire in the Black Panther film I also felt it threw shade on Black Americans, so much for unity.

How? The the only Black Americans from a story standpoint were the kids at the beginning and end. And maybe Killmongers girlfriend, but they never say where she is from.

Killmonger being a rage-filled monster, almost like a black brute from old. Whatever points he made were vastly outweighed by his rage, his cold murder of his girlfriend and his abuse of the Wakandan female elder could be something that came right out of an Oprah movie. Killmonger's disrespect for Wakanda and its customs, and it was like he was a wild 'akata' that needed to be civilized. I'm not going to say he was a black brute stereotype, but there were aspects there. A lesser actor than Michael B. Jordan might have took him over into that territory. Jordan, Coogler, and the script writer also imbued him with a sense of humanity and a reason for his rage which also kept him from being a black brute, and added complexity by making him super smart, dedicated, and cultured, and giving some legitimacy to his grievance at being left behind by the Wakandan side of his family. Curiously, the American side was never talked about.

The glimpses we got of Black America were all in the hood and I felt that Okoye's disdain for the wig she had to wear was also a jab at black women (perhaps not just American to be fair) who wear them or weaves. Further, the young kids were ignorant, not offensively so, but more along the line of a typical Hollywood idea/depiction of what black kids from the hood would act like. Thankfully they didn't try to rob T'Challa and Shuri.

So, when it came to Black America we got poverty, urban blight, and callous, self-destructive rage.

Interesting conundrum Emperorjones. Killmonger was every bit the villain and some of his anger and actions paralleled another MCU villain... Aldrich Killian. He too was passionately enraged; choked a woman, Pepper Potts; and even shot to death another woman,  Maya Hansen. For some reasons acts committed by Afrakans are programmed to be seen as more heinous. The distinction between the two is akin to Snoop's argument.

A saving grace for Killmonger's anger was that it was justified. This brings another part of the aforementioned conundrum to the forefront. The narrative that Afrakans on the continent did nothing or worse helped to enslave Afrakans that wound up in what would become the USA. There is hardly a whisper of Afrakans raiding the slave ports and freeing other Afrakans; destroying or taking over slave ships; forming self liberating communities throughout north and south America.

It is sad to think that the low self esteem and lack of appreciation for their own aesthetic has lead some Afrakan women (lest not forget the Afrakan men who reinforce such) to such extremes as straight hair weaves, perms and wigs. As such it makes perfect sense that an Afrakan woman not suffering from such would have disdain for having to wear that kind of wig. To me Okoye's statement was as much declarative as it was derogatory. As for the children were they not portrayed as those in the world outside your window?

This is the over arching thematic challenges in going forward in both comics and especially in film with the Black Panther. How to portray a never conquered, culturally autonomous, futuristic Afrakan centered super hero and his society? The difficulty in the ask is, who at Marvel is willing to accept the responsibility to course correct.

It is very much a conundrum and quite vexing. It's why I get very leery these days when I see Hollywood is debuting another black superhero or blacks are playing major or lead roles in other genre stuff. Because I know there is some b.s mixed in there somewhere.

Your comparison to Killian is interesting. To be honest, I had forgotten much about that movie, but you know as well as I do that there are different standards for white and black people, in both reality and fiction. Killian, and other white villains, are allowed to be individuals and not emblems of their race in the real world, unlike black people have been. And with still the relative dearth of varied black characters across media-and even more important-black folks creating and controlling those characters' depictions-then we still are prey to Hollywood pushing anti-blackness through black characters, as well as the media doing it through black pundits, news anchors, intellectuals, and other personalities. That's why the actions of Killian can be safely ignored-like how the spate of school shootings is never seen as a problem with white/white youth culture, whereas hip-hop and black culture has often been trotted out for finger wagging, sermonizing, and other abuses over the last several decades.

Killmonger stands out, not just because he was a well-written, greatly acted character, but the nuance in his performance can easily be missed by some who are looking to promote the toxic masculinity narrative or others who don't know about that agenda or the other ways blacks are stereotyped in the media. Doesn't mean that Killmonger wasn't a great character, etc., but he was also depicted as being so wild, so full of hate, that it undercut the character a bit but did make it easier to portray him as a 'typical' toxic black male who doesn't #trustblackwomen and all that other kind of stuff.

When it comes to the weave, I can see that it would be a declaration for Okoye, but one that comes at the expense to the black folks, particularly females, who do wear weaves. This week I saw that Miss America Nia Franklin was talking about being criticized for not wearing natural hair, and while I do get how positive it is to promote natural hair I can't lie and say that some of the folks I see with naturals in the media are some of the biggest suck ups out there; their hair might be the only natural thing about them or that they have left.

http://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/former-miss-america-nia-franklin-faced-criticism-over-natural-hair-202610496.html

[MindofShadow]

The idea of Wakanda being better is an interesting one. Certainly it has the technology and wealth, but it is also governed by a mostly absolute monarchy that uses combat to determine succession. They are also isolationist and xenophobic, for the most part. So, there are contradictions there, and there's nothing wrong with that, it can make for good stories and drama, but I do think it's interesting that we all generally just consider Wakanda "better".

They are the black version of how certain white American's worship the Nordic/Scandinavian countries.

Homogeneous society that seems rather progressive with wealth to keep citizens happy and prosperous.

Everyone in Wakanda looks the same, they worship the same God (comics kicked the Jabari out for not worshipping the same god, MCU Jabari chose to leave), very rich and very safe.

So, I think from a Wakandan citizen POV, they are better. Of course, outsiders can point out the very big warts and would be correct.

[Emperorjones]

The idea of Wakanda being better is an interesting one. Certainly it has the technology and wealth, but it is also governed by a mostly absolute monarchy that uses combat to determine succession. They are also isolationist and xenophobic, for the most part. So, there are contradictions there, and there's nothing wrong with that, it can make for good stories and drama, but I do think it's interesting that we all generally just consider Wakanda "better".

They are the black version of how certain white American's worship the Nordic/Scandinavian countries.

Homogeneous society that seems rather progressive with wealth to keep citizens happy and prosperous.

Everyone in Wakanda looks the same, they worship the same God (comics kicked the Jabari out for not worshipping the same god, MCU Jabari chose to leave), very rich and very safe.

So, I think from a Wakandan citizen POV, they are better. Of course, outsiders can point out the very big warts and would be correct.

A great comparison there. Other good points as well.

[Ezyo]

I mean, it is better. Yes it has an absolute monarch, But anyone can challenge for the throne, the black panther facing the challengers is at a disadvantage, and its also about leading by example. Wakanda has free education and health care for its people, they are free to go wherever they want, and they live very comfortable lives on terms of their basic cable package. They aren't really xenophobic in the MCU. And in terms of government, for all the talk about how great a democracy is, when it comes down to it. The people only have the power to change their own local government. Who becomes president, it doesn't matter, the people have no say in the matter. Their states representatives do, and depending on where you live, your state has little impact on the electoral college.

So it's not as though a Monarch can't work. Plus the terms are challenged more often in Wakanda

From what I took from the film only certain people could challenge for the throne, though in the comics it seems more democratic. In the film, Killmonger was able to challenge because he had royal blood.

Regarding monarchies, I mean they've existed far longer than democratic governments, so I can see your point. However, with our concept of what a futuristic, super technological society like Wakanda should look like it does seem a bit at odds with an absolute monarchy and a tight control of power by only a few clans. Now, that goes back to me to the comics. I mean it has long been a strange mix that this technological powerhouse nation had people dressed like they were in a Tarzan movie. I see it as both Kirby and Lee, etc. adhering to the stereotypes about Africa but also subverting them. Perhaps they couldn't fully conceive of a Wakanda that looked like Kirby's New Gods, or didn't think their prime audience was ready for that yet and could better accept a Wakanda that looked like how they 'knew' Africa to be.

My interpretation was that each of the tribes had a representative that would fight, but that could likely be anyone, they simply had their best warriors present to fight.

As for the monarch, I mean again if it works for them due to size then I don't see the issue. Wakanda is advanced but used an old Government system I don't see how it's an issue honestly. They developed without western or
European influence, so they should have a government that would work for. Nation of their size and it would be unique from the other powers.

I mean what would you think the government system would be for a futuristic nation?

I can't say anything for the comics as I don't like how Wakandans were presented in the early stuff because it did seem like they were in a Tarzan movie, however, that isn't the default now. Since Priest and beyond, Wakanda looks like it should and in the MCU, Wakanda has the futuristic but traditional clothes how I would expect a nation like that to appear

[Emperorjones]

I mean, it is better. Yes it has an absolute monarch, But anyone can challenge for the throne, the black panther facing the challengers is at a disadvantage, and its also about leading by example. Wakanda has free education and health care for its people, they are free to go wherever they want, and they live very comfortable lives on terms of their basic cable package. They aren't really xenophobic in the MCU. And in terms of government, for all the talk about how great a democracy is, when it comes down to it. The people only have the power to change their own local government. Who becomes president, it doesn't matter, the people have no say in the matter. Their states representatives do, and depending on where you live, your state has little impact on the electoral college.

So it's not as though a Monarch can't work. Plus the terms are challenged more often in Wakanda

From what I took from the film only certain people could challenge for the throne, though in the comics it seems more democratic. In the film, Killmonger was able to challenge because he had royal blood.

Regarding monarchies, I mean they've existed far longer than democratic governments, so I can see your point. However, with our concept of what a futuristic, super technological society like Wakanda should look like it does seem a bit at odds with an absolute monarchy and a tight control of power by only a few clans. Now, that goes back to me to the comics. I mean it has long been a strange mix that this technological powerhouse nation had people dressed like they were in a Tarzan movie. I see it as both Kirby and Lee, etc. adhering to the stereotypes about Africa but also subverting them. Perhaps they couldn't fully conceive of a Wakanda that looked like Kirby's New Gods, or didn't think their prime audience was ready for that yet and could better accept a Wakanda that looked like how they 'knew' Africa to be.

My interpretation was that each of the tribes had a representative that would fight, but that could likely be anyone, they simply had their best warriors present to fight.

As for the monarch, I mean again if it works for them due to size then I don't see the issue. Wakanda is advanced but used an old Government system I don't see how it's an issue honestly. They developed without western or
European influence, so they should have a government that would work for. Nation of their size and it would be unique from the other powers.

I mean what would you think the government system would be for a futuristic nation?

I can't say anything for the comics as I don't like how Wakandans were presented in the early stuff because it did seem like they were in a Tarzan movie, however, that isn't the default now. Since Priest and beyond, Wakanda looks like it should and in the MCU, Wakanda has the futuristic but traditional clothes how I would expect a nation like that to appear

While I do agree that the tribes picked representatives to challenge for the throne in the film, I don't see it as just anyone outside of that could challenge for the throne because then the question becomes what tribe picked Killmonger as their representative? None did. He was allowed to challenge because of his royal blood. He had the same royal blood as T'Challa and Shuri, and T'Challa was already sitting on the throne. The elder supported his right to challenge because of his royal blood, not that he represented one of the other tribes.

When it comes to a futuristic government...How about no government? Or one that is a confederation of tribes? Or a true democracy where every citizen is part of the decision making process? Arguably Wakanda is small enough and has the kind of technology that would make it easy for all of its citizens to be heard. The monarchy is an old world kind of civilized governance, arguably the first kind, and I'm not saying it's inherently bad when it comes to Wakanda, or even in general, if that's what the citizens are okay with.

One of the most appealing aspects of the Black Panther story to me is a look at what Africa could've been like without colonization and outside slavery, or even slavery from within. Seeing what we could've done, what we could've been, what we could be without those physical, economic, and mental shackles. And it also can remind us of the great African empires of the past, which from my admittedly lackluster knowledge, were all monarchies. It even can speak to other ancient great world empires which were also mostly led by monarchs.

Just thought about it, but the whole heart shaped herb thing-more in the comics than film-that more explicitly limits who can be Black Panther, although it doesn't limit who can run the country-as we saw with Achebe or even Dr. Doom (I'm sorry for mentioning DoomWar, but I had to point it out). The heart-shaped herb thing makes it a bit less democratic in the comics than I thought before. So, with the Black Panther cult (which now also makes the Black Panthers' reign theocratic in nature) running things that also limits who can run the country. I remember reading the Priest run where Killmonger becomes Black Panther, eats the heart shaped herb and then dies. Taking on the herb is only meant for certain people, which limits who runs the nation.

[CvilleWakandan]

Hudlin fixed the Killmonger issue. When you eat the herb, you appear before Bast and get judged on worthiness like Shuri. The old man said normal if Bast doesn't find you worthy, you die just like Killmonger did.

It could be assumed now that he either forgot meetingBast or just made up a lie to manipulate Kasper.

[Ezyo]

@ Emperor

Again I think it comes down to this: on challenge day, anyone can challenge the throne for King and BP. Each tribe brought their representative, anyone can be a representative but I. This case it's clear that whoever you choose has to be formidable, but it's a day that theoretically anyone can take a shot at it.

Erik was if Royal blood so he could challenge outside of challenge day and yes he had a claim because of that. So he didn't need to represent a tribe because he already belonged to the ruling family. I don't see where it contradicts that anyone can challenge for the throne as anyone can, but the anyone portion is on challenge day, otherwise it would appear outside of that day, only the Royal family can.

As for government, I don't see any society having zero government as thst would never work, it CANT work. We didn't really get a look at how the government worked but what we did see we could theorize that each tribe has ab elder who sits on the council, and their representative that would fight for the title of BP. So I would guess whatever concerns the people of each tribe has they would bring to their elder so that they could bring it to the king or queen. But again we don't have any idea what the people think but they seem okay with the current system.


As for the HSH, yeah Priest version kinda seemed rigged. Hudlin fixed that, and in the MCU neither of those versions applied, as we saw T'Challa and Erik were able to take it no problem, and Nakia was going to give it to mbaku and it didn't appear there would be anyone side effects to him doing so. Which reinforces that in the MCU anyone can become BP

[Emperorjones]

@ Emperor

Again I think it comes down to this: on challenge day, anyone can challenge the throne for King and BP. Each tribe brought their representative, anyone can be a representative but I. This case it's clear that whoever you choose has to be formidable, but it's a day that theoretically anyone can take a shot at it.

Erik was if Royal blood so he could challenge outside of challenge day and yes he had a claim because of that. So he didn't need to represent a tribe because he already belonged to the ruling family. I don't see where it contradicts that anyone can challenge for the throne as anyone can, but the anyone portion is on challenge day, otherwise it would appear outside of that day, only the Royal family can.

As for government, I don't see any society having zero government as thst would never work, it CANT work. We didn't really get a look at how the government worked but what we did see we could theorize that each tribe has ab elder who sits on the council, and their representative that would fight for the title of BP. So I would guess whatever concerns the people of each tribe has they would bring to their elder so that they could bring it to the king or queen. But again we don't have any idea what the people think but they seem okay with the current system.


As for the HSH, yeah Priest version kinda seemed rigged. Hudlin fixed that, and in the MCU neither of those versions applied, as we saw T'Challa and Erik were able to take it no problem, and Nakia was going to give it to mbaku and it didn't appear there would be anyone side effects to him doing so. Which reinforces that in the MCU anyone can become BP

I'm not a Panther head like many of you all here, though it seemed that challenge day in the comics and from the animation I've seen is more open than what we got in the movie, which leaves me with questions about exactly who can challenge and ascend to the throne.

I think I get what you are saying about Killmonger, but doesn't that just prove that a special exemption was made because of his royal blood only, an exception not everyone would be able to make? You did note that anyone can challenge on just challenge day but that would leave the royals with freedoms that other Wakandans don't have, just like other aristocratic societies.

One of my little issues with Black Panther, the comics more than the films, is that it hasn't spent much time exploring how its government works. As for the idea of 'no government' there are proponents of that and as for direct democracy, this was something rarely practiced before, but has happened, to some extent. For a comic book, with a futuristic bent, I don't see why these ideas could not be explored in Black Panther, comics or movies. Granted, the idea of royalty is something easily understandable and for many of us, especially in the Diaspora, desirous, to see strong black kings and queens, which the Black Panther comics and movie gave us.

[MindofShadow]

Challenge day in the Comics is basically a royal rumble. Seems anyone can challenge on that day.

Then their are also tribal challenges, which are direct challenges to the Black Panther in a 1v1 fight. Very inconsistent who can do this but so far it really seems like "anyone." We've seen outsiders like Mbaku and Killmonger famously challenge but we've also seen some random dude named G challenge Shuri. The BP just has to accept.

http://blackpanthermarvel.blogspot.com/2016/12/panther-powers-part-3-annual-tournament.html


Movie is royal blood (hence Shuri jokingly saying she would challenge and of course Killmonger) or a representative from one of the tribes can challenge.

What is interesting in the movie and not 100% clear is what happens when the King ages out of the Black Panther role. The Challenge Day scenario seems to be only a coronation for the King. It is only to become King. So it only happens when the King gives up the throne.

But we obviously know T'challa was Black Panther toward the end of T'chaka's rule before T'chaka's death. And we saw on challenge day that not all the leaders of the tribes were the ones fighting. The River tribes leader was the Lip Plate dude... yet Nakia was the warrior for example. However, M'baku was both the warrior and the leader of the Jabari.

So if say... Nakia faught and beat T'challa... is Lip Plate dude the king? While Nakia is black panther? That is unclear.

And how does the king choose the next black panther when he ages out? Is there a separate tournament? Is it just his choice? It would be cool if there was a separate thing similar to the rite of ascension or something.

One of my little issues with Black Panther, the comics more than the films, is that it hasn't spent much time exploring how its government works

Agreed. Unfortunately, you would need a true comic writer who wanted to keep things unique and fantasy like about Wakanda to do it. Like Kirby who invented challenge day, Don who added fantasy elements to the HSH ceremony, Gillis who added various tests to the king, and Priest who added political stuff like the Doras and such.

But... when it ends up being someone like Coates, all you get is, "lol this is so stupid lets make it like real life" where the King just says he sucks over and over and institutes a consitituional monarch... why functions the same as the tribal council and they move on, making the whoel first arc a big waste of time and only serving to ground something that  doesn't need grounded.

I would love for a comic guy like Ewing, who loves his deep canon connections, to re-vamp and explore the Wakandan government. Or someone with a big Sci-Fi love like Geoffrey Thorne do it. I just can't be a dude who wants to make it real life.

[Salustrade]

It's been pretty well established that Ta Nehisi Coates is just about the worst thing to have happened to the BP mythos, so rehashing this point isn't really something I'm looking to do here.

What I'm really interested in exploring, is the level of pathology that actually goes towards informing the actions of Coates and his backers.

What is the ultimate endgame?

[Ezyo]

It's been pretty well established that Ta Nehisi Coates is just about the worst thing to have happened to the BP mythos, so rehashing this point isn't really something I'm looking to do here.

What I'm really interested in exploring, is the level of pathology that actually goes towards informing the actions of Coates and his backers.

What is the ultimate endgame?

I don't necessarily know if there is an endgame.. atleast not for T'Challa and Wakanda, there may be an endgame to try and transition to a Storm title hence the focus on her and Eden. But given what we have seen over the years it's definitely not the betterment of T'Challa or Wakanda

[Emperorjones]

http://www.cbr.com/x-men-krakoa-black-panther-wakanda-science-race-expo/

http://www.cbr.com/black-panthers-symbiote-similar-to-venom/

[Emperorjones]

It's been pretty well established that Ta Nehisi Coates is just about the worst thing to have happened to the BP mythos, so rehashing this point isn't really something I'm looking to do here.

What I'm really interested in exploring, is the level of pathology that actually goes towards informing the actions of Coates and his backers.

What is the ultimate endgame?

I don't necessarily know if there is an endgame.. atleast not for T'Challa and Wakanda, there may be an endgame to try and transition to a Storm title hence the focus on her and Eden. But given what we have seen over the years it's definitely not the betterment of T'Challa or Wakanda

I also don't think there is an endgame. This is about demonizing black men, with T'Challa as the stand-in, and that never ends. After Coates, they'll find someone else. Will they be as effective, in terms of mainstream success, as Coates has been, or have the kind of elite backing he does? Who knows, but it's very rare, and seemingly accidental that you get someone like Priest, Hudlin, Narcisse, or even Liss on a Panther title. Even Maberry had more going for him, at first, than Coates has.

[Salustrade]

It's been pretty well established that Ta Nehisi Coates is just about the worst thing to have happened to the BP mythos, so rehashing this point isn't really something I'm looking to do here.

What I'm really interested in exploring, is the level of pathology that actually goes towards informing the actions of Coates and his backers.

What is the ultimate endgame?

I don't necessarily know if there is an endgame.. atleast not for T'Challa and Wakanda, there may be an endgame to try and transition to a Storm title hence the focus on her and Eden. But given what we have seen over the years it's definitely not the betterment of T'Challa or Wakanda

I also don't think there is an endgame. This is about demonizing black men, with T'Challa as the stand-in, and that never ends. After Coates, they'll find someone else. Will they be as effective, in terms of mainstream success, as Coates has been, or have the kind of elite backing he does? Who knows, but it's very rare, and seemingly accidental that you get someone like Priest, Hudlin, Narcisse, or even Liss on a Panther title. Even Maberry had more going for him, at first, than Coates has.

You're absolutely correct.

Every other BP writer including Maberry, has brought something interesting to the Black Panther mythos.

Coates merely came to maim, kill and destroy the mythos.

Marvel editorial have been very complicit in this agenda post-Hudlin, as evidenced by the amount of pushback they allowed the X-office to initiate via AvX and every bit of shade thrown towards T'Challa and Wakanda, from that point onwards.

At the end of the day, the question I should really be asking is what the endgame is for us personally as BP enthusiasts?

Do we continue to support substandard material from Marvel just for the sake of seeing T'Challa on page or, do we do die diligence by collectively voting with our wallets?