New Captain America will be black
Though there ARE exceptions, you're right in general. But I- and the writer of that CNN piece to which I linked- are only talking about the context of the comic book market in particular. And the history is clear: heroic mantles get passed in a cycle, not in a line. The general rule in comics is that the originator of the heroic ID almost invariably winds up taking it back from whomever it was passed to, regardless of whom it was passed to.
So, when a woman or minority character takes up the ID of Iron Man, Captain America, etc., you, as a reader, know that this is temporary 99% of the time. And because it is so probably temporary! it becomes a bit of a self-fufilling prophecy that this character will not succeed. At least, not in terms of generating a significant uptick of female or minority interest in the character.
Change takes time. It took a long time for Thomas Kalmaku to tell Hal Jordan to stop calling him "Pieface", but he did do so.
But personally, I always appreciated it more when minority and female characters were presented with their own identities, and allowed to fail or succeed on their own merits. I loved Luke Cage, Tyroc, Falcon, etc., and was disappointed that James Rhodes had to give up being Iron Man...then cheered when he became War Machine. (Even though it meant he was wearing the "obsolete" stuff...)
The young black woman from Louisiana who became Captain Marvel was another disappointment. I liked her backstory and the character, but she was merely renting the name. We (other minority comic book buyers I was buddies with) knew it wouldn't last. It was a sore point- why couldn't she have her own name, one more appropriate to her power suite? (Eventually, she got it.)
I'm perfectly cool with characters being introduced and failing or succeeding. What I'm not cool with is the whole second-hand nature of so many of the more recent attempts.
It's like our heroes come from the thrift shop.
Again, the borrowed glory issue arises.
If publishers want to make female/minority characters, I'm all for it. But why must their origins be inextricably tied to having a white male predecessor? Stereotypes or not, the ones who have always been female or minority at least have their own identity.
Sink or swim, there's an intrinsic value there.
Besides, it kind of begs the question: those female and minority characters who fail...is it because of their minority status, or a lack of compelling storylines and/or art?
I think, if you take a real look at Marvel over history, you'll find far more female and minority characters starting out with their own identities than borrowed ones. Marvel has tried, many times over, presenting characters who were not inextricably tied to a white male predecessor. But, historically, they didn't generally take off enough to be A-listers.
You can ask if the stories were bad. You can ask if the art was bad. You can also ask whether those who were agitating for minority characters took the always-negative route. If you want to see minority characters, there must be action to support *sales* of those characters when they are presented. It isn't enough to say, "It is bad that they don't have enough minority representation." That must be coupled with, "Hey, folks! Here's some minority representation - let them know you want to see more by BUYING!" Moral change comes most quickly when it is also good business.
In the meantime, Marvel does what it can - if the current minority buying patterns are not sufficient to carry a hero on their own, they'll loop in majority fans by linking to a title that already has good sales. The run of Sam Wilson as Captain America will sell. And lots of white boys will see a patriotic black hero. And they'll see a strong female hero in Thor. And those are good things.
I'm not asserting otherwise. What I'm asserting is that those that DO start off with borrowed glory face a different, and I think harder, path to success.
Again, I have no problem with characters that sink or swim on their own merits. I personally would rather see a slew of B-Listers- short lived or long lasting- that had their own identity as opposed to a parade of "successors" to established heroes whom history tells us won't hold that position long-term. They're gimped characters from the get-go.
Minority comics fans DO vote with their dollars. There just aren't as many of us out there. Even if we ALL bought a title featuring The Falcon, it wouldn't be a top-tier comic book without some number of white readership.
To illustrate the point with history from another field: Rap- as minority-centric a genre of music as there is in the USA- didn't start raking in big numbers until young white teenagers discovered it. Industry surveys I saw back in 2006 or so indicated between 70-80% of all rap consumers were Caucasian.
Right, but what I'm saying is that there is a non-trivial number of minority readers who don't/won't buy derivative minority/female characters precisely because those characters' run in that ID will be temporary at best. They're voting "no" with their dollars because, from their perspective, the comic book company is pandering.
(FWIW, that wasn't me- when I bought Marvel & DC comics, I bought them all...or as close to it as made no difference.)
Launching a minority/female character by linking into a successful title is entirely possible without having said character actually take on the titular role in an obviously temporary stint.
