Saw a tweet that stated that "anyone who found themselves with superpowers and claimed that they'd be a hero is a liar".
And... I don't completely disagree with this statement but not because of any sort of nihilistic commentary on human nature (which the tweet was implying) but because of how, the real world, we might classify who is a hero. We've seen throughout history how various figures, while they were alive, were considered:
- villains
- conspirators
- outside agitators
- terrorists
But, given time and a slight interrogation of history and context, they've been valorized as heroes (with the added bonus of having their more 'radical' POVs shunted in favor of a more palatable pedestal that also has a benefit of protecting and absolving the current systems that they fought against). A thought experiment I've been using when it comes to outlining and writing characters that are 'superheroes' is pretty simple: Who would Superman side with on the Edmund Pettus bridge?
If you don't know what happened on Bloody Sunday in Selma 1965, I recommend you look it up and get all of the primary sources from the participants of the demonstration but, cliffnotes:
Demonstrators took to the bridge to protest the shooting of a deacon - Jimmie Lee Jackson - by a state trooper. What would be a modern day "BLM" march turned 'violent' when troopers and sheriff deputies ordered them to dispersed and, when they refused, were assaulted with tear gas, billy clubs, and had police dogs sicced on them. Again, a modern day "BLM" protest.
It became a turning point for the movement, not just because of the violence wrought by the state, but also who the victims were: students. Namely teens. Kids. Having the violence broadcast nationwide brought just a semblance of empathy from the people at large.
Now, if Superman existed from the year he was conceived all the way to today, in 1965... who would he have sided with?
If no one, then who is he a hero to? Certainly not the people who are most vulnerable.
If the state, then even moreso this would be some telling symbolism of who he protects when he says 'truth, justice, and the American way'.
If he protects the protestors, that's when things get even muddier. You see, the violence from the state troopers? Wasn't against the law. It wasn't a group of rogue troopers that stepped out of line and went too far. It wasn't a group of troopers that disobeyed orders. They were, quite literally, following orders - whether explicitly or under the guise of protecting the carceral state that made segregation and Jim Crow run. If you side against their violence, you're quite literally siding against the 'rule of law' in this case. In 2023, you would be considered a hero after the fact if you were Superman but, at the time? You'd be a villain. You're going against the 'good cops' that were following orders.
Back to the tweet, that same situation is one you'd face in this very real world trying to commit to heroism.
How're you a hero beating up street level thugs when it's not against the law for big company execs to engage in practices that steal the wages of their most vulnerable employees.
Are you still a hero stopping that derailed train while existing in a world where you do or say nothing of the companies that band together in a quasi monopoly to ensure they're not responsible for the derailments nor the upkeep and maintenance that could've prevented it?
Are you truly a hero in a world where you sit by when police brutality happens?
What I mean to say is: if you're even slightly aware of the myriad of ways this world sucks and you have the power to affect change. Doing nothing won't make you a hero. And doing something certainly won't get you treated as one by the state apparatus.
So what kind of hero would you be?
