Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: MorequackQuote from user: Robb_KCarl Barks told me several times that he didn't trust most politicians, be they Democrats or Republicans, or members of any other party. And, from the things he said, I could tell that he was conservative when it came to fiscal policy, and slightly liberal, when it came to human rights. Just like my parents, and many of the other people I know in Europe, Canada and USA, people who think and talk this way, generally don't automatically vote as their political party of registration, advises on every issue, across the board. They generally vote based on their beliefs and values, on each given issue. Most of the people in my extended family are generally conservative when it comes to fiscal issues, but very liberal, when it comes to human rights. If they lived in USA, I believe they would (on the whole) be for organising a more all-enclusive healthcare system and a better education system, and giving less tax breaks to the large corporations, and cleaning up many of the loopholes and complications in the tax code. I believe that they would consider some of the measures taken to avoid having to go through regular due-process of law when confronted with "suspected terrorists", threats to individual freedom, and be against them, even if it means not "capturing" some potential terrorists, to avoid the great potential for use of "racist profiling", as those are the tactics of dictatorships.
Not to get too off topic, and not to tip my political hand too much (hah!), but your quote of: "very liberal, when it comes to human rights" is very troubling. Really!? Why do liberals have an exclusive engagement with "human rights"? This blatantly implies that liberals are caring of human rights and conservatives are not. This, of course, is absurd. It is a perfect illustration of the common illusion that has been perpetrated by the mainstream media since the early 1970s and that many people have swallowed, hook line and sinker; that Democrats are the ones who care about the poor, the downtrodden and the "undocumented" while the Republicans are the rich fat cats who mostly care about getting richer and fatter. This is why Latinos and African Americans by a huge margin are more likely to vote for a Democrat, and Democratic candidates have historically played this up for advantage.

Quote from user: Robb_KI believe that Carl Barks would probably have voted more in the Democratic camp on abortion than the current "mainstream Republican" camp, and yet, possibly closer to The mainstream Republican view than The Democratic view on fiscal policy (except that related to necessary functions, such as health care and education). This is "educated speculation". But, I don't think it is speculation to say that Barks would have considered each issue on its own merit, and not voted along party lines on every issue, like an automaton..
That's all very nice, but in reality, when voting for the main "issue," the Presidential candidate, one has to vote either Republican or Democrat. In reality, there is no political bowl of cherries. There is no in-between or parts of each or a little of both. One candidate will win and one will lose. One is a Republican and one is a Democrat.
My whole point is that Barks would NOT have voted for the Republican candidate just because the candidate was a Republican. He would have assessed what both candidates might be able to accomplish, and compared that to his own views and desires, and voted accordingly. Having known Carl somewhat, I would guess that all of the presidential candidates for whom he voted, were NOT from just one party. I'd bet the farm that he voted for FDR at least once, or maybe even twice out of that candidates 4 elections. But, of course, we will never know.

Again, I say that, in my estimation, Carl Barks would have assessed each issue independently, on its own merits, and not automatically voted along party lines. I didn't mean to imply that he was a "bleeding heart liberal" on social welfare issues. I'm not sure he'd have voted on the Democratic side with regard to welfare for undocumented aliens (for example). But, I think he'd have been fighting for the rights of a woman to decide what would be done with regards to her own body, over the rights of an unborn fetus which is less than 4 months old. This implies that he would have sided with The Republicans on some issues, and The Democrats on some issues, because (as I've stated several times), he would have considered each issue separately, according to his own moral code and judgement based on his own life experience. My points made related to "fiscal policy" and "human rights" issues were only generalities. I didn't mean to imply that he would side with one party or another on every issue in those "general categories" On the contrary, -I continue to emphasize that he was not an "automaton" for his party of registration.

Again, I say that this discussion is basically just dialogue, with no possible conclusion for the two of us. Perhaps, because the original poster, who asked the question, is a European, who has never resided in USA, has through our discussion, gained some insight into Mr. Barks' character, and that relationship to American politics during his lifetime. But, to find that out, we'll have to wait until he wakes up, tomorrow (Western European Time).

Quote from user: MorequackThat's all very nice, but in reality, when voting for the main "issue," the Presidential candidate, one has to vote either Republican or Democrat. In reality, there is no political bowl of cherries. There is no in-between or parts of each or a little of both. One candidate will win and one will lose. One is a Republican and one is a Democrat.
Precisely why there is NO decent choice.

Quote from user: MorequackQuote from user: Robb_KBarks was against tyrannical dictatorships hurting their peoples. He was also against right-wing dictatorships (and portrayed them in a bad light. He was an advocate of individual freedoms, the right of a man or woman to receive the fruits of his/her labour, and for everyone to pull his/her own weight (work for their living-and not get free handouts-assuming they are able to do their part). I don't think it can be inferred that he was a political right-winger because he portrayed Soviet-like dictators in a bad light. And, I don't think it can be assumed that he'd be against the US or state governments providing some aid to disabled people who have no other resources. He did put Scrooge in a bad light when he tried to collect money from a poor old woman.
What/who was/is a "right-wing dictator" in you mind? Anyone we know? Why are you making the association of "political right-wingers" as "Soviet-like dictators"? Clearly, you are making gross and wide-sweeping generalizations that are as half-baked as they are offensive. Why do you imply that if a "government is providing some aid to disabled people who have no other resources" that that government would not be a "right-wing" government? Clearly this is the liberal model of campaigning that suggests that conservatives care nil for the elderly and want to abolish Medicare. Please.
Clearly you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I agreed with you that Barks put only the thinnest veil over his portrayal of Soviet Unionlike (Khruschev) leaders as villains (in a bad light). The Soviet Union was a dictatorship that ruled its people with an iron fist. Right wing dictatorships also share that trait. I was only attempting to make the point that Barks also portrayed right-wing dictators in a bad light. He did NOT have an agenda to show that Communism, or left wing dictatorships were bad for their people, but made fun of dictators and cruel people, in general.

I never meant to imply that Barks was likely to be an advocate only for individual freedoms campaigned for by The Democratic Party (and that only The Democratic Party fights for individual freedoms). I meant that Barks would have been an advocate for some individual freedoms fought for more by Republicans than Democrats, and others fought for more by Democrats than Republicans.

You are reading WAY too much into what I am writing.

Quote from user: GeoXNo? Well, I suppose it depends how you look at it. To THIS socialist, the idea that the Democratic Party's economic ideals are even remotely connected to my own is truly loltastic. I mean, golly, you started by making a valid point--that political parties and the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" and whatall are not stable--but then you had to throw in that howler at the end.
Yes, I see, I'm sure it all depends on how far down into the drain hole you find yourself and how much worse it can go from there.

It hasn??t come up yet on this thread, but the topic of Politics and Disney Comics are old acquaintances. Years ago in my collecting Carl Barks comics I came across the book "How to Read Donald Duck", and while I personally disagreed with almost every single word in it, it was the first scholarly work on comics I had ever read and I came to find out was one of the first ever published.

Unknown to the authors at the time, the vast majority of the comics they where dissecting where created by Carl Barks. Now there where several issues with their analysis of Barks material (such as changes made by translators that changed various tones in some of Carl??s stories), but it??s worth noting that Carl Barks stories fueled a political analysis a continent away simply by the implications of his work. The book wasn??t called ??How to Read Mickey Mouse" after all, and although it did feature other artists we can all agree that the quality material in US Duck Comics from that era was Carl Barks.

I??d like to hear from others who read it, what their thoughts where. Geox, I am especially interested in your thoughts on that book as you are a socialist (and we oddly have the same uncommon name- I??m far right you??re far left, we could be Bizzaro World versions of each other! :P )

There is a follow up to it ??Scrooge McDuck Capitalist and Proud" that I have been dying to read but alas the last time I saw it for sale it was 300 (far too much for my stingy heart).

Here is a link to an online PDF of "How to Read Donald Duck", copies of it do pop up on ebay from time to time as well. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33788991/How-to-Read-Donald

Also, here is a link to one of the authors follow ups, after learning that most of what he was attacking was the work of one man. http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v6_2/kunzle/

And lastly here is my reply to ??The Parts That Got Left Out of the Donald Duck Book,
or: How Karl Marx Prevailed Over Carl Barks" which I??ll post on my rather empty blog. I actually already quoted a couple of paragraphs on this in my last post. http://blog.mcduckindustries.com/

All the evidence I've ever seen indicates that Barks was pretty conservative, albeit quirkily so. But one great thing about his work is that readers of ALL political persuasions can enjoy his stories. He's much like Charles Schulz in that way. In the late 60's, when American culture was tearing itself apart, it seemed that EVERYONE liked and appreciated PEANUTS.

Quote from user: Robb_KI was told he was a registered Republican, either by Carl, himself, or Garé, or Malcom Willits, or Leonard Brown, or someone.
I remember, too, that somewhere in the Carl Barks Collection, either in the essay parts or in the letters, there is a Barks quote of from the 1970s where he spoke of "us Republicans", the context being a radio speech he liked, I think ... Looked for that piece now in the Collection a bit, but coudn't find it, unfortunately. :-(

Anyway, Barks' "right-wing", "conservative" views in social and cultural matters are not really a worldshaking new discovery. That's an old and well-known hat.

Quote from user: GeoDiazI??d like to hear from others who read it, what their thoughts where. Geox, I am especially interested in your thoughts on that book as you are a socialist (and we oddly have the same uncommon name- I??m far right you??re far left, we could be Bizzaro World versions of each other!
Hah. Well, I'd need to reread the book, but I remember being not that impressed by it. There's certainly room for a cogent anti-imperialist analysis of Disney comics; as much as I like the form, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that they're unproblematic in that regard. And I do think Dorfman and Mattelart made some cogent points here and there. What I mainly remember, though, is being annoyed that they did not seem aware that Disney comics are published by semi-autonomous entities and written by many different writers, which means that their apparent assumption that they must represent the unfiltered ideological viewpoint of The Walt Disney Company is just obviously wrong. A thoughtful study of the ways in which ideology does filter through, and the ways that it gets distorted as it does so, could be very enlightening. But Dorfman and Mattelart were just interested in writing a polemic. I'm sympathetic to that, but really, guys, when your underlying methodology is so distorted in such obvious ways, it's not going to pass muster with anyone at all familiar with the subject matter.

There's also a critique of the book by Geoffrey Blum in one or another of Gladstone's CBL in Color volumes that's worth checking out.