March 5, 2012 Hundred-Year-Old Racist Superman . . . from Mars
Superman wasn’t the first alien to gain superpowers by hopping planets. That honor goes to John Carter, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ pre-Tarzan pulp star. He premiered in All-Story magazine a hundred years ago last month. This Friday Carter takes his first superpowered leap to the big screen.
In 1939, Jerry Siegel offered a “Scientific Explanation for Superman’s Amazing Strength”: “The smaller size of our planet, with its slighter gravity pull, assists Superman’s tremendous muscles in the performance of miraculous feats of strength!”
But Burroughs beat him by more than a quarter century. John Carter’s powers are a product of “the lesser gravitation and lower air pressure on Mars.” A “very earthly and at the same time superhuman leap” carries Carter “fully thirty feet into the air” and lands him “a hundred feet” away.
Before 1912, the 20th century had never seen a hero fling himself through the air before. And since John Carter is beating Man of Steel to theaters by more than a year, he bounds over Superman in the 21st century too.
Pulitzer Prize winner Michael Chabon (who’s always had a thing for Martian scifi) co-wrote the screenplay. It’s his first film credit since 2004’s Spider-Man 2, the former high mark for superhero excellence (pre-The Dark Knight, of course). Readers of Thrilling Tales (the retro-pulp issue of McSweeney’s that Chabon edited back in 2003) know the first chapter of his sadly unfilmed screenplay “The Martian Agent, A Planetary Romance.” Chabon told me he has no intentions of completing the novelization, so his John Carter revisions are the closest we’re going to get.
Given that Burroughs’ first Carter novel, A Princess of Mars, is one of the most hilariously racist novels I’ve ever read, I trust Chabon had his delete key in full working order before opening director Andrew Stanton’s script.
Carter, a former Confederate Captain, is a “southern gentleman of the highest type.” In fact, “slaves fairly worshipped the ground he trod.” Once he makes the magical leap to Mars (or “Barsoom,” the quasi-oriental-sounding name Burroughs gives the planet), he wars with a race of four-armed savages, each a “huge and terrific incarnation of hate, of vengeance and of death.” If the connection to the so-called savages of the western plains is too subtle, then please note that Captain Carter was battling a band of Apaches seconds before his apparent, planet-flinging death.
Barsoom also hosts a race of four-armed white gorillas, a funhouse reflection of those trod-worshipping slaves freed after the Captain’s Confederacy lost its War Between the States. There’s even a human-looking race of a once great but now tragically fallen civilization. Burroughs doesn’t describe any antebellum mansions in the ruins, but a 1912 reader would have recognized the vanquished South in Barsoom’s dusty riverbeds.
Carter, a well-bred Virginian, arrives ready to rule. Those ferocious-looking Martians are “infinitely less agile and less powerful, in proportion to their weight, than an Earth man.” Carter doubts “were one of them suddenly to be transported to Earth he could lift his own weight from the ground.” Mars, with its impossibly arrested climate and cultures, are his to conquer. John Carter is the ultimate colonizer. Mars was literally made for him.
I don’t know what the screenplay looked like before Chabon started his repairs, but Stanton is already planning two sequels. Burroughs wrote ten, but Disney wants to rake in $700 million first. That’s less than Spider-Man 2, but still a high bar for even an interplanetary superman to clear.
Will Disney’s John Carter also clear the racial politics of the Burroughs novel?
Well, let’s see. Martian women wear “flowing Middle Eastern garb,” and their cities are modeled on the ancient ruins of Petra in modern Jordan. Chabon likens those four-armed Tharks to 19th century “Afghani tribesmen,” and Stanton gave them the lean look of “desert-dwelling people,” specifically “the Masai warriors and the Aborigines.” Plus, for musical icing, that’s Led Zeppelin’s “Kashmir” playing over the trailer.
So what do India, Afghanistan, Jordan, Kenya, and Australia have in common? They were all British colonies. Disney’s Mars is the ultimate melting pot of non-Western “others.” Which is the scifi way of saying: “They all look the same to me.”
[Addendum: Lynn Collins, who plays the titular Princess, self-identifies as “Irish and Cherokee Indian.” She also cried the first time she read the script. Why? Because she “felt its parallel to Earth was so poignant.”]
Stanton and Chabon let Carter remain a Civil War vet, but the wars that will inevitably haunt their film are Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the trailer, if Carter does not defeat his enemy on Mars, that enemy will attack Earth next. It’s a one-sentence summary of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. The war on Mars sounds a lot like the War on Terrorism.
In a creepy way, that’s appropriate. Burroughs’ character was a hit in part because Carter reflected U.S. foreign policy of 1912. England was done with imperialism, and America was its heir. Our internal frontier was closed. The government fought its last battle with Native tribes in 1898 and seized the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam the same year. To expand our naval capabilities, we instigated the 1903 secession of Panama from Columbia and the construction of the Panama Canal. When Burroughs’ Martian canals were premiering in All-Story, our own canal was just two years from completion. America was the newest global power. And John Carter was our very own superman.
A hundred years later and he still is. It’s not just the Martian weather that never changes. For good and bad, superheroes remain America’s favorite way of mythologizing itself.
Tags: 1912, Afghanistan, Andrew Stanton, colonialism, disney, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Michael Chabon, Princess of Mars, Superman, war on terror
- 18 comments
- Posted under Uncategorized
Permalink # Mark Holmes said
Let’s see, John Carter is a, heaven forbid, unreconstructed Virginian who after the war travels to Mars and becomes best friends with a 15 foot tal, four armed, green alien. Racist author!
The humanoid races on Mars are Red, Black, Yellow and White.
The Reds are portrayed as Noble descendents of the other three races. Interbreeding amongst races produces a better human. That author must be RACIST!
The Black race, known as the First Born are the rulers of Mars pulling the strings of their puppets, wait for it, the White race. Who are cannibals.
Blacks ruling Whites. written in 1912. We should burn this authors books.
By the way the Yellow race was the most technologically advanced.
By the end of the third book the Virginian brings all the races together and forms a United Nations of sorts.
Maybe you should re read the books without preformed suppositions.
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
I’ve only read the first John Carter novel, though my opinions are influenced by the first Tarzan novel too. From your description of the 3rd JC, Burroughs is doing some fascinating and commendable reimagining of his period’s race relations.
As far as burning books? You lost me. Shakespeare is also a racist author, and I hope readers continue to buy both his and Burroughs’ books for decades to come.
I do not believe that loving a book requires you to ignore its faults. Just the opposite. If you love it, you are obliged to deal with it more fully.
Permalink # Michael D. Sellers said
“Hilariously racist?” What is hilarious is your lack of actual capacity to get your facts and analysis straight before calling anyone a racist. Just because he is from Virginia and Burroughs says slaves loved him does not make him a racist. There is ample evidence to prove conclusively that he is not a racist: Exhibit A — he falls in love with a “red martian” woman — how is that racist? And in 1912, a marriage to, for example, a Native American or native of India would be considered scandalous by a racist. Exhibit B, this passage from Gods of Mars: “”In that little party there was not one who would desert another; yet we were of different countries, different colours, different races, different religions – and one of us was of a different world.” You really do Burroughs, Carter, and anyone from the south a disservice. Wake up.
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
As I said, I haven’t read any of the sequels, but the passage you cite above is excellent– a real reversal of the colonialist tone of the first novel.
Your point about Red Martians is reasonable, but the princess seems more akin to the antebellum South to me than to great plains Indians. She is a product of civilization while the Tharks are savages. I read her redness as more about the scifi setting than coded race. But, as I said, your reading is reasonable too.
I, by the way, live in Virginia.
Permalink # Claude Parish said
Ignorance of literature is no excuse to label everything you don’t understand ‘racist’. Burroughs, himself, was far from racist. In an era where most of the fictional heroes were white, Burroughs gave Tarzan a black African adopted brother. When this brother was killed in a hunt, the tribe made Tarzan their chief. The black pirates of Mars may not have been dark brown, but actually black in color. All your braying aside, the Barsoom series not only relied on different races to drive the stories, it revelled in them. Throwing the racist bomb into a series that you’ve read so little of kind of waters down your point so much that even the bitterness has no flavor.
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
You and the previous comment writers are doing an excellent job of providing specific counter evidence from ERB’s later novels. I’m impressed and pleased that a larger view of his work may offer a more humane view of him as a writer.
But can you concede that at least the first JC and Tarzan novels are a little problematic?
Also, you might reread my post and your comment and then reconsider the use of the terms “bitterness” and “braying.”
Permalink # Claude Parish said
I would venture to say that I paid more attention to your post than you paid to the ERB books you say you’ve read.
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
And yet you missed that I was writing only about A Princess of Mars and that I call only it, not Burroughs or any of his other novels, racist.
Carter calls the green Martians “huge and terrific incarnation[s] of hate, of vengeance and of death” (23), and Burroughs tells the reader in the prologue that “slaves fairly worshipped the ground [Carter] trod” (v).
You don’t have to call these passages racist, but can’t you recognize how someone else reasonably might?
Permalink # robyneleanor said
Or maybe you had an agenda, I reread the first book after this article and your argument is still not plausible. John Carter is not racist nor is anything in the book, Hell even Dejah Thoris the damsel in distress is a badass. Or did you miss the part 4 chapters in where he an Thoris are discussing the terrible nature of man and John himself Criticizes the Racism.
This was written in 1912 he had to use certain wording when working with earth but once on mars he only uses proper wording. These books are progressive not racist
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
Not sure what Dejah’s badassery has to do with the topic of racism. Or what exactly you mean by proper wording. But I’m glad you reread A Princess of Mars and enjoyed it. I certainly enoyed it. I haven’t opened it again in a while so, no, I don’t recall the scene you mention. But it’s not a simple yes/no question. A text can contain contradictions. I pointed out passages that were racist; you pointed out one that was anti-racist. That’s not really surprising. My agenda is to both enjoy the novel and to acknowledge its problems. For me, the second actually increases the first.
Permalink # Calin said
It should be pointed out that Burroughs was not from the South. He was born in Chicago and lived his whole life in the North or West of the USA. He served briefly in the US cavalry in Arizona. His father was a Civil War veteran on the UNION side. Get some information before twisting the facts to fit a pre-made “theory”. When I read the Mars books I saw them as Mr. Sellers does — as a bringing together of varous races in a common cause.
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
Actually his pro-South attitude was reflective of the entire country at that time. Princess of Mars was published two years before the film Birth of a Nation was released. It was such a blockbuster, it prompted the KKK to reform not just in the South but throughout America, hitting around 5 million members by the early 1920’s.
Burroughs was also an advocate of eugenics who was (according to his biographer) obsessed with the purity of his Anglo Saxon bloodline and believed the unfit should be weeded out (the biographer likens him to Adolf Hitler on this one point). This, disturbingly, was a common attitude at the time.
That said, a number of scholars report a similar point that you and Mr. Sellars raise, that his later novels (my comments were specific to A Princess of Mars) contain a wide mix of attitudes, some of them quite progressive. I’m pleased to hear this.
Permalink # Ken Arromdee said
I’ll also add that Afghanistan was not a British colony, and Jordan didn’t become one until 1922.
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
Afghanistan was a British protectorate (puppet government) from 1878 to 1917.
Permalink # Young Nations Rise said
Basically here’s the truth. I watched the Walt Disney adaptation, and thought to myself “wow, this is one of the most subliminally racist pieces of film I ever seen. ” Then I Googled ‘John Carter racism’ and found the worm whole!!! This forum and many others.
Too many examples of racism in the film to mention, it’s so obvious guys… c’mon. As New Yorkers would say, “Get da fcuk outta here!!”lol
It’s a racist film, there’s no doubt about that, my only concern is that Disney would pour $800 down its throat to give it life!! Like the film itself says, “To truly demoralize a nation requires a spectacle on the grandest scale…” -From the film John Carter (2012) Blue eyes, natives, drum beating, savage behavior, abuse of offspring, blah, blah, blah…. getting a headache. Regurgitation of the same old stuff.
Cudos for trying Disney, but this time you failed and lost hundreds of millions of recession spent dollars!! Better luck next time I guess. If you’re going to support racism, at least stand up to it. Perhaps a children’s adaptation of “Mein Kampf” is on the cards for Disney 2013… better dust off your swastikas kids!!!!!
Permalink # Luther Bliss said
ERB was not a racist but he strongly read society in terms of race and evolution – which is why he was a eugenicist and promoted those views in his Venus series.
He was from a generation, class and gender that believed the closing of the American Frontier would rob white men of their chance to develop their innate warrior instincts that allowed the white race to assume their natural place as Aristocratic Warlords – allied with, but still ruling – other races that had war-like virtues (Arabs and Native Americas). ERB idealized the Lost Cause of the Confederacy – despite his own father being a Union veteran – because he saw them as Warrior Aristocrats.
ERB idealized warriors – even though he deserted the Military Academy he was sent to and then used his father’s influence to escape an ill-planned Army enlistment. When WWI and WWII occurred he wrote virulently (and violently) jingoistic Tarzan stories. He also hated unions, communism, Russia, drug-riddled Hollywood liberals and the homeless – and wrote novels and newspaper columns to let you know this.
His eugenics, militarism, fears of decadence and effeminacy, hatred of communism, and idealization of womanhood (a whole other topic!) make ERB a ‘progressive conservative’ – a popular political stance of the early 1900s that in its worst form becomes fascism (usually after a lost war).
Screaming about race seems to be a popular American past-time but don’t let this distract from equally important questions about gender, politics and violence.
PEACE
Permalink # Chris Gavaler said
As an American, I’m happy to scream about gender, politics, and violence as well as race–a grand slam when it comes to superheroes. You appear to know significantly more than I do about ERB than I do, Luthor. Though given your summary of his eugenics and other views, I’m not sure in what sense one could say he’s not racist? It is good to note, however, that he was not out of the ordinary for this time and place.
Permalink # Joseph Schmoe said
ERB: racist pulp writer; smart businessman.
John Carter: awful and racist cartoon; deserved to tank.
Luther B.: Apologist. Likely supports Trump.