Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Who fights for truth, justice and (sometimes) the American way?

Hi all,

The boards seem pretty slow these days, so I'll use this time to bring up something I had been meaning to post for a while now.

Until I saw the old Superman TV shows and listened to the old Superman radio programs, I had always thought that truth, justice, and (sometimes) the American way was what Superman was all about -- that it was what he fought for, and that the shows' characters would have said that Superman was the champion of those things. I had only been partially right. I only found out this past year that according to the intro to the old TV and radio shows, he does those thing via his Clark Kent persona. The relevant part of the introduction says, "Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights for truth, justice, and the American way." (Bolding added for emphasis.)

I just found this surprising. It ranked right up there with learning that canon Sherlock Holmes never said, "Elementary, my dear Watson," and that Casablanca did not include the line, "Play it again, Sam."

Joy,
Lynn

I've heard that intro so many times and never even noticed that. It gives a new perspective on the conception I had of Superman and Clark Kent. Quite interesting.

I watch the old Superman cartoons a lot (okay, with my son) and I never noticed this before, because after watching one intro... you've watched them all (actually, this isn't true. During some of the ones set during WW2 his introduction changes and he's not compared to faster than a speeding train, etc. but stronger than a volcano, mighter than a tsunami or something of the sort. I'll check the extact phrasing and get back to you.)

So, does that mean that it is CLARK not SUPERMAN who should be overly honest one? Seems like L&C got it backwards, huh? Does that mean that Superman is allowed to rough up the bad guys like Batman? Hmmmmm.

You've given me something to think about, Lynn. I wonder how this slight difference in meaning would have changed Superman's canon if it had stuck?

Later...

I'm back, I was a little off on the wording but here are the intros from the old Max Fleischer cartoons (which morphed over time): (I've highlighted the parts in each paragraph which changed)

The first cartoon had a longer intro with the history of how Superman arrived on earth and grew up in an orphanage.

This is from Episode two:

The x-ray vision was removed by the third cartoon:
In a few the changed it to say he could fly:
And then by the later (WW2) ones he was no longer compared to man-made machines, but against nature:
These intros were from the 17 cartoons listed on Netflix instant list. I think there were more, I'll check my DVDs out later and let you know if there were any other different intros.

Huh! I admit that I've seen very little from Superman in media other than L&C, but I would have sworn it was Superman! The more you know...

It does have interesting implications if Superman is... exempted, shall we say, from 'truth, justice and the American way.' Conversely, it also gives more weight to the Clark Kent persona. I know that in some other universes, CK is viewed only as a disguise, not a real person (shudder), but in this definition that isn't possible. A disguise can't fight for justice, can it?

Actually, this line really defines L&C's Clark/Superman dichotomy that we know and love, doesn't it?

I think the most important thing is the "American Way", which is not necessarily something Superman, who is an international (and intergalactic) hero (in the comics) should represent. However, all-around American reporter Clark Kent can do just that.

On another note, Superman usually doesn't bother with fighting for truth and justice, but to save people's lives and property. The truth and justice aspect is much more pronounced in his work as an investigative reporter. So, yeah, it makes sense to me.

I always wondered how Superman would have developed if they had left him able to "leap tall buildings in a single bound" instead of changing the concept and making him able to fly/levitate.

Basically, you'd have Superman jumping like the Hulk. The original leaping is in keeping with the dense molecular structure idea but it isn't anywhere near as cool. Maybe they would have eventually made him run on air like the Flash, but flight is as seminal to Superman as he developed as invulnerability or X-ray vision.

I mean, has anyone ever heard of a story with a non-flying Superman? I haven't.

In the earliest stories (1939 and earl 1940s), Superman only ran and leapt; he did not fly. In one story from the 1939 daily strips, he had to go to an ocean liner at sea. His trip involved running to the coast and then swimming to the ship. I must admit that even though I knew his early limitations, the modern version(s) of him are so firmly embedded in my mind that my first reaction upon reading the strips had been, "Why are you swimming? Why not just fly there?"

Shuster and Siegel had originally tried to ground Clark's powers in (semi-believable pseudo-)science. For example, they compared his feats of strength to an ant being able to carry many times its weight. His leaping was compared to that of a grasshopper.

But I have to agree with you -- flying is definitely cooler.

Joy,
Lynn

I hadn't thought of it in those terms before, but it makes a lot of sense.

Joy,
Lynn

If I remember what I read the flight came with the first animated cartoons. The jumping looked silly so they made it flight.

Probably because you're American... Being non-American, seeing this phrase in relation to a superhero always feels odd to me. Besides, what, exactly, is the *American* way?

I had realized that the phrase would probably sound parochial and off-putting to the rest of the world; what I hadn't thought about was that it would be an apt description for Clark.

I think "The American Way" is like "family values" -- an expression that is designed to be feel-good and not intended to be examined too closely.

But if I had to give a definition of "The American Way," I would say that it is the idea that no person is inherently superior to any other, and that people should be able to live in freedom to the extent that their doing so does not abridge the freedom of others or cause grievous harm to others. As our Declaration of Independence puts it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I realize that these ideals are not exclusively American -- that many people around the world hold the same ideals. I am also painfully aware of the times when the individuals and the government of my country have fallen short of the ideals.

I don't intend this post either to be blindly patriotic or to mindlessly bash the U.S. I love my country, but I do realize that it has its share of shortcomings. I merely write this post to indicate what comes to my mind when I hear the phrase "the American Way."

Joy,
Lynn

Very well said (written), Lynn!

Please keep in mind that it was the 1930s when Superman was created. Political Correctness wasn't even a glimmer in most people's mind, America was a pretty self-centered country ( Yes, I know!) and thought itself quite self-important ( Yes, I know, this hasn't changed much either) and didn't have a problem tooting itself as the ideal country. (If I had time, I would be searching for a Face-Palm smilie.) I would hope (pray) that most of us Americans have learned a thing or two since then. There is a reason the "American Way" has dropped from Clark's/Superman's canon in the past 20 years.

You know that this is a contradiction in itself? Because, if no person is inherently superior to any other, why is it that only "all men" were created equal? And, yes, the declaration of independence was written at a time when that sentence more or less meant "all Caucasian males ware created equal", for both women and people of other ethnic backgrounds were treated as something less than them. For women's suffrage was only made official part of the law in the US with the 19th Amendment, which was passed in 1920. And segregation was only ended (officially) in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but de facto is still very much in use, as the case of Treyvon Martin shows all too obviously.

As an aside, as happy as I am to see a "black" US president, I'm still waiting for a Mrs. President to be elected.

There is no inherent contradiction, since the term "men" can also be used as a gender-neutral synonym for humanity. It has only been in the relatively recent past that the gender-neutral meaning has been deprecated. I make no claims about the original interpretation of the phrase, but when I cited it, I chose to use the gender-neutral interpretation of it. Under that interpretation, there is no contradiction.

As I mentioned before, I am aware that my country is not perfect and that it does not always live up to its ideals. I don't argue with that. Slavery was a horrendous part of that history. As I wrote previously, my post was not intended to be mindless flag-waving. (For that matter, IMHO, this MB is not the place either for flag-waving or flag-bashing of anyone's countries.) My intention was simply to answer the question you asked earlier about the meaning of the American Way.

Frankly, I'd be happier if the best person were elected. I don't care what race, gender, etc. the individual is. I will rejoice not when a female president, or a <name your category> president is elected. I'll truly rejoice when we get past all that nonsense and simply vote based on who has the best vision for the future and will be best able to implement their vision, without regard to irrelevancies such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

Joy,
Lynn

VERY well said, Lynn! I agree a hundred percent!

And who better to fight for idealism than the idealistic Clark Kent?

True, may the best person win. However, it's still a step the US has yet to make. (Not saying that the next president has to be a woman, mind you, just that it would be nice if it happened in the not-too-distant future.)

I'm well aware of the term men being used as a synonym for humans/humanity/humankind, and that most people prefer to read it that way in the given context. However, I cannot fathom that it was meant that way. It's more of an idealizing of a not-quite-ideal ideal.

About anybody's country being perfect: No country is, and those that claim to be without skeletons in the closet most certainly have many. (Turkey, anyone?) My own homeland has its own fallacies to overcome, both in the past and present, but like any other country, we have to play the hand we've been dealt.

Now on that we can agree. After all, countries and their governments are composed of human beings, with all of our frailties.

Joy,
Lynn

I agree with Lynn's interpretation of this "American way".
But even if we recognize America has sometimes an self-centred vision (like any country), the values defended in the "American Way" are seen in a universal way in my point of view; where everyone has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Being French I have never felt "offended" by this part of the phrase.