There was another Bucky introduced in the Gruenwald years, an adult black man that was going to be John Walker's (later USAgent's) sidekick when the government placed him in the chainmail tights and asked the real Cap to discontinue his activities, in another one of those attempts to ape Englehart's achievements.
The thing is, he changed his name to "Battlestar" soon after when a letter came in that said that "Buck" is a racist term for a black man. Brother, you could TASTE the panic in Gruenwald's letters pages. And anyway, it's a little embarassing to have a grown man called by the name of a dead white kid.
I don't think it would work to put someone else in the costume and call him "Captain America."
If there is a "problem" with the character at all in the modern world, it is in fact the costume, not the guy in it. Steve Rogers has been fairly consistently portrayed throughout his history as a decent man with a good grasp of what America should be about, despite the shifting winds of popular sentiment or which party happens to hold power at any given time. But it's those darn star-spangled longjohns that have at times made him a difficult character to promote, to write or to read about. There's an implied jingoism in that outfit, or at the very least an implied *pride* in something, that can be difficult to reconcile in eras where America's beliefs are shaken. In order to understand Steve, you first have to read the books, and to read the books you first have to get past those stars and stripes being shoved at you.
Whoever puts on the outfit is going to inherit that same liability, only without the upside. Because whoever it is almost certainly is NOT going to share Steve Roger's virtually unique understanding of American principles and ideals, his faith in the country's potential despite its slips, or his long history of service to its cause.
If you put a fervent patriot in the outfit, you're back to square one; promoting a jingoistic character in a time of low national confidence. If you put a rebellious, anti-establishment type in the outfit, then it just makes no sense...why would he wear the symbol of a system he deplores, except maybe to mock it, which would disgrace the character.
I think the only way it would "work" would be to give someone else the name, but not the outfit. The new outfit should reflect modern sentiment, maybe something black along the lines of USAgent. The shield is irreplaceable, so it would have to stay on, but the rest should change.
Agreed. Ironically, Captain America may actually be worse off in times of high national spirits, because then, the very unique personality traits and view on America that Steve Rogers possesses are shoved in the background. I don't entirely dislike the Kirby run (it has its moments, it's just VERY different from the Englehart run that preceded it) but Englehart was defined by the spirit of Watergate, and Kirby by the spirit of the Bicentennial. Captain America's personality disappeared and he became just another superguy, surrounded by all the tacky flag-waiving.
And hearing the Falcon cheesily introduce himself with "I, a trickster, a questioner of the ways" was nauseating.
Indeed. And yet this does bring up an interesting point. People do tend to be a product of their times, for good and ill. Except Steve Rogers.
Hmmm? Captain America's biggest personality trait is that he is an anachronism. He hates appeasement, and he always drops references to how because of the Nazis he despises the idea of might-makes-right, and is very firm and uncompromising when it comes to appeasement to people that take things by force. Captain America doesn't really have a private life, and is a very dysfunctional and lonely person when not in costume.
If Steve makes a pop culture reference, it's to Greta Garbo or Errol Flynn.
Incidentally, I was just reading a recent biography of Neville Chamberlain, which argued that he's unfairly maligned by history as an appeaser. As usual, history is far more complicated: In any conflict with the Nazis, Britain would have been whipped, and so Chamberlain appeased in order to allow Britain to re-militarize. If he really meant "peace in our time," he wouldn't have been re-arming Britain. Chamberlain's appeasement was less a cowardly, shortsighted act than a miscalculated gamble: he betted that the Nazis would be brought into conflict with Soviet Russia. If there was ever a moment Chamberlain was finished, it was when the Nazis and Russia signed the non-aggression pact.
So how is it Steve Rogers manages to live through so many eras without developing that same closed-mindedness? How is it he never gets to the point of "iPods are too much trouble to learn, I'm sticking with my CDs"? And so on. Steve's ability to adapt to cultural change is almost a superpower in itself, don't you think?
Well, again, Captain America's biggest trait is he has trouble adjusting. His subplot in the Busiek-era AVENGERS was that he had no idea how to deal with something like the Triune Understanding, which uses mass media and the press.
If there is anything that keeps Cap modern, I would have to say it is his friendship with Hawkeye. People talk about the Steve/Clint friendship like it was one-way, with Hawkeye as Captain America's pupil or something, when it really is two-way mutual respect.
Hawkeye, and later allies and friends like the Falcon and Rick Jones, have contrary personalities. That's probably what it is; my Grandpa once told me that nothing gets you old like hanging out with old people.
-I agree that, outside of Kirby, Cap has been best as an Avenger and, in the the last 20 years, I have enjoyed aspects of Busiek's (Avengers Forever, Perez run) and Bendis' work (I have read 1/2 of a new Avengers and part of my nephew's copy of the Disassembled trade)
I don't agree with the whole "Cap is best as an Avenger" perspective.
The best Captain America stories I can think of are ones where Captain America is solo or with Rick Jones or the Falcon; the reason is because the Marvel Universe has such an incredible world that really, only Captain America can play around in. Villains like AIM, MODOK, and the Cosmic Cube; Captain America is the only hero in the MU that makes sense battling a super-spy organization like HYDRA, Baron Strucker, and the sexy Madame Hydra.
Steve is a little like Batman in this regard: sure, he can be a part of the group, but he's at his best when fighting his own enemies in his own "world."
Even when Cap shows up in other comics, the moments where he really shines are solo moments: for instance, Captain America and Doctor Doom vs. the Red Skull in the Bill Mantlo issues of SUPER-VILLAIN TEAM-UP, or the "secret" flashback vs. HYDRA where he learned the Supreme Hydra was really the Space Phantom during the Englehart AVENGERS.
Speaking of Busiek's AVENGERS run...if I have any critique of it, it is that Captain America's personality dominates the group. At some level, Busiek must have known this, because come AVENGERS FOREVER, he uses the Englehart-era Captain America, who is shaken, and whose personality is less dominating. And even a couple years into Busiek's run, he has Cap leave and Wasp become leader.
I'm not saying ol' Winghead isn't great as a part of the Avengers. When Busiek said his Avengers roster would have Cap, Thor, and Iron Man, you wanted to read it because you KNEW this guy wasn't messing around.
But Cap's best moments as an Avenger have been those where he is written not as a Charlton Heston "man who is more than a man," but as another one of the characters. My favorite part of the early Roy Thomas run on AVENGERS was that, as Goliath was Avengers chairman, Cap was treated as another hero: the emphasis was on his friendship with Hawkeye and subplots like his rivalry with the Red Guardian.