Darth Kush,
I'm well versed in racism and how it works, both academically and practically. When talking about the Marvel execs, we weren't talking about networking/de facto issues with creators, we're talking about prioritizing of projects. That is naturally, and they stated explicitly, based on how they thought the projects would be perceived, not on who they knew, right?
Also, you're reading into my statements. Just because something is anti-white doesn't mean anything more than "against whites." It doesn't mean against all whites, it doesn't mean reverse racism, it doesn't mean unfairly anti-white, it doesn't mean untruthfully anti-white, it doesn't mean I didn't like it/thought it was vile, it doesn't mean it wasn't successful, it doesn't mean any of the points you're addressing. All your statements are factual, but the book is still consistently against whites, and you've said nothing to contradict that, only justify it. The justifications for it are no more comforting for them than they would be for us.
I keep coming back to the crafty because inclusion is such a big part of my life now, the idea of characterizing it as some kind of skillful manipulation really is ludicrous to me. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Edit:
The reason this is an issue for me, why I keep derailing the thread with it, is because I think if Hudlin had a more inclusive Panther, with all of the other greatness of his run, he would still have a solo book today.
I'm not sure what you mean by anti-white now. Your reply here was a bit all over the place for me. I will say that I don't believe that Hudlin's books were "against" whites, based on your definition (s) or otherwise. As I've said before, I don't think white characters were the center of his books or were featured as prominently as they are in just about every other comic book. I also think his willingness to point out the history of Western relations with Africa ticked some fans off and since they can't dispute what he wrote some just decide to call it anti-white to delegitimize or ignore what he said.
With the crafty comment, I don't get why you are up in arms about that still. I explained what I meant by that. There was nothing hostile or malicious in what I felt Priest did. I also don't see it as simply 'inclusion' but an attempt to get around some white fears about reading a book starring a black character. So IMO he was working within the racial strictures of white fandom, in an attempt to get more white fans aboard. When you look at his run, some sixty issues I think the idea worked, for a while. Priest was trying to find a way to appeal to a market or niche of white readers. There was no more manipulation involved in that than there would be for any trying to sell to other nice markets. Of course I felt there was a racial dimension in this instance, but there are racial dimensions in other appeals to niche markets too.
As for Hudlin, his run was about the same and Panther achieved a level of
mainstream success that even Priest's, or any other Panther writers, did not.
People like to attack Hudlin quite a bit and blame him for all of Panther's woes, but seem to forget that title did worse under the two white writers that followed him, Maberry and Liss. Now we can debate why that is, certainly some might argue that Maberry, working with a female Panther, had an especially hard job selling a black and female character. But this was not the case with Liss. And I would argue that both post-Hudlin writers employed the 'inclusive' (i.e. more white people) approach that you think would have kept Panther still selling right now.
Maberry moved away from any pointed critiques of the West and focused on Wakandan internal politics. Also white villains Dr. Doom and The Broker (Declun) featured prominently during his run, the DoomWar series, as did the Fantastic Four and X-Men. With Klaws of the Panther, he paired Shuri with Wolverine, Ka-Zar, Spider-Man, and Black Widow (I think). Under Liss, most of T'Challa's Wakandan past and ties were stripped away and he was sent off to Hell's Kitchen 'to find himself'. More non-blacks/non-Africans were in his supporting cast, including Sofia, who became his sidekick. He also squared off against white villains like Vlad, Hunter, Kraven, American Panther, and finally the Kingpin. And he teamed up, reluctantly with Storm, Luke Cage, and Spider-Man (if I recall correctly).
Both Maberry and Liss used a lot of white villains against Panther yet they are not upbraided for it like Hudlin was, and when I think about Hudlin's run, outside of his first arc, how many white villains did he use at all? I think the thing that incurs the wrath of some white fanboys is really not Hudlin's usage of white villains but his political spin on Panther. Once again I don't see that take as all that much different than what Priest wrote, except in tone.
To wrap this up, the inclusive approach didn't net Panther's books any more readers, and I would argue that what Maberry (in particular) did to T'Challa in DoomWar and then the move to Hell's Kitchen shed some of the new readers that Hudlin brought to the character. To be fair, Hudlin deserves some blame for setting up the Dark Reign storyline, but Maberry carried it forward to lackluster results. And then Marvel editorial (not blaming Liss) compounded it with moving Panther to Hell's Kitchen.
To now be fair with Marvel editorial, I do think that they are trying to find ways to make Panther more appealing to recalcitrant white fanboys, but so far the efforts have either undercut the character making him no more desirable or interesting or have pissed off Panther's remaining fans.
And when you look at the state of black superheroes, and superheroes of color in general, as solo stars, Panther's fate has been very similar. So how much of it is a lack of an 'inclusive' approach or disinterest in heroes of color. Despite his spotty record, T'Challa has been one of the more successful black solo series superheroes, and all of the writers deserve credit for that, Priest and Hudlin especially.
