Another Post About Krakoa

The Krakoa status quo in the X-books continues to generate a lot of discussion online. One of the arguments I've seen lately, revolving mostly around the books written by Tini Howard (Excalibur and X-Corp), is whether the books are following the thinking, "Colonialism and/or Capitalism is OK, as long as the right people are doing it." 

I've just seen bits and pieces online, but in the first case, the argument seems based on how Excalibur has essentially taken control of Otherworld, and put crazy-ass Jamie Braddock on the throne. OK, they didn't want Arthur or Merlin or whoever, but if Krakoa is so progressive and forward thinking, maybe encourage a representative form of government? But if you give the peasantry a voice, they might not go along with what Krakoa wants, so that's no good, is it?

I'm less clear on X-Corp, although there's definitely something about using the Madrox dupes as an unpaid, generally expendable labor force that seems to garner no benefits whatsoever. Unless you count Jamie Prime occasionally sending one of them to his kid's birthday party in his place. Which I wouldn't, but your mileage may vary.

Part of the issue is, the notion of "it's OK if the right person does it," is baked into the very concept of superheroes. Superheroes are traditionally vigilantes. When Spider-Man leaves a purse snatcher dangling upside-down from a light pole, he has no official legal standing. Ditto when Golden Age Superman busts into the governor's mansion and abducts the man to rush him to prison and make him cancel an execution. The X-Men were referred to as "outlaws" for most of Claremont's first run as writer.

In the real world, at least here in the U.S., vigilantes are these dipshit crackers walking around with AR-15s, who shoot the first black person they see in a place they don't want them, and then claim self-defense. They don't seem to be trying to help or protect anything but their ego and sense of superiority. In other words, real world vigilantes are terrible. In superhero comics, we roll with it. Partially because we know the protagonist's thoughts, partially because centralized authority (police, governments) are shown as inherently untrustworthy. Partially because superheroes are presented as reactive. Spider-Man sees a guy steal someone's purse before he webs him up. 

In one of the earliest Lee/Ditko stories, he webs up a bunch of guys hanging around outside a jewelry store. They rightfully point out they've committed no crime and call for the police, which forces Spider-Man to flee, kicking himself for being a dumbass. Even though the cop acknowledges those guys were probably planning a robbery, they hadn't done anything yet, and so Spider-Man had no business acting. Especially since he's just some guy in a mask, granted authority by no one other than his own sense of responsibility.

But Krakoa, even if it was formed to stave off an emerging machine singularity (reactive), is still trying to change things. Spider-Man isn't trying to change society by stopping purse snatchers, or even Sandman when he robs an armored car. Neither is Superman when he punches a giant robot. Mutantkind, by forming their own nation, their own society, which then takes a role at the forefront of not just world politics, but galactic politics, is trying to change things. It's a vastly bigger scope, affecting more people. That's fine, it can be an interesting story - not like this is the first post I've done about Krakoa - but the question of whether the ends justify the means, or if all that matters is whose finger is on the trigger, becomes a bit more important.

As with everything related to Krakoa, I wonder whether the creative teams established all this for the audience to critique, or whether they don't see any of it as wrong. Does Howard, for example, writing the book with the notion there's anything wrong with Excalibur just deciding Jamie's the new king, even though he's kind of nuts and kind of a sadist? Or are we meant to read it as tacit support because the protagonists are doing it? When Benjamin Percy writes X-Force as a covert kill squad that is seemingly beholden to no one, does he actually think that's a good thing for Krakoa to have, so long as they rap Hank McCoy on the nose with a newspaper (while not really punishing or curtailing his power) when he tries to make an entire nation into zombies?

There are definitely fans who take the approach anything Krakoa does is good and fine and A-OK. Like wiping out artificial intelligences because they could be a threat to mutants and don't count as people anyway. And I'm sitting here thinking, those are the exact same arguments guys like Senator Kelly and Peter Gyrich used to make for creating Sentinels to hunt down mutants. But I guess we can't blame the creative teams for fans being imbeciles.

For myself, I feel like if the writers legitimately intend to show the mutants have formed something better than human societies on Krakoa, it would make more sense to show them overcoming the forces aligned against them (ORCHIS, Merlin, various bigoted corporations) without resorting to playing their games. Right now, it feels like Krakoa does the same morally questionable things, they just do them better. (And given their apparent continued inability to destroy ORCHIS' space station/Dyson Sphere or whatever, maybe not even better). Wouldn't them not even needing to stoop to the sort of underhanded tactics of mentally manipulating someone to get them to give up their secrets or allies be even more impressive? A real, "We've evolved beyond your petty games," kind of moment.

Assuming, of course, the creative teams are actually trying to show Krakoa is something better. If the point is mutants are making a lot of the same mistakes and either can't recognize it or can't pull out of the tailspin, then keep doing what you're doing, I guess.