jimnms, having seen the movie, I can see why people are reacting this positively to it. Have you seen it? Where you have or havent, consider the following.

You are right that this isn't the first black superhero movie. If you ignore comedies starring goofy concept heros, the list of movies narrows. Then, consider movies with black super heros who are not anti-heroes (Spawn, Blade). Why this distinction? Anti-heroes are great, but they aren't characters for a general young audience to aspire to. To notice that the majority of main character superheroes in movies are either partially a joke or a dark/brooding/scary/threatening/antisocial hero might be a drag. especially when you compare it to the pool of white super heroes who aren't (most of them). That's important.

First movie with a mostly black cast? No, but how many such movies arent about slavery, inner city gangs, extreme poverty, surviving racism, genocide or third world conflict. How many are almost purely optimistic blend of science fiction and the beauty of African culture? How many imagine what an African country unmolested by colonialism might look like in the future, where its citizens were allowed to reach their highest potential in terms of culture, government and technology? This is in part what the Afro-futurism science fiction genre is about and its a very rare genre to make it to film.

Especially a film that has a budget of $ 200 million dollars. That budget is important. It says that at this point in history, the largest (maybe?) movie studio recognizes that the public wants to see black characters in this light. That's a big deal too.

And considering how well this movie is doing at the box office, Black Panther is a signal of whats to come. More stories about inspirational black characters told at this kind of block buster scale.

Does that make a bit more sense? I'm sure there are other reasons; one being its a really good movie! Hope this helps.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are many people living in poverty in Kazakhstan because a small number of people can afford $66,000 cakes.

Want to cut down the number of deaths by firearms? Stop tolerating shit like this:

"Shane Patrick Boyle, a founder of Zine Fest Houston, died on March 18 after his GoFundMe campaign to pay for insulin came up $50 short. Alec Raeshawn Smith, age 26, was found dead in his apartment on June 27. He was rationing his insulin after he aged out of his parent’s insurance coverage."

After everything is said and done, desperation/poverty is what should be looked at the hardest. Nothing makes people go apeshit as much as intolerable living conditions.

Universal background checks, bans on high cap mags, etc -- that's just doctoring around the edges. Get the Works Progress Administration going again. And while you're at it, revive the CCC and the PWA as well.

Aside from atrocious working hours and societal pressures, life in Japan is a lot less desperate than in most other countries. The low unemployment alone does wonders.

Bob, do you really think you can politicise Weinstein in defense of Trump here? Of all places?
You should know better.
They're both pieces of shit that need to be fired and sued into poverty.

My post was in the context of mass murder and gun regulation. Blaming the gun, fearing the tool and having a knee jerk response to do 'something' to avoid something like this - I think leads to initiatives that just will not have any true effect unless we examine everything at play here. People get very frustrated and want solutions right away. Gun regulation is an easy out. But in the end, what really needs to be looked at is mental health issues, poverty issues, resource access issues, venue security and education for more returns on your investment. People intent on mass murder are just not going to be deterred or hindered by regulations.

@jwray I think genetic factors play a role in how aggressive someone is, I just think that in a society as genetically diverse as the US it will be impossible that that is the difference compared to other countries. My guess is that genes only explain a small part of gun violence, and no more than in other countries.

I think the vast majority of the high gun violence can be explained by culture. The US is a dog eat dog world. The mindset of the country seems to be Ann Randish / Neo Liberal / Right compared to similar countries in the rest of the world. The US seems to prefer personal freedom over common good.

In a country with that state of mind, you tend to get that everyone fights for themselves and there is less willingness to compromise. Everyone becomes defensive. Throw in poverty (another part of the same mindset) and guns and you get an explosive mix.

It is a classic prisoner dilemma. Everyone would be better off if they cooperate, yet because of lack of trust everyone defects.

Japan is one of the many places that shows what you can achieve with more social safety. It costs higher taxes and less personal freedom, you get back less death.

Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.

Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.

You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.

The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.

And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.

And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.

You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.

tl;dr

There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.

EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.

And he is not a poor man, then, is he?

He may not have a lot of money, but he has a buttload of choice.

Poor people don't feel like they have choices.

Money isn't the only way to determine poverty.

I'll bet your buddy doesn't describe himself as "poor." That guy is RICH.

Seriously, he's taking a shit on "purist liberals"?

Remind me again, who was speaking up loud and clear about the danger of running another corporatist against a right-wing populist? Who was that again? Was it the strategists and consultants of the DNC? Was it all the celebrities who were „with her“?

Or was it maybe those liberal idiots whose candidate is, I don't know, the most popular politician in the country? Sanders gets cheers from Trump voters at townhalls in red states, and you're putting the blame for Trump's election at the feet of purist liberals?

Honestly, mate. You want to know what a neoliberal disaster looks like? Look at at the White House. Neoliberal policies are the breeding ground of right-wing populists. You think someone like Trump gets elected because of his convincing policy proposals? Right-wing populists are the answers to „centrist“ policies that enrich the few at the cost of the many. Everyone knows the effects, from widescale poverty, historic inequality, the opioid epidemic, all the way to the two-tiered justice system with fraudsters and torturers running free while not being able to pay a parking tickets gets you jailed.

Too abstract for you, Bill? Then look at Detroit. Look at Cleveland. Is that enough of a visual representation of what a neoliberal disaster looks like?

In this situation, they decided to run a corporatist, with the message „America is already great“. How was that supposed to resonate with the working stiff, Bill? The people whose despair is the main driver behind the opioid epidemic, as Case-Deaton has shows us in such detail. Who had the glorious idea to run exclusively on identity politics and ignore the economic plight of the lower class?

Was that the purist liberals, Bill?

Did the purist liberals run a campaign whose own people, if „Shattered“ contains any truth at all, described it as nothing short of a disaster? Even Clinton's own people didn't seem to know why she was running, and were toying with the idea of just going with „it's her turn“. Seriously, the way they describe Clinton's paranoia and refusal to interact with her own staff makes it sound like her campaign was not much less of a clusterfuck than Trump's presidency, from an organizing point of view.

But yeah, go ahead and blame the purist liberals. And Comey, while you're at it. And Russia. And Jill Stein. And fake news. And WikiLeaks. And sexism. Anything but the DNC and their corporate candidate.

Let me know when you're done, maybe then we can have a proper post-mortem of how the Democrats managed to lose the White House, Congress, most state legislatures and Governorships. And we'll start from the top, because we have a saying in German: „der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf her“. Maybe you can get an option to vote against Wall Street, against the war on drugs, against big pharma, against the MIC, and against the destruction of our biosphere. Because you sure as hell didn't have one this time.

In terms of the UK, your average house price was under £10 000 in the 70s. If wages had increased at the same rate as house prices have increased, which is not an unreasonable request, especially if you're mocking them for not having the money, then the average wage would be £87 000. Alternatively, if house prices had increased at the same rate as wages have, the average house would be worth around £60 000. It's no good talking about people buying iPhones when that disparity exists - if anything, the iPhones help distract them from their poverty.

It's been rigged for 40 years now, bob. Who do you think a landlord/renter economy benefits more - the young or the old? You are blind to the reality of life for people just starting out.

Sooner or later, civilisation is going to have to change to account for this. You can call me a lefty all you like, but the numbers don't lie - this isn't sustainable, the cost of living does not match full time pay for a huge number of people, including necessary and skilled jobs like nurses and teachers (in the UK).

It's no longer about aspiration, or working harder at school. Average people are struggling and that should be a concern to you if you care about society at all. In fact, if you're a die-hard, card carrying, flag waving capitalist it should worry you. Landlords aren't wealth creators.

My point, Cuba's health care system provides better results for 1/10 the cost, even though their patients are almost all living well below what we call the poverty level and with the constant stress of living under communism.

That is objective fact, not Michael Moore make believe.

The point that a nation full of poverty with hugely less spending...has a better life expectancy than you do?

Who cares about what they're doing with their lives, shithole or no. They still get to live longer than you do, who gives a shit how.

How can you not look at ANY American system (because the same results were there pre-obamacare, rest assured.) and not realize how flawed that is?

Lets even just say.. "You spend more, it should be better", capitalism at its finest... but it's not. That's the point. You're spending ten times as much on shit, but your result is the same if not worse. That means either you need to spend fucking less on that kinda shit (because obviously, if cuba can find the exact same drugs for less, I'm sure the place that makes them can find a way.) Or you need to start living until 102 to justify the price tag.

@bcglorf

i don't think using @drradon 's example of anarchy a good use as a rebuttal.

now may be larken rose's vision is an extreme example,taken from the von mises institute,and where they dreamily offer a counter to police with a "non-aggression principle".while cute and adorable,humans tend to be far more vicious and violent in nature,especially when desperate.

but again,i think our respective approaches to authority will not find common ground here.

i do not seek a leader,but i am ok with a representative,though i do not seem to have any in my government at the moment.

i find it curious,amazing and not a little disturbing just how easily people will quietly,and tacitly accept a police that has become more and more draconian,violent and aggressive while SIMULTANEOUSLY decreasing the citizens rights to protect themselves,defend themselves and resist unlawful police practices.

because they simply change the law to make what WAS illegal...legal.with a stroke of a pen.

and i simply cannot respect when an american says,without any sense of justice or history,to just sit down,shut up and do what you are told.

while claiming they are a patriot,waving their american flag made in china.

the history of law enforcement in this country reveals that their main job,their main focus and duty is NOT to the poor,the dispossessed or the marginalized.

the police's job is to protect those who hold assets,who have money and wield political power.

and before you say anything,i am quite aware that there are some,and they are the majority,who do their job with honor and distinction.my argument is not about singular police officers but rather the systematic problems inherent in the system.

lets take my city for example.
i am blessed enough to live adjacent to a very wealthy and influential housing development.

average police response time?=7 minutes.

right down the street,not 10 miles down the road,is a depressed area of town.industry and manufacturing abandoned that area 20 years ago.it is stricken with prostitution,heroin addicts and abject poverty.

average police response time?=22 minutes

yet the main police station is in THAT area.

or should i bring up the history of american labor movement?
where the coal miners in west virginia decided to strike,and because the owners of the mines were politically connected.the governor sent in the state police to...and this should send chills down your spine...shoot any miners unwilling to go back to work.

and they did.
they murdered any coal miner still willing to stand up against the owners of the mine,and this included women and children.

now lets examine that for a minute.
workers for a coal mine decided to strike for better working conditions (which were horrible) and actually have a day off,besides sunday (because:god).

the owner of the mine,who was losing immense of amount of money due to zero production of coal,called the governor to have the state police,a civil institution,sent in to put those people down.to force them to either get back to work or face violence.

*now the owner brought in his own mercenary group to assist in the process of intimidation,strong arm tactics and violence.

i will add one more story that is personal,and comes from my own family,and may possibly explain my attitude towards police in general.

my father was born in 1930,in alton illinois.
now that small town had been hit particularly hard during the depression.my father spoke of not having indoor plumbing until he went into the navy,and how the floors in his childhood home were simple boards over dirt.

he grew up extremely poor,and my grandfather struggled to find steady work,and i gather from what my father told me.my grandpa made bootleg beer out of the bathtub.so he and his 6 brothers and 1 sister had to bathe in the mississippi river while grandpa tried to make money by selling illegal hooch.

my father also regaled me with stories of the chores he had as the youngest of 8 kids.it was his job every morning to head to the train tracks and pick the coal that dropped from the coal carts.(which he admitted to being lazy and stole directly from the very full coal cart itself while his brother kept an eye out for the station master).

my point is that my father grew up in desperate and poor times.

but one story always stood out,and i think it is because it has a wild west feel to it that always transfixed me,and i made him tell me the story over and over as a child.

when times are tough,people will do whatever they have to in order to survive,so my grandfather making illegal hooch was not the only illegalities being played out in that small town.neighbor upon neighbor did what they had to,and most were considered criminals in the eyes of the state.

so i guess one of my grandpa's friends was on the run from the law,and sought refuge at my grandpa's home.which he allowed,because neighbors take care of neighbors,at least they used to.

well,in a small town everybody knows everybody,and eventually three police officers showed up at my grandpa's house,and demanded that he turn over (i forgot the guys name).

and i remember the pride on my fathers face whenever he retold this story....

my grandfather stood tall on the top of his stairs facing his front door,holding his gun he was given during WW1 and told the police officers (which he knew.small town remember?),that if they took one step into his home..he would blow their heads off.

now this is a story retold from a childs perspective many years later.i am sure my fathers memory was a tad....biased..but i would bet the meaty parts were accurate.

now my question is this:
how would that exact same scenario play out in todays climate?

well,we would see on the 6 o'clock news how a family was tragically shot to death for harboring a criminal and that the police had done EVERYTHING in their power to avoid this kind of violence.

i know this is long,and i hope i didn't lose you along the way,but i think we should not dismiss the very real slow decent into a society that silently obeys,quietly accepts more and more authoritarian powers all in the name of "safety",and that any form of resistance is to be viewed as "criminal" and "troublesome".

so while i agree that "when should we shoot a cop" should be in the realm of:let us try to never do that.

i also cannot agree to placing cops on a hero platform as if their job is somehow sacrosanct and beyond reproach.they are human beings,of limited intellect,whose main job it is to protect those who own property,have wealth and wield political power.

and with the current disparity and blatant inequality their job has been more and more focused on keeping those 30% undesirables down.

the poor,the destitute,the marginalized,the addict and the junkie and the petty criminals.

those are a threat to the "better" citizens.they are a blight on a community that should be cleansed from the tender eyes of those who are deemed more "worthy".

rich folk may wring their hands,and lament the plight of the poor and wretched,but for GOD's sakes! they don't want to actually SEE them!

so a police officer can do all the mental gymnastics they want in order to justify their place in society,but at the end of the day,they serve the elites.

and they always have.

Terrorists are usually not from countries that America or even previously the Soviets have been bombing the shit out of.

ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven.

The countries with one of the most intolerant cultures, are some of the best educated and wealthiest people on the planet. Countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. These countries are best buds with the west, and yet they still jail women when they are raped (not the rapist), and they stone and crucify protesters asking for human rights. These are the actual laws, not a few extremists, or terrorists, it's the law of the country. They are intolerant and oppressive by law, thanks to their theocratic ruling system.

To sum up the above, it's not an educational issue, it's not a poverty issues, it's not a revenge issue. It's culture, attitudes, and religion.

Further to my post above, the back and forth, left vs right, petty bickering all serves to perpetuate the existing problems.

For instance, here in Canada statistics do clearly show that aboriginals are over-represented in crime statistics. Simply observing that statistic though already marks me as a racist in most circles and conversation/debate is supposed to shut down and your not supposed to talk about it.

The trouble is that the disproportionate crime rate isn't because skin colour influences the probability you'll become a criminal. Things like poverty and environment though absolutely do. The reality in Canada is that Aboriginal reserves have conditions that are much worse then comparable municipalities. The system of segregation of Aboriginal people on reserves has created a disparity and this disparity is at the root of the problem.

As I stated though, people aren't even supposed to discuss the issue because it's racist to say most of what I just did. The worst part is that refusing to talk about the problem, let alone working on resolving it, is allowing the continuation of a systematic disadvantaging of Canadians based upon their race.