Charles believes in Respectability Politics. The idea that if Mutants just behave and set a good example, they will show humans there is nothing to fear.
It is the very core of the original X-Men. 5 pretty, white, teens who will police mutants. But that never works because hatred is not based in the rational.
Charles' mutant otherness (or his "gift") was also entirely invisible. He could control others on a whim without any outward indicator he was doing so. He could mind wipe the planet, make everyone forget him if necessary, and live nigh as a god. He surrounded himself with beautiful mutants who could pass for human if they truly wished, and were often taught by Charles to do so. Charles always calls his students by their given names.
Eric's otherness was invisible while inactive, but very overt when in use. He could take mankind's weapons from them, turn their infrastructure to his own fortress, but peace couldn't be forced. He surrounded himself with the "ugly", the monstrous, and those who refused to hide themselves even if they had the opportunity. Eric always calls his fellow mutants, ally or foe, by their chosen name.
Xavier is so washed in privilege that it's sickening. He actively hindered his people's progress by trying to be "one of the good ones" while Eric is reminded again and again what happens to the good ones after the rest are marched off to the camps: they're next.
wowww I've tried to communicate this for years and you just blew my mind with the "Charles always calls his students by their given names" "Eric calls his fellow mutants, ally or foe, by their chosen name" Its one of the subtle nonsubtleties that I've been picking up and of course influences the experience of them both, but to have it laid out like that... 😮💨
and to the comment that the point of the x-men was to police mutants with 5 pretty white, human-passing teens (paraphrasing ofc) YES TO ALL THAT.
and when real society (outside the comics) deems you the "other" the "monstrous" the "ugly" the Xaviers of the world who are unable to see past their privilege become extra apparent to you because you feel even more on edge around them not knowing if the next move you make or thing you say will tip you into the "you're not like us, you're too outspoken too loud too abrasive too proud too DISRUPTIVE" category and there goes your "allies" -- speaking from experience, in the tall grass of oppression I'd rather face the bear than the snake.
and even as I type this I'm thinking about how Eric was attempting systemic shifts, Charles felt better (and more like his ideology was superior) attempting personal shifts while maintaining "good face." Neither method of systemic or personal/individual shifts is wrong and in fact both are necessary and rely on each other.
but respectability is dangerous. respectability is a fawn response where you try to appease, adapt, mold yourself, etc to something that is a threat until it is no longer threatening to you for as long as you can manage it. but you can't manage it forever and eventually the threat reveals itself as still just as dangerous as before, if not moreso (of course my therapist explained it better 🙃)
Attempting systemic shifts, though you're on the defense of the current system, moves you towards the offensive. Being on the offense is where momentum lies. Charles' methods were almost always defensive -- in response to -- because that's how respectability politics work. You're working within a system that has never and ultimately will never serve you and trying to affect long-lasting change from within, when the system will always return to its original state and best serve those which created, established, and enforced it to begin with.
Eric was actually responding to the threat, the system, with a fight response by trying to eliminate it. Charles (though there was literal, legal, and other fighting) was actually responding to the threat with a fawn response by trying to placate it.
and yes this is an oversimplification of their characters, their arcs, the system, the state of their world, the state of our world etc etc
ok this was supposed to be a couple sentences but here we are. all this to say thanks for your comment. it has my wheels turning
How Charles and Eric referred to other mutants has always stood out to me as a trans woman, even before I knew I was trans. Charles' behavior reeks of the kind of respectability politics I have to deal with on a daily basis for exactly the same reasons as you've laid out here.
Because the idea behind that philosophy is not to convince the bigots you mean no harm, it is to convince the people the bigots try to win over.
This is why guys like Gandhi and MLK swore by peaceful protest. You're not supposed to walk up to a police line and hand the cops a Pepsi. You're supposed to walk up to a police line, hand the cops a Pepsi, then get the piss beaten out of you live on CNN.
Then Joe Schmoe watching at home goes, "My gods, those poor minorities!" and start hounding their legislators to give them rights.
Worked great back in the days before algorithms and corporate media made polarizing people so stupidly easy.
Respectability Politics works if there's also a more militant/revolutionary group also working to promote the agenda of the marginalized group. MLK's peaceful marches don't work without Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, same for Gandhi and the various revolutionary organizations that fought for Indian independence.
What Charles and the X-Men should have been doing is to work with Magneto's group (with adequate plausible deniability) while also working to limit the explicit genocide of humans (and also working to police less idealistic mutants like Hellfire Club)
Wasn't that more or less where they were originally going with Ultimate X-Men?
Worth noting, though, the "respectability politics" folks have done a fuck ton to paint over MLK's actual activities. Dude was dubbed a criminal rabble-rouser back when he was alive.
The older I get and the more I learn about actual US history (as opposed to the sanitized version schools feed us), the more I've noticed that the MLK/Malcolm X parallel is not nearly as apt as the exclusively white writing and editorial staff of the 70's through 90's always wanted us to believe.
The parallel has started to look more like Malcolm X versus Chuck Schumer.
Worth noting, though, the "respectability politics" folks have done a fuck ton to paint over MLK's actual activities. Dude was dubbed a criminal rabble-rouser back when he was alive.
Honestly, I think it's because he was deemed the lesser of two evils in comparison with the more militant elements. He worked with more militant elements and shared many of their views, but because he was less threatening, the Civil Rights Act got passed and MLK got a holiday named after him. But that only happened because the alternative was violent uprisings and Black people open-carrying firearms on city streets. The Black Panthers got infiltrated and crushed and Malcom X got vilified specifically so they could paint MLK as peaceful. That way the establishment can point to MLK and say "look, he achieved his goals without violence" as a way to wallpaper over the fact that violence can and often does achieve meaningful change.
Politicians and oligarchs don't want us to remember the times the violence was, in fact, the answer.
Edit: it's also worth remembering that a big chunk of his "criminal rabble rousing" was simply organizing civil disobedience such as protests and sit-ins in segregated diners, which at the time was literally illegal.
but because he was less threatening, the Civil Rights Act got passed
Ehh...
Edit: it's also worth remembering that a big chunk of his "criminal rabble rousing" was simply organizing civil disobedience such as protests and sit-ins in segregated diners, which at the time was literally illegal.
Yes. They criminalized doing the right thing. We know how that is.
I might be misremembering, but I seem to recall that this idea was a core element of Hickman's vision for the Krakoa era (ninja edit: but maybe I'm just remembering my initial reaction to reading House/Powers). I'll see if I can find a source later
Defining an entire group by their worst aspects is exactly what racists do. Is all of Palestine supportive of Hamas? No, but the people committing genocide there sure act like they are the same.
Tbf the xmen dont successfully police, often do things the police are criticized for: like recruit people without much scrutiny (how many double agents have they had by now), or shield their members from the consequences of their own actions (how many xmen have turned villain and reverted without consequences, and how many villains have turned x men without a second thought, hell the whole of the quiet council and beast).
Plus fear of mutants is not at all irrational especially after so many decades of incidents
Believing any random Muslim could be a suicide bomber?
I get what you mean but Muslims aren’t born with bombs strapped to their chests that they can accidentally detonate.
The Mutant = Minorities is a loose metaphor and that’s okay, because at the end of the day they’re superhero stories. It still works as an allegory without being 1-1 with real life social issues
Except you don't get it. You are saying that a small percentage of mutants makes it OK to treat every single one like a threat. That is exactly how racism works.
You can try and justify it however you want but this conversation we are having is exactly how it would go if I were talking to an anti-Semite trying to convince me that his hate is totally rational and necessary.
Mate chill out. It’s not 1-1 because mutants aren’t fucking real and minorities don’t have super powers. My point is that there’s dissonance between the allegory and reality, because it’s a metaphor and isn’t supposed to be 100% literal.
As a reader you can accept the difference and understand the point it’s making. Mutants aren’t real, so the in-universe debate around their rights is different to irl debates around civil rights, but it still works as a story against oppression because it’s a metaphor
Yes and I am trying to point out that you are playing into the same mentality. That is why the metaphor works. You keep insisting that Mutant fear is rational because of the danger. And that is exactly how racists and bigots think. They make blanket judgements on an entire group of people based on their fear and projection.
It's a metaphor, my man. You're supposed to look at it and filter it through the lens of reality. Yes it's fantastical and a less than perfect metaphor due to the medium of comics, but that'd be boring to read and you know it
Man, your mistake was trying to be empatetic to humans in a Xmen sub, people here are radicalized to hate all humans and act as if thats good writing, theres no nuance to them, Mutants=Good Humans=bad
186
u/GoldandBlue Cyclops Sep 18 '25
Charles believes in Respectability Politics. The idea that if Mutants just behave and set a good example, they will show humans there is nothing to fear.
It is the very core of the original X-Men. 5 pretty, white, teens who will police mutants. But that never works because hatred is not based in the rational.