i am confused about this question
 
Truth, Red, White, Black (have not read it,).. its considered to be in the Marvel canon, but did Isaiah Bradley gain his abilities via super soldier serum before or after Steve gained his...???? can someone help me out

He gained it after Steve... but I think it makes a much more interesting story if you read it as if it was before.

so steve did gain his before Isaiah?

" @Glabal500: 

It depends on how you approach it. The confusion can be traced to a statement made in the first arc of Young Avengers where Patriot reveals his identity as the grandson of the "first and real Captain America'.  Steve hears this and knows he is talking about Isaiah Bradley whom Steve has spent time visiting since learning the truth behind the Super Solider Project (as seen in Truth - Red, White and Black). This is further complicated by the fact that Captain America first appears fighting Hitler in March 1941, several months before the U.S. would ever even enter the war.  Steve Rogers was being repeatedly rejected by the enlistment medical officers, meanwhile already within the Army's ranks were the first Project Rebirth test subjects.  The only surviving member of that original group that received the unstable prototype serum is Isaiah Bradley. The success of the original serum with the black test subjects encouraged the Army to move forward with the testing on white soldiers, the end result of which was Steve Rogers, the first Captain America.  Early on after Rogers transformation while he was regulated more to morale and war bond efforts, Bradley and the surviving black subjects were performing covert operations in Europe against the Reich. This is actually reference within Truth, issue 4, as well as Bradley's wearing of a prototype Captain America costume. 

So Isaiah Bradley was among America's first super soldiers and the first Captain America to fight in the war, meanwhile Steve Rogers was the first public Captain America and the first to be published in print.  This is a pretty good retcon of Captain America, but with most things considered sacred there are a few diehard fans who find the idea presented in Truth to be disrespectful. Whatever their reasons -racial, ignorance of history, etc.- Isaiah Bradley's story is now considered canon, his grandson is Patriot, he has a biological son Josiah X and has appeared in Young Avengers and Black Panther as being the first true Captain America.  

"

pretty sure is was after

bump

Everyone keeps saying after but none are willing to show why or how. Steve joined the Army only after being rejected several times and after the US got officially involved in the war which didn't happen until December 1941.  According to Truth - Red, White and Black (an official Marvel retcon), Isaiah was part of the initial testing of the super soldier serum which began in May of 1942 and after several weeks finally saw success with 7 black soldiers. The man in charge of the project, Dr. Reinstein was the same one who was assassinated by the Reich after Steve Rogers was introduced as Captain America, taking with him the secrets of the formula. It was only after Reinstein's successes with the black test subjects that the Army allowed him to test on white soldiers.  The story is a realistic imagining of what would more than likely have occured based on evidence from the infamous Tuskegee Experiments.  Believe whatever you want, it is an offical retcon that only a handful of writers have even respected enough to stick to. No one has written anything to explain the differences and it has not been counted as another universes account of the Super Soldier Project. The first to successfully survive the American formula was Pvt. Larsen, eventually it was given to Isaiah Bradley who was the only one from his test group to survive, next came Protocide who was also in the Army and was chosen by a general who disagreed with the choosing of Steve Rogers, THEN came Steve Rogers. Rogers is the first official Captain America, BUT Bradley had the powers first and wore the uniform against the Nazi's first.  

According to this article written by one of the crack experts of the CV Staff, Isiah received his abilities 'after" Steve Rodgers 
 http://www.comicvine.com/news/beginners-guide-the-mantle-of-captain-america/142775/

@kimeraevet said:

@Glabal500: It depends on how you approach it. The confusion can be traced to a statement made in the first arc of Young Avengers where Patriot reveals his identity as the grandson of the "first and real Captain America'. Steve hears this and knows he is talking about Isaiah Bradley whom Steve has spent time visiting since learning the truth behind the Super Solider Project (as seen in Truth - Red, White and Black). This is further complicated by the fact that Captain America first appears fighting Hitler in March 1941, several months before the U.S. would ever even enter the war. Steve Rogers was being repeatedly rejected by the enlistment medical officers, meanwhile already within the Army's ranks were the first Project Rebirth test subjects. The only surviving member of that original group that received the unstable prototype serum is Isaiah Bradley. The success of the original serum with the black test subjects encouraged the Army to move forward with the testing on white soldiers, the end result of which was Steve Rogers, the first Captain America. Early on after Rogers transformation while he was regulated more to morale and war bond efforts, Bradley and the surviving black subjects were performing covert operations in Europe against the Reich. This is actually reference within Truth, issue 4, as well as Bradley's wearing of a spare Captain America costume. So Isaiah Bradley was among America's first super soldiers and the first Captain America to fight in the European theater of the war, meanwhile Steve Rogers was the first public Captain America and the first to be published in print. This is a pretty good retcon of Captain America, but with most things considered sacred there are a few diehard fans who find the idea presented in Truth to be disrespectful. Whatever their reasons -racial, ignorance of history, etc.- Isaiah Bradley's story is now considered canon, his grandson is Patriot, he has a biological son Josiah X and has appeared in Young Avengers and Black Panther as being the first true Captain America.

This is actually how I remember it as well, when it was first introduced Isiah was suppose to be the truth as in the first real captain america in action, but it had to remain a secret because he was black and because of the abusive nature of the experiments. However Steve Rogers was experimented on before Pearl harbor supposedly, but was not in action first he was just a public figure for the cameras. Kyle Baker Truth Co-creator stated that die hard Steve Rogers fan's raised such a fuss about the timeline until the fifth or sixth book when they discovered Steve Roger's existed just before Bradley, he stated "and suddenly the book was ok with them". I hate to make everything black and white but personally I believe that deep down it was a subconsciously a problem in the community of Cap fan's who were not minorities. It was ok for African American's to love Cap regardless of rather he was black or white, but when the idea came that their may have been a black Cap before Rogers was made apparent, an idea of which some of us immediately clung to their was a general consensus who stood against it. I myself personally believe that the writers were trying to imply that Isiah was first and that is mainly what the truth was about. However they caught so much flack from fan's that by the time they started the fifth and sixth book, they decided to chicken out on the idea and instead, opting to make the "Truth" about the inhumane nature of the experiments on African American Troops and not about who was captain America first.

I think it would be more interesting if he came before Steve 

@Postacrat said:

@kimeraevet said:

@Glabal500: It depends on how you approach it. The confusion can be traced to a statement made in the first arc of Young Avengers where Patriot reveals his identity as the grandson of the "first and real Captain America'. Steve hears this and knows he is talking about Isaiah Bradley whom Steve has spent time visiting since learning the truth behind the Super Solider Project (as seen in Truth - Red, White and Black). This is further complicated by the fact that Captain America first appears fighting Hitler in March 1941, several months before the U.S. would ever even enter the war. Steve Rogers was being repeatedly rejected by the enlistment medical officers, meanwhile already within the Army's ranks were the first Project Rebirth test subjects. The only surviving member of that original group that received the unstable prototype serum is Isaiah Bradley. The success of the original serum with the black test subjects encouraged the Army to move forward with the testing on white soldiers, the end result of which was Steve Rogers, the first Captain America. Early on after Rogers transformation while he was regulated more to morale and war bond efforts, Bradley and the surviving black subjects were performing covert operations in Europe against the Reich. This is actually reference within Truth, issue 4, as well as Bradley's wearing of a spare Captain America costume. So Isaiah Bradley was among America's first super soldiers and the first Captain America to fight in the European theater of the war, meanwhile Steve Rogers was the first public Captain America and the first to be published in print. This is a pretty good retcon of Captain America, but with most things considered sacred there are a few diehard fans who find the idea presented in Truth to be disrespectful. Whatever their reasons -racial, ignorance of history, etc.- Isaiah Bradley's story is now considered canon, his grandson is Patriot, he has a biological son Josiah X and has appeared in Young Avengers and Black Panther as being the first true Captain America.

This is actually how I remember it as well, when it was first introduced Isiah was suppose to be the truth as in the first real captain america in action, but it had to remain a secret because he was black and because of the abusive nature of the experiments. However Steve Rogers was experimented on before Pearl harbor supposedly, but was not in action first he was just a public figure for the cameras. Kyle Baker Truth Co-creator stated that die hard Steve Rogers fan's raised such a fuss about the timeline until the fifth or sixth book when they discovered Steve Roger's existed just before Bradley, he stated "and suddenly the book was ok with them". I hate to make everything black and white but personally I believe that deep down it was a subconsciously a problem in the community of Cap fan's who were not minorities. It was ok for African American's to love Cap regardless of rather he was black or white, but when the idea came that their may have been a black Cap before Rogers was made apparent, an idea of which some of us immediately clung to their was a general consensus who stood against it. I myself personally believe that the writers were trying to imply that Isiah was first and that is mainly what the truth was about. However they caught so much flack from fan's that by the time they started the fifth and sixth book, they decided to chicken out on the idea and instead, opting to make the "Truth" about the inhumane nature of the experiments on African American Troops and not about who was captain America first.

You are right on one-point - when The Truth began, Isaiah was intended to be the first Captain America. However, the reasons for the change were not down to the writer "chickening out." The Truth was not intended to be set in the regular Marvel Universe (616). Once the decision was made, part way through the publication of the series, to change that, then the problem arose that the timeline The Truth had established actually invalidated Isaiah being first. "Steve Rogers was experimented on before Pearl harbor supposedly" There's no supposedly. He was publically active prior to Pearl Harbor, as shown in multiple stories - "was not in action first he was just a public figure for the cameras" is very much incorrect. Notably, the Invaders formed within a couple of days of the attack on Pearl Harbor - the entire original Invaders series takes place prior to when Isaiah enlisted. Which means Isaiah is not only empowered after Steve, he was empowered after Union Jack, Master Man and Warrior Woman too.

"I hate to make everything black and white but personally I believe that deep down it was a subconsciously a problem in the community of Cap fan's who were not minorities." I think that's very unfair. Simply put, if a reader had a problem with the story because they were racist and didn't like the idea of a black Captain America, then they'd still have a problem with Isaiah whether he was first, second or twentieth. On the other hand, some readers clearly expressed their problems with the story as being down to it contradicting continuity - and given that Kyle Baker noted that "suddenly the book was okay" once The Truth made it clear it wasn't contradicting established continuity, just adding to it, that suggests that most of those complaining fell into the latter camp.

"instead, opting to make the "Truth" about the inhumane nature of the experiments on African American Troops and not about who was captain America first."

And what's the more important aspect of the story? I'd argue the inhumane nature of the experiments is a much more important detail than whether Isaiah came before Steve, or Steve before Isaiah.

Always thought it was before Steve from what I have read.

@Ms. Omega said:

Always thought it was before Steve from what I have read.

Nope. Steve predates Isaiah. One experimented on before Pearl Harbor, the other after. Impossible to parse that any way that lets Isaiah come first.

Plus you clearly see one of the guys reading Captain America Comics #1 before they discover their powers. It's clear as day. ¬_¬

doesn't matter now. it would have been interesting if they included a refer to isaiah bradley in the movie to show the inhuman nature of the government and to see steve's reaction and feeling of the government.

@lokiofmidgaard said:

@Postacrat said:

@kimeraevet said:

@Glabal500: It depends on how you approach it. The confusion can be traced to a statement made in the first arc of Young Avengers where Patriot reveals his identity as the grandson of the "first and real Captain America'. Steve hears this and knows he is talking about Isaiah Bradley whom Steve has spent time visiting since learning the truth behind the Super Solider Project (as seen in Truth - Red, White and Black). This is further complicated by the fact that Captain America first appears fighting Hitler in March 1941, several months before the U.S. would ever even enter the war. Steve Rogers was being repeatedly rejected by the enlistment medical officers, meanwhile already within the Army's ranks were the first Project Rebirth test subjects. The only surviving member of that original group that received the unstable prototype serum is Isaiah Bradley. The success of the original serum with the black test subjects encouraged the Army to move forward with the testing on white soldiers, the end result of which was Steve Rogers, the first Captain America. Early on after Rogers transformation while he was regulated more to morale and war bond efforts, Bradley and the surviving black subjects were performing covert operations in Europe against the Reich. This is actually reference within Truth, issue 4, as well as Bradley's wearing of a spare Captain America costume. So Isaiah Bradley was among America's first super soldiers and the first Captain America to fight in the European theater of the war, meanwhile Steve Rogers was the first public Captain America and the first to be published in print. This is a pretty good retcon of Captain America, but with most things considered sacred there are a few diehard fans who find the idea presented in Truth to be disrespectful. Whatever their reasons -racial, ignorance of history, etc.- Isaiah Bradley's story is now considered canon, his grandson is Patriot, he has a biological son Josiah X and has appeared in Young Avengers and Black Panther as being the first true Captain America.

This is actually how I remember it as well, when it was first introduced Isiah was suppose to be the truth as in the first real captain america in action, but it had to remain a secret because he was black and because of the abusive nature of the experiments. However Steve Rogers was experimented on before Pearl harbor supposedly, but was not in action first he was just a public figure for the cameras. Kyle Baker Truth Co-creator stated that die hard Steve Rogers fan's raised such a fuss about the timeline until the fifth or sixth book when they discovered Steve Roger's existed just before Bradley, he stated "and suddenly the book was ok with them". I hate to make everything black and white but personally I believe that deep down it was a subconsciously a problem in the community of Cap fan's who were not minorities. It was ok for African American's to love Cap regardless of rather he was black or white, but when the idea came that their may have been a black Cap before Rogers was made apparent, an idea of which some of us immediately clung to their was a general consensus who stood against it. I myself personally believe that the writers were trying to imply that Isiah was first and that is mainly what the truth was about. However they caught so much flack from fan's that by the time they started the fifth and sixth book, they decided to chicken out on the idea and instead, opting to make the "Truth" about the inhumane nature of the experiments on African American Troops and not about who was captain America first.

You are right on one-point - when The Truth began, Isaiah was intended to be the first Captain America. However, the reasons for the change were not down to the writer "chickening out." The Truth was not intended to be set in the regular Marvel Universe (616). Once the decision was made, part way through the publication of the series, to change that, then the problem arose that the timeline The Truth had established actually invalidated Isaiah being first. "Steve Rogers was experimented on before Pearl harbor supposedly" There's no supposedly. He was publically active prior to Pearl Harbor, as shown in multiple stories - "was not in action first he was just a public figure for the cameras" is very much incorrect. Notably, the Invaders formed within a couple of days of the attack on Pearl Harbor - the entire original Invaders series takes place prior to when Isaiah enlisted. Which means Isaiah is not only empowered after Steve, he was empowered after Union Jack, Master Man and Warrior Woman too.

"I hate to make everything black and white but personally I believe that deep down it was a subconsciously a problem in the community of Cap fan's who were not minorities." I think that's very unfair. Simply put, if a reader had a problem with the story because they were racist and didn't like the idea of a black Captain America, then they'd still have a problem with Isaiah whether he was first, second or twentieth. On the other hand, some readers clearly expressed their problems with the story as being down to it contradicting continuity - and given that Kyle Baker noted that "suddenly the book was okay" once The Truth made it clear it wasn't contradicting established continuity, just adding to it, that suggests that most of those complaining fell into the latter camp.

"instead, opting to make the "Truth" about the inhumane nature of the experiments on African American Troops and not about who was captain America first."

And what's the more important aspect of the story? I'd argue the inhumane nature of the experiments is a mu ch more important detail than whether Isaiah came before Steve, or Steve before Isaiah.

The first point that I made that you agreed with was my quintessential argument to begin with, the rest was just my personal take on the primary subject in general. It is subject to be agreed with or disagreed with that's why I didn't try to portray my thoughts as fact, however after tedious research and reading the actual book one could not help but feel like that's how it went especially if you are black. I don't think my statement is unfair because I know for a fact that there are some racist people who are that petty, in fact the whole concept of racism is petty and bigotry your way of thinking differs because you are not ignorant, but that does not mean others are not. You should have seen some of the negative statements made about the new ultimate spiderman, when his ethnicity was discovered however their were some positive responses as well. You obviously have a mind state of a person who is not racist, I very much respect and appreciate that but thinking my statement is unfair is a tad bit naive (meaning no disrespect to you because you obviously are a smart gentlemen, and not to say you are a naive person either).

I myself as an African American (not implying that you are or not because I don't know you yet lol) am subject to a form of racism everyday, so for some of us it's a bit like being Neo in the Matrix seeing the code or a puppet seeing the strings. I try to look deeper into the titular subject of racism than just a white person in my face calling me the N word all the time, because that's just skin deep when the wounds are even deeper. It's because of this deeper understanding, that most minorities would look at this as the writers "Chickening out". The invaders argument is very valid and I understand exactly what you are saying, however the Union Jack, Master Man and Warrior Woman were not American and the rest of the time were not super soldiers. Captain America simply joined forces with them, this is not to say that racism was only viable in America but it is not touched upon in other countries commercially as it is in America. If we were talking about the first super soldiers in general their would be a whole plethora of arguments as far as who came first second or third, because their are even accounts in Marvel of certain mutants born in peak physical human perfection and are described as having a power set similar to caps. Since we are talking about American Super Soldiers that makes Isaiah number 2.

You are absolutely right the inhumane nature of the experiments on the African American troops as well as the injustices African Americans suffered is important and it makes for interesting story telling. It isn't my argument to prove rather or not Isaiah should have been the first Captain America. However it was my argument that it was originally implied, and my responsibility to shine light on how the whole thing could be misconstrued. In closing this comic was a master piece and it told a great story, who cares who was captain America first Steve Acknowledged Isaiah Bradley as his counter part and that in itself was good enough for me.

@Postacrat said:

The first point that I made that you agreed with was my quintessential argument to begin with, the rest was just my personal take on the primary subject in general. It is subject to be agreed with or disagreed with that's why I didn't try to portray my thoughts as fact, however after tedious research and reading the actual book one could not help but feel like that's how it went especially if you are black.

It may feel that way to you, but I think you are being unfair on the creators of The Truth. They didn't cave in to any fan complaints, but instead were asked to bring their story into the main Marvel universe, allowing for others to then build on what they had created - if they had not, then we would not have had Josiah X nor Patriot. If they had known from the outset of this, then they might well have had the experiments take place prior to Pearl Harbor, allowing Isaiah to become Cap ahead of Steve. However, since it was too late to amend that, they had to acknowledge the existing continuity that placed Steve earlier.

@Postacrat said:

I don't think my statement is unfair because I know for a fact that there are some racist people who are that petty, in fact the whole concept of racism is petty and bigotry your way of thinking differs because you are not ignorant, but that does not mean others are not. You should have seen some of the negative statements made about the new ultimate spiderman, when his ethnicity was discovered however their were some positive responses as well.You obviously have a mind state of a person who is not racist, I very much respect and appreciate that but thinking my statement is unfair is a tad bit naive

I agree absolutely that some of those who spoke out against The Truth (and Miles becoming Spider-Man) were motivated by racism. However, it is unfair to suggest this is the case for all, and probably not even most. And lumping those whose issues with any of these are not based in racism but in other factors (for example, Steve's timeline means he can't be preceded by someone empowered after Pearl Harbor, while some fans disliked Peter being killed off to make way for Miles) is counterproductive. Generally, racists don't care if you call them racists, because they expect it to happen, but if someone isn't racist and someone maligns them by insisting their motives for something are racist when they are not, it will only serve to get their back up. So I don't believe I'm being naive - if you said "some of those who complained" I would not have disagreed, but the way you worded it, it came across to me as if you were saying that a level of racism, perhaps subconscious but racism nonetheless, was the sole and true cause for any who had protested about the series, and I do think that is unfair. If that's not what you were trying to say, then I apologise, but it is how it came across to me.

@Postacrat said:

I myself as an African American (not implying that you are or not because I don't know you yet lol) am subject to a form of racism everyday, so for some of us it's a bit like being Neo in the Matrix seeing the code or a puppet seeing the strings.I try to look deeper into the titular subject of racism than just a white person in my face calling me the N word all the time, because that's just skin deep when the wounds are even deeper. It's because of this deeper understanding, that most minorities would look at this as the writers "Chickening out". The invaders argument is very valid and I understand exactly what you are saying, however the Union Jack, Master Man and Warrior Woman were not American and the rest of the time were not super soldiers. Captain America simply joined forces with them, this is not to say that racism was only viable in America but it is not touched upon in other countries commercially as it is in America.

I don't know that I would agree with you suggesting being African American gives you a deeper understanding of racism than me, so much as a different perspective. I can't say for sure, but as I observe online debates on topics like this, I am increasingly inclined to believe the important factor here between what has shaped your perspective versus mine is "American." I'm not American, I'm British, and the impression I get is that the wounds caused by racism differ somewhat over here, and, while certainly still present, are less deep. But since that is starting to move us onto a topic more suited for community boards, it's probably best to focus back on the topic at hand,

@Postacrat said:

if we were talking about the first super soldiers in general their would be a whole plethora of arguments as far as who came first second or third....Since we are talking about American Super Soldiers that makes Isaiah number 2.

Absolutely, and Steve is definitely not the first. At bare minimum, he is predated by Protocide. As for Isaiah, he's third at earliest, later still depending on whether or not his fellow Camp Cathcart experimentees who survived the initial experiments were ahead of him in the experiments - remember, Maurice Canfield, David Plumb, Damon Larsen, Lucas Evans and Larry Pitts all survived the experiments too, and were legitimate super soldiers - it's just they all got killed soon after.

@Postacrat said:

You are absolutely right the inhumane nature of the experiments on the African American troops as well as the injustices African Americans suffered is important and it makes for interesting story telling. It isn't my argument to prove rather or not Isaiah should have been the first Captain America.

For some people it does seem to be more important to them whether Isaiah came before Steve or not. To me, that is a shame, because it seems the real message of The Truth is lost to a game of one-upmanship (on both sides of the debate), and a pointless game at that, because it takes a single story of another, earlier super soldier to render it all moot. For my part, I don't care who came first, except that I like people to accurately report events; if The Truth had established Isaiah as predating Steve, I'd be gladly pointing this out to anyone who claimed differently and slapping down anyone who objected based on racist motivation. Isaiah coming after Steve does not lessen my appreciation of The Truth, and, if there's anything I dislike about The Truth, it's not whether one super soldier predates the other, but that the ending sadly left Isaiah out of action. I'd love to see his mental faculties restored and him returned to action. And I'd be perfectly happy if another story comes along in the future which establishes an African American super soldier who predates Steve - or a Hispanic one, or a Chinese American, or Native American, for that matter, just so long as it adds to current continuity, not conflicts with it.

@lokiofmidgaard said:

@Postacrat said:

The first point that I made that you agreed with was my quintessential argument to begin with, the rest was just my personal take on the primary subject in general. It is subject to be agreed with or disagreed with that's why I didn't try to portray my thoughts as fact, however after tedious research and reading the actual book one could not help but feel like that's how it went especially if you are black.

It may feel that way to you, but I think you are being unfair on the creators of The Truth. They didn't cave in to any fan complaints, but instead were asked to bring their story into the main Marvel universe, allowing for others to then build on what they had created - if they had not, then we would not have had Josiah X nor Patriot. If they had known from the outset of this, then they might well have had the experiments take place prior to Pearl Harbor, allowing Isaiah to become Cap ahead of Steve. However, since it was too late to amend that, they had to acknowledge the existing continuity that placed Steve earlier.

@Postacrat said:

I don't think my statement is unfair because I know for a fact that there are some racist people who are that petty, in fact the whole concept of racism is petty and bigotry your way of thinking differs because you are not ignorant, but that does not mean others are not. You should have seen some of the negative statements made about the new ultimate spiderman, when his ethnicity was discovered however their were some positive responses as well. You obviously have a mind state of a person who is not racist, I very much respect and appreciate that but thinking my statement is unfair is a tad bit naive

I agree absolutely that some of those who spoke out against The Truth (and Miles becoming Spider-Man) were motivated by racism. However, it is unfair to suggest this is the case for all, and probably not even most. And lumping those whose issues with any of these are not based in racism but in other factors (for example, Steve's timeline means he can't be preceded by someone empowered after Pearl Harbor, while some fans disliked Peter being killed off to make way for Miles) is counterproductive. Generally, racists don't care if you call them racists, because they expect it to happen, but if someone isn't racist and someone maligns them by insisting their motives for something are racist when they are not, it will only serve to get their back up. So I don't believe I'm being naive - if you said "some of those who complained" I would not have disagreed, but the way you worded it, it came across to me as if you were saying that a level of racism, perhaps subconscious but racism nonetheless, was the sole and true cause for any who had protested about the series, and I do think that is unfair. If that's not what you were trying to say, then I apologise, but it is how it came across to me.

@Postacrat said:

I myself as an African American (not implying that you are or not because I don't know you yet lol) am subject to a form of racism everyday, so for some of us it's a bit like being Neo in the Matrix seeing the code or a puppet seeing the strings. I try to look deeper into the titular subject of racism than just a white person in my face calling me the N word all the time, because that's just skin deep when the wounds are even deeper. It's because of this deeper understanding, that most minorities would look at this as the writers "Chickening out". The invaders argument is very valid and I understand exactly what you are saying, however the Union Jack, Master Man and Warrior Woman were not American and the rest of the time were not super soldiers. Captain America simply joined forces with them, this is not to say that racism was only viable in America but it is not touched upon in other countries commercially as it is in America.

I don't know that I would agree with you suggesting being African American gives you a deeper understanding of racism than me, so much as a different perspective. I can't say for sure, but as I observe online debates on topics like this, I am increasingly inclined to believe the important factor here between what has shaped your perspective versus mine is "American." I'm not American, I'm British, and the impression I get is that the wounds caused by racism differ somewhat over here, and, while certainly still present, are less deep. But since that is starting to move us onto a topic more suited for community boards, it's probably best to focus back on the topic at hand,

@Postacrat said:

if we were talking about the first super soldiers in general their would be a whole plethora of arguments as far as who came first second or third....Since we are talking about American Super Soldiers that makes Isaiah number 2.

Absolutely, and Steve is definitely not the first. At bare minimum, he is predated by Protocide. As for Isaiah, he's third at earliest, later still depending on whether or not his fellow Camp Cathcart experimentees who survived the initial experiments were ahead of him in the experiments - remember, Maurice Canfield, David Plumb, Damon Larsen, Lucas Evans and Larry Pitts all survived the experiments too, and were legitimate super soldiers - it's just they all got killed soon after.

@Postacrat said:

You are absolutely right the inhumane nature of the experiments on the African American troops as well as the injustices African Americans suffered is important and it makes for interesting story telling. It isn't my argument to prove rather or not Isaiah should have been the first Captain America.

For some people it does seem to be more important to them whether Isaiah came before Steve or not. To me, that is a shame, because it seems the real message of The Truth is lost to a game of one-upmanship (on both sides of the debate), and a pointless game at that, because it takes a single story of another, earlier super soldier to render it all moot. For my part, I don't care who came first, except that I like people to accurately report events; if The Truth had established Isaiah as predating Steve, I'd be gladly pointing this out to anyone who claimed differently and slapping down anyone who objected based on racist motivation. Isaiah coming after Steve does not lessen my appreciation of The Truth, and, if there's anything I dislike about The Truth, it's not whether one super soldier predates the other, but that the ending sadly left Isaiah out of action. I'd love to see his mental faculties restored and him returned to action. And I'd be perfectly happy if another story comes along in the future which establishes an African American super soldier who predates Steve - or a Hispanic one, or a Chinese American, or Native American, for that matter, just so long as it adds to current continuity, not conflicts with it.

I agree with you on all counts my friend, what a great conversation! I enjoyed every word, thanks for taking time out for this!