I'll assume "Latinx" is an example of trying to apply gender neutrality to Romance language nouns and pronouns that have been gender-based for centuries.

Seems a bit much.

====================

To me that would be a totalitarian society. But then I'm probably splitting hairs here. 

If the characters sell, they'll pop up again.  I read somewhere that the Future State WW is already scheduled to receive a mini-series as Wonder Girl.  

I'm among those who prefers to see diversity created through the introduction of new characters, rather than replacing established characters (unless the change is story-driven, rather than an editorial mandate).  

In this case, DC is keeping Diana, while also introducing the new WW.  So if the new WW is well done, that's a win-win.

One of the writers was quoted as saying it would have been "groundbreaking" to have a member of a racial minority fill that role in the Superman mythos.  

That brought to mind past events where a female or minority character was introduced as a replacement for an established white male character and it was considered "groundbreaking."

I've always had kind of the opposite opinion.  Introducing a minority character (or any character) as a replacement for an established character, where the new character is a derivative of the character they are replacing, lessens the cultural impact of the new character a little bit.  

Take Batman Beyond, or Batwing, or the Luke Fox Batman that will be part of Future State for example.  They may all be awesome characters, but they'll all always be in the shadow of Bruce Wayne.  

The best and most enduring "diverse" characters I can think of- T'Challa, Storm, Luke Cage, Falcon, etc., are not derivative of established white characters.  

Some creators and publishers would argue that derivative characters sell better than new characters, and that's probably supported by the numbers, but not to a great extent.  Most derivative characters don't end up carrying an ongoing series for very long.  New comics in general just don't sell well anymore.

Luke Cage is probably a good example that the opposite can be true.  He was popular in the 70s and 80s, but then fell into obscurity until Bendis introduced him in New Avengers.  Bendis's treatment of Cage elevated him into one of Marvel's best loved second-tier characters.  He was one of the most popular Avengers during that run, and has had several successful mini series since then.  With the right creative team, I think Cage could carry an ongoing title.  I'd certainly buy it if it was well done.

He's not a perfect example because he's technically not "new" but after so many years out of the spotlight, he was new to at least one generation of fans.

What do you think?  Is it important to have a "first black Batman" etc.?  Or would you rather see new characters?

The race-swapping thing with superheroes is well-meaning. But it actually promotes racism. 

Using Marvel as an example: Luke Cage disappears, Captain Marvel is de-emphasized, Falcon is kind of ignored, even Storm drifted toward the background after Claremont quit writing the X-Men*. I didn't read Marvel Comics Presents so maybe some of those characters found some stories that I missed but I know that the Avengers were pretty white during the leather jacket era. Not accusing anyone of anything but I always wondered why those characters were shuffled off to the side. It seems like James Rhodes (and I'm not a War Machine fan) was the only African American character that Marvel was interested in pushing. 

*Thinking about it as well, supporting characters like Stevie Hunter even disappeared.

Diversity is fine, and as we move along through time, we are appreciating it more, bit by bit. But that is a world apart from reimagining an existing character and making them black or asian or male or female or whatever you might have.

As has been so often said - if you want a character who's a "minority" character - then create a new one. Don't wipe out an existing one.

If I understand you correctly, what you're bringing up is a third scenario altogether, ie taking an existing character like Alan Scott, and changing him to be gay. Not sure I would consider this "wiping out" an existing character, but I agree that introducing a new character is better than making that type of change to an existing one.  

I was talking about replacing an existing character with a new character of color.  

In Future State, we will get a new Batman who is black.  No changes are being made to Bruce Wayne, but the new character (for the duration of the story) will be the main Batman, just as Riri Williams temporarily replaced Tony Stark as Iron Man, etc.  

So the question is, in that scenario is it groundbreaking to have a black Batman?  Maybe.  One could argue that it is, because diversity is being added to a role that is so iconic.  

Personally, I'd say no, because the new character is a derivative character, and we all know that at some point Bruce will be back.  So to me, that seems like tokenism more than anything else. 

In the case of Next Batman, I'll buy the book because of John Ridley.  But I'd rather see Ridley on an entirely new character that has the potential to be DCs next icon, rather than a temporary replacement.  So I'm rejecting the notion that derivative characters outsell new characters.  If the new character has a great creative team I believe they have an even better chance of long term success.  

Its not surprising that Luke Cage disappeared for a while. I can't think of a character who was more in need of an update.  By the time Powerman and Iron Fist was canceled, I don't think Luke (as he was being written or depicted) was resonating with anyone, so there was just no demand for him.  

Captain Marvel was featured pretty prominently in Avengers through the mid 80's (even acting as the team leader for a while).  She vanished when the team was disbanded and reformed around issue #300.  

I don't remember Storm being de-emphasized in X-men.  

Overall, I think you're right.  Not much diversity at Marvel through much of the 90s.  Priest's Black Panther run seems like a turning point in that regard.

Replacing an existing character with - well, you note a character of color. I'd consider the situation larger - different color, religion, gender, or, as  you noted, making a straight character gay or vice versa (e.g., making Iceman gay or Johnny Storm incestuous.)

In such a situation, I ask exactly one question - how long? You noted that there will be a black Batman for the duration of the story, and that a Riri Williams temporarily replaced Tony Stark. As that's too new for me*, let's substitute in the storyline switching Jim Rhodes for Tony Stark.

IN THAT SCENARIO - it's an interesting idea. Sales are the only way to tell if it's a good idea or not. It worked in the 90s, leading to books starring Azrael, Steel, Superboy, Supergirl, etc.

Tokenism vs. diversity - that's a discussion because I'd propose that there a considerable amount of overlap. Did you ever read the two issues of Wonder Woman from the 70s where Diana was replaced by Nubia? Or perhaps the story where Lois Lane became black for an issue? Heck, we can even cite the Green Lantern story that introduced John Stewart. To me now**, those seem like a way of trying diversity and trying to turn a blind eye to tokenism (which wasn't very successful even in those stories. But it was the early 70s.)

It's ALWAY been a try, but our society hasn't been mature enough to try that "new soup mix". Maybe we're getting there now.

*I have not bought new DC or Marvel comics in ten years - and this matter is one of the reasons. "Why can't a black man be the Scarlet Witch?" I suppose he could... but I have no interest in such a story.

**At the time, I was 12. All I thought was, "Oh, they're trying to put black people in comic books." That was about the extent of the difference to me - no social issues, no moral decisions. Just that there were more black people in comic books now. I claim the innocence of youth for my conclusions.

With Steel and Azrael, I don't think they really fall into the category of being derivative of Superman and Batman. Certainly, their origins are linked to those characters, because having them debut in a Superman or Batman book gives them a stronger launch (more exposure).  But the concepts behind them can stand on their own; unlike Supergirl or Superboy. 

If we're only measuring the success of a character by sales, then all of these characters have been successful to a certain extent, having been featured in various series or limited series over the years.  

In my original post I was thinking of success more in terms of cultural relevance.  Black Panther will always be more relevant than Luke Fox, because Luke Fox will always be secondary to Bruce Wayne.  

Also, because Luke is a derivative character who will inevitably be displaced by the return of Bruce Wayne, having Luke be the first black person to be Batman doesn't seem particularly groundbreaking. 

Saleswise, the Next Batman will undoubtably outsell characters like Rage, Night Thrasher, or Vixen.  But is that because he's a Batman character, or because none of those others have ever received an A-List treatment?  Probably a little of both.  

Black Panther was never more than a second tier character at Marvel until Priest's run.  Now he's one of the pillars of the Marvel Universe, which shows that a great original character with the right treatment can be wildly successful without having to be derivative of a popular white character.

ITEM: Azrael and Steel WERE Batman and Superman (effectively and presented that way.) I'm thinking it's hard to get much more derivative than that!

ITEM: Rhodey - I cannot judge about the differences. I do not know who the new Iron Man is.

ITEM: Measuring a character's success by sales - I figure that there's not a lot better way to determine if a character is popular or not. I assume that we're discussing if characters work and if they're received well. If not, please let me know; I don't want to mistake your intent.

ITEM: I assume Luke Fox = Lucius Fox. But in Batwoman (TV), they're two different characters... you'll have to straighten me out on that too, please.

ITEM: I dunno. Rage was pretty high profile in the Avengers for a while as "the angry young black man." From what little I saw of him in New Warriors, he seemed to share that role with Night Thrasher. Is that because comic fans so wanted such a character to relate to? 

ITEM: Black Panther was an Avenger (and a guest in Captain America.) So many Avengers were "second tier" by dint of the fact that they didn't have their own books EXCEPT Avengers. Was he the least bit derivative of Namor? Well, certainly not in real life! Possible derivative, a little, of Tony Stark, save that he was black? Again, possible but I think it kinda unlikely.

"Derivative" is tough in comics. Most characters (Superman and Batman included) are a type of derivative. Racial and religious inclusion reflect society more than relevance, I suspect. There were PLENTY of black recognizable characters back then; I remember a lot of stories "torn from today's headlines." But to that point... The Hawk and the Dove were representative of the times, and nobody remembers them. So it's a difficult idea to discuss, but a good one.

Oh, and please let me know if I'm missing your point. I really don't want to get you wrong.