Black Paladin!Shiro 4ever bitch!

NOT THE CRABS WE EXPECTED BUT STILL SOME CRABS WE DESERVE!!!

(this is his literal first appearance in his new origin story batman #408 and they point blank call him a crimimal btw)

anyway back to my point. jason already was a criminal because of poverty and it wasn’t necessarily that bruce taught him morals but that bruce gave him an environment where he didn’t have to resort to become a criminal

the issue with the debate is that it boils down to the whole “is jason an ontologically evil child” because that’s how people keep pushing it when they say yeah jason needed bruce to save him from being a criminal (but what they really mean is being a ~career criminal~ (for lack of better word)) without understanding the difference in their power dynamics. it glosses over why jason was a criminal.

panels from batman #409, including the last bit because i always found it funny jason pulled the disappearing act on batman HA

it’s interesting because in these 2 chapters jason already shows strong disdain for the cops, rejects being a ‘stoolie’ multiple times and reaffirms his rejection of social workers. but in this panel, jason emphasises that he’s a kid. and that adults aren’t all to be trusted. which given his parental figures, ma gunn as well as batman fucking up and putting him in a ‘kindergarten for crime’… well. you really can’t blame him.

#409 repeatedly point blank shows that jason isn’t a criminal because he wants to be. he leaves ma gunn’s school at the first chance he got. he told batman about the planned heist. he also appeared at the scene because ‘somebody had to stop it’ (and also because he didn’t believe batman trusted him). this isn’t a child who turned to crime for a quick buck. but it was the only avenue he believed was available to him.

so yes, i have an issue because the debate ignores how he outright says he only does it for survival. it is classist because it outright ignores the structural realities that drive people towards being criminal and making it into a moral failing when the absence of these barriers results in very drastic differences in one’s decisions. it ignores the fact that there’s are different types and tiers of crimes (petty theft vs armed robbery, misdemeanours vs felonies) and the harms it poses. it refuses to acknowledge the power differentials and dynamics at play. it quite literally ignores canon (really, two issues is all you need to read! TWO!) in favour of pushing a very classist talking point where the rich needs to enlighten the poor and guide them to the path of goodness. so yes i have an issue with the debate because it frankly is rather disingenuous and generally is because they’re trying to prop a character up in expense of another.

also cloth rots pretty quickly when left exposed to the elements and after the first few years or so anything we manage to scavenge isn’t going to be wearable anymore and anywho we’ve got to teach the kids everything or they’re not gonna know what to do some decades down the line when everything’s too rusted or rotted out to be of any practical use anymore, etc etc, and he’s reckoning that things like woodworking and smithing and ranching are more important than say, cleaning or cooking or dairying and meanwhile i’m just smh may all the gods have mercy on this poor fool