Hot on the heels of Superman's decision to formally renounce his US citizenship ( Action Comics #900) and "go global"- it just occurred to me- isn't the JLA's official title "Justice League of America" more than a little passe in the 21st century. After all how many of the League's members are American citizens by birth( Green Lantern, Batman, Aquaman definitely, Wonder Woman and Superman maybe, Martian Manhunter  definitely not), and in an era of "globalization" doesn't this imply a certain parti pris attitude to a particular country( Marvel is more circumspect- the Avengers call themselves "Earth's Mightiest Heroes", the FF has from the beginning pledged itself to use its powers for the benefit of humanity and not just Uncle Sam-even Captain America says that he represents the ideals of America and not just the policies of the current Administration)? Besides, even with the Cold War fading into history, there are STILL countries not on good terms with the US- Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela -how does the JLA deal with them?
 
Terry

They could reorganise into the JLE perhaps?

That's why the new series isn't called Justice League of America or JLA but simply Justice League

I hate the whole America/Europe/International thing, anyway, especially when they often deal with planetary threats or threats in other countries.  I'm glad they're dropping the America part.

I hate the whole America/Europe/International thing, anyway, especially when they often deal with planetary threats or threats in other countries.  I'm glad they're dropping the America part.

Some posters (who shall be nameless!) miss the point of my comment. During WWII and the Cold War, the close relationship between heroes (Marvel; and DC) may have had some validity inasmuch as the United States government was clearly"on the side of the angels", but nowadays esp with things like l'affaire Iraq and globalization making societies closer than they have ever been before, why continue in what strikes me as a form of "captivity"-if a JLA member or the team collectively chase a villain into another country(one neither an ally , military or diplomatic), say the Russian Federation or Cuba-or Iran/Venezuela, can they claim that the authority given them by the US supersedes the sovereignty of that other nation(it is noteworthy that the then Bush Administration asserted that the reason for its opposition to the International Crminal Court was that it "infringed on American sovereignty")? No, it would be better to ask for a charter or authrority from an international authority such as the UN!
 
Terry

Some posters (who shall be nameless!) miss the point of my comment. During WWII and the Cold War, the close relationship between heroes (Marvel; and DC) may have had some validity inasmuch as the United States government was clearly"on the side of the angels", but nowadays esp with things like l'affaire Iraq and globalization making societies closer than they have ever been before, why continue in what strikes me as a form of "captivity"-if a JLA member or the team collectively chase a villain into another country(one neither an ally , military or diplomatic), say the Russian Federation or Cuba-or Iran/Venezuela, can they claim that the authority given them by the US supersedes the sovereignty of that other nation(it is noteworthy that the then Bush Administration asserted that the reason for its opposition to the International Crminal Court was that it "infringed on American sovereignty")? No, it would be better to ask for a charter or authrority from an international authority such as the UN!  Terry

@Paracelsus said:

Some posters (who shall be nameless!) miss the point of my comment. During WWII and the Cold War, the close relationship between heroes (Marvel; and DC) may have had some validity inasmuch as the United States government was clearly"on the side of the angels", but nowadays esp with things like l'affaire Iraq and globalization making societies closer than they have ever been before, why continue in what strikes me as a form of "captivity"-if a JLA member or the team collectively chase a villain into another country(one neither an ally , military or diplomatic), say the Russian Federation or Cuba-or Iran/Venezuela, can they claim that the authority given them by the US supersedes the sovereignty of that other nation(it is noteworthy that the then Bush Administration asserted that the reason for its opposition to the International Crminal Court was that it "infringed on American sovereignty")? No, it would be better to ask for a charter or authrority from an international authority such as the UN!  Terry

Since when was the JLA government funded? Like at all...It was Oliver Queen then Bruce Wayne that funded it. JLI was UN.

On a more serious note... Why is "America" always equated to just the US? Consequently, "Americans" to just US citizens?

It's just going to be called 'Justice League' come September

On a more serious note... Why is "America" always equated to just the US? Consequently, "Americans" to just US citizens?

I'm glad they are dropping "America" from the title, it only adds nostalgic value, and seems to be pandering to patriotic readers, I've read the series for years and it never really made sense to me. 

On a more serious note... Why is "America" always equated to just the US? Consequently, "Americans" to just US citizens?

@RedK: No.. It should be called States of America North of Mexico and South of Canada... SANoMaSoC! Nyehehehe!

@TheCrowbar said:

@Paracelsus said:

Some posters (who shall be nameless!) miss the point of my comment. During WWII and the Cold War, the close relationship between heroes (Marvel; and DC) may have had some validity inasmuch as the United States government was clearly"on the side of the angels", but nowadays esp with things like l'affaire Iraq and globalization making societies closer than they have ever been before, why continue in what strikes me as a form of "captivity"-if a JLA member or the team collectively chase a villain into another country(one neither an ally , military or diplomatic), say the Russian Federation or Cuba-or Iran/Venezuela, can they claim that the authority given them by the US supersedes the sovereignty of that other nation(it is noteworthy that the then Bush Administration asserted that the reason for its opposition to the International Crminal Court was that it "infringed on American sovereignty")? No, it would be better to ask for a charter or authrority from an international authority such as the UN!  Terry

Since when was the JLA government funded? Like at all...It was Oliver Queen then Bruce Wayne that funded it. JLI was UN.

but the US government has backed them up and supported them.   Also in an issue of Green Lantern Hal was chasing some rouge space villian and the russian government brought clams that he was breaking laws by tresspassing on foreign soils, even theough the guy he was after was not from earth and Hal was acting on behalf of an intergalactic police force. the same thing has happened with Supes on more then one occasion, Action Comics #900 being the most recent.

I NEVER said or implied that the JLA was funded or controlled by the US Government(clearly it is not)-but only to note that the close ties between the JLA and various organs of the US Government( law enforcement, intelligence) might draw into question the objectivity or impartiality of an entity that calls itself "The Justice League of AMERICA" aswould many governments (and NOT just those known not to be on friendly terms with the US- such as North Korea, Iran or Venezuela). I don't know much about the Oath to Oa Hal Jordan swore but it demonstratably does not seem to conflcit with his loyalty to the US Constitution.
 
Terry

On a more serious note... Why is "America" always equated to just the US? Consequently, "Americans" to just US citizens?

On a more serious note... Why is "America" always equated to just the US? Consequently, "Americans" to just US citizens?

I prefer just "Justice League."

I NEVER said or implied that the JLA was funded or controlled by the US Government(clearly it is not)-but only to note that the close ties between the JLA and various organs of the US Government( law enforcement, intelligence) might draw into question the objectivity or impartiality of an entity that calls itself "The Justice League of AMERICA" aswould many governments (and NOT just those known not to be on friendly terms with the US- such as North Korea, Iran or Venezuela). I don't know much about the Oath to Oa Hal Jordan swore but it demonstratably does not seem to conflcit with his loyalty to the US Constitution.  Terry

It was created as the Justice League of America and has been called that for the vast majority of it's existence. Keeping "America" in the name would be a good thing to do. Who is DC trying to cater to, anyway? And why would anyone who already likes the team be offended or put off by having "America" in the name? Why so sensitive?

Much as we might like to live in a world where nationality and religion are not live issues( remember the flap about the "Muslim Batman"?), these issues are real and must be addressed. As for Hal Jordan's Oath to Oa conflicting with his one to the US Air Force- the issue should be which threat is greater- and remember that the US's safety CANNOT be discussed in isolation from that of Earth's as a whole, besides,Jordan as a Green Lantern is required to be a "global patriot" as opposed to a purely parochial one!(Giving extraterrestrial technology to the US woula arguably give an unfair advantage to America that other nations did not have)
 
Terry

That's why the new series isn't called Justice League of America or JLA but simply Justice League

On a more serious note... Why is "America" always equated to just the US? Consequently, "Americans" to just US citizens?

  I think it's more important to think about the fact there is now a Justice League with the 6 big name heroes, then there's the Justice League International.  If the new Justice League isn't "American" but global, why do you need an international League?  Stupid.