I think this is an extremely shallow reading of the show that takes the 8 year old's perspective of protagonist = good, antagonist = bad. You are obviously supposed to agree with a lot of what the antagonists day and do. It's actually explicit. Every season Korra goes "damn, they are right tho"
Oh yeah, the comics are hot garbage. Like The Promise, where Zuko decides not to de-colonize the Earth Kingdom because some of his colonizer subjects feel a connection to the land now, poor colonizers, and the comic portrays that claim to the land as similarly legitimate to that of the Earth Kingdom
I'm asking in good faith, so please don't take this as a trolling question. I genuinely want to know the answer. What does decolonisation mean in the context of avatar, when there's families from the fire nation that have lived there for 100 years? Should people from the Fire Nation just be sent back there?
The Fire Nation needs to return all land and make reparations. Fire Nation citizens in the Earth Kingdom could theoretically be allowed to stay, but that would have to be up to the people of the Earth Kingdom, particularly the people of those specific colonized parts of it.
No matter how connected they feel to the land, no matter that some of them were born there, the presence of the Fire Nation colonizers was not some accident- it was a deliberate act of war and cultural genocide.
At the very least, that chickenshit "well why don't you just share the land and be part of neither nation?" solution was some both sides nonsense, as if this was some border dispute and not a conflict where one side was the clear- and self-admitted!- aggressor and colonizer
So I understand that in the context of writing, a both sides story like this is bad. But in the plot, don't basically all the people in what becomes republic city demand independence? To me they seem more like the metis than two separate groups.
If that happened in the real world, that would be one thing.
But these people were written with the end goal of creating the United Republic so that Korra could happen, not with the goal of being an exploration of the actual dynamics of colonization. Saying "well the people wanted that" doesn't carry any water when those people are fictional and it serves the creators' needs to have the characters want that. It's an easy out for the writers, nothing more.
Ok but the entire story line of TLoK is just "good things???? Actually bad"
All the villains were actually based
I think this is an extremely shallow reading of the show that takes the 8 year old's perspective of protagonist = good, antagonist = bad. You are obviously supposed to agree with a lot of what the antagonists day and do. It's actually explicit. Every season Korra goes "damn, they are right tho"
Yeah I feel like the show does a great job of Korra internalizing the societal critiques that each of the antagonists puts forward.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Kuvira's an actual fascist who works to ethnically cleanse the Earth Empire. She's also the only villain the show tries to redeem. :thinkin-lenin:
Zaheer gets redemption, I'd say.
deleted by creator
Zaheer gets like 5 minutes of screen time in Book 4, mostly to make him realise that his 'anarchy' was a failure. In the comics,
spoiler
Kuvira gets an entire story arc devoted to her backstory and redemption. I read it a while ago, but I'm pretty sure they even let her out of prison.
Maybe Zaheer's prison visit could be viewed as redemption, but they do 100X more of it for Kuvira.
Oh, I haven't gotten to the Korra comics yet. They're on back order right now.
Avatar comics make the shows' politics look good
Oh yeah, the comics are hot garbage. Like The Promise, where Zuko decides not to de-colonize the Earth Kingdom because some of his colonizer subjects feel a connection to the land now, poor colonizers, and the comic portrays that claim to the land as similarly legitimate to that of the Earth Kingdom
I'm asking in good faith, so please don't take this as a trolling question. I genuinely want to know the answer. What does decolonisation mean in the context of avatar, when there's families from the fire nation that have lived there for 100 years? Should people from the Fire Nation just be sent back there?
The Fire Nation needs to return all land and make reparations. Fire Nation citizens in the Earth Kingdom could theoretically be allowed to stay, but that would have to be up to the people of the Earth Kingdom, particularly the people of those specific colonized parts of it.
No matter how connected they feel to the land, no matter that some of them were born there, the presence of the Fire Nation colonizers was not some accident- it was a deliberate act of war and cultural genocide.
At the very least, that chickenshit "well why don't you just share the land and be part of neither nation?" solution was some both sides nonsense, as if this was some border dispute and not a conflict where one side was the clear- and self-admitted!- aggressor and colonizer
So I understand that in the context of writing, a both sides story like this is bad. But in the plot, don't basically all the people in what becomes republic city demand independence? To me they seem more like the metis than two separate groups.
If that happened in the real world, that would be one thing.
But these people were written with the end goal of creating the United Republic so that Korra could happen, not with the goal of being an exploration of the actual dynamics of colonization. Saying "well the people wanted that" doesn't carry any water when those people are fictional and it serves the creators' needs to have the characters want that. It's an easy out for the writers, nothing more.
Ok, that's more or less what I thought, basically fine in story, but not fine to write
Yikes
deleted by creator