#that the air nomads largely preached pacifism

[woahjo]

i think all the time about the line "in what year did fire lord sozin defeat the air nation army" and then aang responding "is this a trick question? the air nomads didn't have a formal army" and the implications of the history that the fire nation had been rewriting for a century. the implication that the air nomads (a peaceful nation) weren't brutally ambushed, but rather that they were ready to fight and may have even been eager to do so. absolving the fire nation of some of the guilt in a total genocide and painting the narrative that the air nomads were ready to defend themselves and/or that the attack on the air nomads was anything but a one sided ambush. i think about it a lot.

[loopy777]

A question regarding air nomad pacifism. Do you think this aspect of their culture was retroctively pushed to its logical extreme by aang. After all, we know that yanchen was extremely revered by her fellow air nomads(enough that she had that massive statue in the west) even though she was famous for wiping evil of the face of the world. Also we have have gyatso who seemed the image of a air nomad, yet was still willing to kill dozens of genocidal warriors to try protect his home and charges.

With the follow-up:

i should clarify that last question, to say that its not meant to be a suggestion that the air nomads didnt practice pacifism in general, but rather that the definition and limits of self defence might have been a bit more lenient than the way Aang would later define it as.

That’s definitely a good point, and even parallels an interesting matter that Gene Yang brought up in regards to his inspiration for The Promise, where there are certain cases in the pacifistic cultures that inspired the Air Nomads that consider killing to be an acceptable mercy. It’s certainly a way to reconcile the seeming contradictions in the Avatar storytelling, but my problem with it is the same one I have with Gene Yang’s claims about it: where is that in the actual story?

If Aang was behaving like an extremist, even within his own culture, I would have expected Yangchen to point that out. Instead, she says, “The monks have taught you well,” which indicates that Aang is the one best embodying the beliefs of the Air Nomads. Her criticism of him is, “But this isn't about you; this is about the World.” Which to me says Yangchen considers morality to be solely for the practitioner’s benefit, and not for the world at large.

Which is... odd. At least, it seems that way to me, with my Christian upbringing. Yes, Christianity says that being moral is the way to get to Heaven, and Eastern religions hold up the bettering of the self as a way to reincarnate as higher forms and eventually achieve Nirvana. (Or so is my understanding.) However, all of those religions also preach the practical benefits of good behavior and the ways it makes for a better community.

Strangely, it’s Iroh who gets to bring this up, when answering why he won’t face Ozai: “It will be the wrong way to end the war. History would see it as just more senseless violence, a brother killing a brother to grab power. The only way for this war to end peacefully is for the Avatar to defeat the Fire Lord.” The fact that it’s brought up at all, though, is a good indication that this is the higher answer (in the opinion of the overall narrative) that Aang can’t quite manage to articulate by that point.

Which, perhaps, could be taken as more evidence that the monks who taught Aang were missing the big picture.

Certainly, after Aang wins the day by staying true to his morals, the consequences shown are all unambiguously good, with a smooth transition in Fire Nation power to Zuko, Aang being celebrated and accepted by everyone as the Avatar, and start of rebuilding the world in a peaceful, balanced way. I think the point of the story is that if Aang had indeed killed Ozai, the process away from war wouldn’t have been as smooth.

There’s plenty of room for disagreement, as evidenced by the number of “Book 4″ fanfics (and even the official Smoke & Shadow comics) that depict Ozai as still being a rallying point for hardliner Fire racists, with the implication that if Aang had killed him, these problems wouldn’t exist.

But that’s one reason why the comics have really bugged me.

As for the Air Nomads, we could definitely say that their beliefs were more nuanced than Aang realized, but I still can’t help but wonder about making Gyatso, the Good Mentor archetype who stands in contrast to the other monk, a part of the flawed old regime. But one of the main themes of Avatar is how the mistakes of the well-meaning previous generation are not only left to the next generation to deal with, but push the new generation to find a better way of doing things.