#the colonizer argument

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

So hey, following Zionist logic, since humans are believed to originate in Africa, does that mean the Europeans were right to colonize it as their “birthright”? 🤓

Or no my bad if the oppressor isn’t a Christian European it’s not oppression and it doesn’t count as genocide when the victims are Arab.

Gotcha.

[yourhighness6]

Just finished rewatching sneezypeasy's video again and I think it's safe to say that zutara is the mango boba of ships

[eponastory]

Dear person who has commented then blocked me...

Listen here!

Did you think you were going to get away from me outting your ass?

So, in the comics, Zuko doesn't become pro colonist (because that's still an irrelevant argument) he comes to the understanding that there are both Earth Kingdom and Fire Nation people/descendants living in harmony with each other. You had the Earth King wanting to decolonize a colony that had been there for years when there were people born there with mixed nationality parents. That's kinda how America itself started by the way, so don't bring up the Colony Argument again.

The Earth King nearly went to war against Zuko because he thought it was wrong to split families up... and it is. I don't know what you mean by hurting Katara as all I remember was Aang getting pissed off because Zuko was sort of not playing the Earth King's little game.

Eventually, everyone figured out that Zuko was right about this, and that's how Repubic City got its roots (sort of. The idea is there, but you know... Bryke). So I don't really understand where you get that idea since Decolonization is pretty bad, too. I fail to see your argument as something to stand firmly on because it's not very firm.

But I mean... the Earth King pretty much wanted all Fire Nation colonists and their descendants out, which got tricky because there were a lot of children born from parents who were both. If you want to be more accurate about it to today's standards... it's the equivalent of oh gosh... a lot of countries. It's a very serious subject that doesn't need to be brought up for a ship. But you do you buddy.

It's okay. You're just jealous we are happy in our 'delusion' and 'insanity'.

Oh well.

But if someone remembers Zuko hurting Katara, please fill me in. Because I don't remember seeing it. I remember seeing her get in-between him and Aang, but I don't know. I'm not at home so I can't look.

Anyway, bless your little heart for replying to a post you really didn't need to reply to.

[dimity-lawn]

[survivalove]

imagine being this mad because your favorite character isn’t the fan favorite lmao, Zuko was just objectively a better written and more interesting character than Aang. like, you realize this isn’t really about ships, it’s about the fact that no matter how much bs you project onto Aang, he’s still just not as compelling of a character (now go ahead and play the race card again hun I know you wanna even tho we both know what you’re about) ✌🏾

I can’t possibly know what you’re mad at since I haven’t posted anything in like a week?

but yeah if arcs about racist entitled losers sitting on colonial thrones in the end is what you find interesting and compelling, great for you! was saying race card like a karen, calling me hun or using a brown hand emoji while being conveniently anonymous supposed to intimidate me?

in fact, this fandom in general seems to be quite racist and imperialistic as well so I’m not too bothered by your tastes or what the likes of you have to say about any of my favorite characters. (also idk why you wrote this as if my favorite character is aang 😭 if you had stalked me better, you’d know who my 2 favorite characters are)

but since this is about aang, all the anonymous asks and bad fandom takes in the universe won’t change the fact that he is the main character, he is the one with the most impact on every other character’s development (especially that tired redemption trope) and he is the most recognizable and iconic character in the entire franchise and animation in general tbh 🤷🏿‍♀️

you can keep talking about shippers and projection or whatever it is you could possibly be referring to and neither the facts nor my opinions will be changing.

which is unfortunate for you, since my dislike of the fandom’s baby uwu colonizer seems to be haunting you.

[piizunn]

terfs lead the most miserable lives. i’ve also never seen a terf do actual work to tangibly support the women in danger in their community. all they do is argue with people who don’t agree with them. imagine what you could do for women if you didn’t spend your time bullying trans folks online.

edit: i do not care what radfems have to say. save it.

[fromtheseventhhell]

I love how Stark stans claim that the whole Children of the Forest (a brown-skinned indigenous race) somehow didn’t count as settler colonialism and genocide because they weren’t human. Like ??? As if fantasy writers haven’t been using fantasy races in their racism allegories for decades. Besides, so what if they weren’t human ?Clearly, they were sentient beings with complex thought processes, complex underground structures and a way of life, had a religion and places of worship (the Old Gods and the weirwood trees), not to mention a language to communicate so they were civilised enough to engage in a war with the First Men, are able to speak and understand the Common Tongue, and wiping them out is still terrible regardless of their relation to humanity (or lack of thereof).

And Leaf herself debunk the idea that COTF are trees and squirrels, and GRRM calls her a “little woman”: “The First Men named us children,” the little woman said. “The giants called us woh dak nag gran, the squirrel people, because we were small and quick and fond of trees, but we are no squirrels, no children. Our name in the True Tongue means those who sing the song of earth. Before your Old Tongue was ever spoken, we had sung our songs ten thousand years.” — ADWD, Bran II

The thing about this fandom is that they view the Starks as having a divine right to the North in a way that no other family has to their lands. So even though they'll insist that Dany has no right to the Iron Throne because her family was usurped, the Starks deserve to reclaim the North because it was "stolen" from them. If the COTF weren't physically there in the story I could slightly understand (not that I would agree) people ignoring that aspect of the Stark's history, but they are fully realized and present. Apparently, them being supernatural is enough for people to ignore the Starks being colonizers when, like you said, racism allegories exist. And I can guarantee that the reaction wouldn't be the same if it was the Targaryens who were responsible for eradicating them. Instead, we get people headcanoning the Starks as indigenous (of course only the ugly/feral ones) which is just even more offensive. This is why it's so annoying that discussions on racism have been turned into just another fandom argument, like who deserves the throne. People's opinions on it are influenced by what characters they like instead of being objective on the subject.

[dr3amofagame]

my fandom hot take is that lmanburg are colonizers and i will not be taking critiques on this. also cwilbur is a zoophile and we should all bully him for it more

ehhh i just dont think the colonizer argument is one that holds much water, tbh. like lmanburg was already extremely xenophobic and nationalistic, c!wilbur was giving c!tubbo and c!tommy ultimatums and withholding attention unless c!tommy acted exactly the way he wanted to establish lmanburg--what's already there, explicitly, is plenty bad enough to establish that the establishment of lmanburg lies on pretty fucked foundations. the argument of colonization i think relies too much on the premise of something that dsmp ... isn't (like, we're talking a very small scale minecraft society where that land was unused and ownership of the land in general is tenuously defined) and has a lot of implications that just...dont apply to what happened on the dsmp. shrug it's just not something that i think fits well enough for me to use that term in specifics when there are better words that fit?

can't argue c!wilbur zoophilia tho the man dug his own grave a million times over for that. why did he do that fr

[wavebiders]

Just managed to catch up to team Issylra's storyline, and I've officially lost all understanding for the folks that want the Bells Hells to just shut up and help the gods without question lmao

[solo-una-piba]

It's even funnier because not even Haytham is American. He's British. Born in London

Exactly! Even Haytham had his nationality changed lol

[sneezypeasy]

This is why I prefer to let other people take the mic when it comes to fandom/moral critique. Even on my best day, I couldn't publish a fandom-critical take half as comprehensive and coherent as this one.

Reposted anonymously with permission from OP, who understandably does not want to deal with hate comments/hate asks for expressing these opinions.

(Hopefully the screenshots load properly on tumblr, I know the first one is incredibly long 😅)

[judasvibe]

i need to stop seeing posts arguing about 'well MY group is MORE indigenous to this piece of land than yours, that means my (side's) violence is justified!'

instead i want a book club style debate on the following implications of their feces-throwing:

if an indigenous group is indeed facing the unwanted presence of a non-indigenous group, would war, rape, and ethnic cleansing then become (more) justified? why/why not?

what implications does this have for the very large (dozens of millions) non indigenous populations of recent immigrants in europe? australia? north and south america? are the standards different ? why/why not?

is indigeneity an actual basis for the conflict or simply brandished as a justification? how do diaspora populations inform on this? what can migration and natality trends in either party tell us about motives?

[pratchettquotes]

"I know you like to point the finger of scoff, Sarge, but there's a lot goes on that we don't know about."

"Like what, exactly?" Colon retorted. "Name me one thing that's going on that you don't know about. There--you can't, can you?"

Terry Pratchett, Thud!

[pissmoon]

Btw catholics who always have to point out that protestants burned ~more~ witches than they did as if that means catholics doing ~less~ of it is just fine whenever witchburnings are mentioned are such a joke

[piplupod]

man. my brother asked me if Nickory (one of my OCs, he wears a roe deer skull mask) is a wend*go and. man. that hurts. that one does hurt a bit. fuck I'm tired.