#zutara discourse

[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.

[zauncomeon]

Let’s get one thing very straight. Genocide will always be horrible, impactful, and damaging. To minimize it or act like it has no effect would be obtuse, and I’m not here to debate on whether colonization or genocide is worse than the other, especially since often those things intertwine, but even alone, they are evil.

All that being said, the Water Tribes were never colonized. Genocide was definitely enacted by the fire nation onto them, but colonization never happened. Genocide alone still impacted the water tribes heavily, and you can see for yourself when you look at how the Southern Water Tribe looked before the genocides have taken place. Not only that, genocide leaves damaging effects psychologically, as evidenced by how the people at the SWT seem so visibly emotionally exhausted, and a bit hopeless. But of course losing family members due to it only makes it more difficult and heartbreaking

I’m going to say now, even if the fire nation colonized the water tribes, I’d still ship zutara. So this isn’t a defense of any kind, but this is only an answer to seeing fellow zutarians misuse the word, and I think it’s important to know the difference so we can talk about it properly

[jasmines-and-dragons]

i don't really ship zutara but what if i told the anti-zutaras that:

it doesn't matter how much aang loves katara she still doesn't have to end up with him? katara is still allowed to not want to date him

it also doesn't matter if katara loves aang, love doesn't mean you have to end up together? like everyone in the gaang loves each other, at the end of the day. they don't all have to marry to prove that

it doesn't matter who's dating who at [checks notes] ages 13-16? i fear that people actually don't all end up with their middle/high school sweethearts, actually

anyways yeah i'm not really pro-zutara but like i don't think it's totally impossible or disgraceful or wtv yk?

[onlymollygibson]

age gaps in ATLA

(important bias to note: I ship Zutara more often than not)

So... the age gap between Katara and Aang is two years.

The age gap between Katara and Zuko is... also two years.

Either age gap is such that any larger gap (at that age) would be squicky to me. As it is, because teens develop so much in a short amount of time, two years is a pretty big age gap.

I've seen a lot of middle school girls dating high school guys and more often than not the guys are manipulative and the girls don't know relationships don't have to be that way.

14-16 can be just as troublesome an age gap as 12-14. Just because Katara has gone through puberty and looks like she could be older than 14/15 does not mean we shouldn't be cautious in how we handle the age gap. Maybe this is why some of my favorite Zutara fics are a few years post canon, or with aged up characters.

Also Azula is only 14 as well. She might be terrifyingly effective in battle and politics but prodigy or not, she was still loosing baby teeth just a few years before canon.

I love how much the live action makes it clear that they really are just kids.

Idk this isn't an essay or anything, just something to think about.

[percki]

the state of things

[ecoterrorist-katara]

“I think Zuko and Katara would’ve made a cute couple”

normal person irl: oh yeah, now that you mention it I can see it

ATLA fan online: Zutara fans are DELUSIONAL and so ANNOYING. There is NOTHING in the entire show that indicates anything romantic whatsoever. EVERYONE hates Zutara. Katara would never get with her colonizer and Zuko loves MAI. Katara and Aang are SOULMATES. You just like Zutara because they look good together. Well joke’s on you because Aang got Katara pregnant THREE TIMES —

[azulaaaaaaah]

rating every zuko ship (cause that mf is shipped with everyone)

CLICKBAIT!!! this isn’t every zuko ship just the main ones i immediately lied lol. idk if any of these are hot takes or not but please don’t crucify me (might do a part 2 where it’s azula ships)

Jinko - Zuko/Jin

6/10

awwww it’s cute (for what it is)

and what it is was one singular date that was never really mentioned again

i really appreciate how jin is so unperturbed by zuko’s awkward angst and just genuinely likes him

howevvver she’s kinda one dimensional (as she’s only in like an episode) and i just don’t see this going anywhere longterm

less a ship, more a vehicle for zuko’s character development lol

Jetko- Zuko/Jet

3/10

jet being zuko’s first gay encounter is canon in my eyes

don’t ship them however cause i hate jet with the fire of a thousands suns

similar issues to jin as well where their interactions are extremely limited so personally have no clue how this could be a long term thing

Maiko- Zuko/Mai

5/10

i am so impartial on this ship it’s not even funny.

i get that it’s canon. i get that izumi looks suspiciously like mai so it’s endgame. i just don’t see HOW?? it feels as if the writers realised zutara was becoming popular and were like ‘OH SHIT WE GOTTA DEFUSE THIS SITUATION SOMEHOW’

their relationship is basically just mai being a cold asshole and zuko being an angry asshole and there’s no change or development between EITHER OF THEM

however when they’re cute they’re cute !!!!

‘i love zuko more than i fear you’ COLDEST LINE EVER

however again it’s like - you had a crush on him as a kid. he was BANISHED. you dated for like a month as teens. you argued the whole time. he left again- and shortly after you saved him from prison, but then you were imprisoned partly due to his actions. you get back together again, he becomes the ruler of a country, and then you’re surprised it’s isolating him/making him even more of an asshole???

on the other hand we as a society need to admit that zuko is weirdly possessive of her (ig that’s a positive if ur a booktok romance girlie but im not). like if i was mai i wouldn’t put up with that toxic shit either

at the end of the day, i honestly don’t care that they’re canon lol- but i think they’d probably best as a bitchy best friend duo

Zukaang - Zuko/Aang

1/10

not round here partner. not round here

my first issue is the age gap is objectively extremely weird if examined in canon. leaving it at that

i get that this is grumpy x sunshine in a way the other ships aren’t to me- but we’ve only ever seen these two characters interact with each other when there’s (again) A WEIRD AGE GAP

they are bros in the least homosexual way possible

the cherry on top of this situation is: isn’t aang the reincarnation of his great grandpa? isn’t that giving slight, uh, inc*st vibes??? imagine if people shipped korra and jinora isn’t that just WEIRD???

Zuki - Zuko/Suki

8/10

is this my most controversial take ???

i am a sucker for bodyguard x royal family dynamics guys

and the fact that this is girlboss x malewife is even BETTER

suki seems the most competent at handling his pissy ass in a way the other people on this list aren’t

like she’s real. she’s not sugarcoating his situation, BUT SHES COMPASSIONATE !!

i don’t like throuples typically but suzukki is even eliter than this, which removes the whole ‘going against the bro code’ element that arises from them being together

also i feel like if you haven’t read the comics this doesnt make sense At All so please do

-2 points for the lack of tangible reason to ship them lol

Zutara - Zuko/Katara

7.5/10

okay this one makes the most logistical sense to me within canon (solely examined as a zuko ship not overall)

it really seems as if they were gonna make this canon and swerved circa book 2

LIKE CMONNNN OG ENEMIES TO LOVERS WHERE THE GUY ACTUALLY HAS CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND ISN’T JUST EVIL? FIRE X WATER? ITS INTRIGUING

something about this makes me uncomfortable though. (despite the age gap which again a little weird)

something about katara potentially becoming the fire lady is so… icky. she’s a waterbender. the fire nation tried to systematically erase her kind. her mother is killed by the fire nation because they think she’s a waterbender. and katara…. what, becomes part of the royal family? it just seems wrong, and like something she wouldn’t be into

also i feel like their arguments would be a little too NUCLEAR. there’s like, a 50% chance of divorce

she deserves a better ending than that is all i’m saying

to paraphrase the hunger games: katara has plenty of fire herself. SHE NEEDS THAT DANDELION IN THE SPRING MAN

(i’m a kataang truther)

Zukka - Zuko/Sokka

9/10

my zuko related otp!!!

bros to lovers guys, where zuko falls first but sokka falls HARDER !!!

ik this will never be canon and im happy with that. i know there’s not even a whisper of romance between them in the show, but i just think it’s c u t e .

sokka (like suki) is very likely to call zuko out on his shit, but less likely to lose his own shit (like katara)

this in my heart of hearts is 10/10 however is still problematic in a similar way to zutara

his mother is killed by the fire nation and he (presumably) becomes consort ?

however though, i would still say it’s not as ruhroh as zutara bc firstly, sokka isn’t a waterbender, and secondly, ‘consort’ is a lot more open to interpretation than i think fire lady is. in my opinion a consort ≠ a fire lady, just like irl a consort ≠ a queen. it kinda means he can still be ambassador to the southern water tribe/a leader of his own people, while just so happening to be married to the fire lord.

overall i can’t help but stan a friends to lover ship cmOn now

[theweeklydiscourse]

It’s really funny how much people misremember certain aspects of ATLA and then proclaim to the internet stuff that either never happened or is extremely distorted with absolute certainty. For example, today I saw a person claiming that whole point of Katara’s character arc was unlearning the parentified behaviours she developed in wake of her mother’s death. That a huge part of Katara’s arc was a confrontation of how that trauma fundamentally shaped her maternal tendencies.

The thing is though…WE the audience, can recognize that the parentification Katara experienced was something that was really straining for her, but the TEXT doesn’t. The audience (or at least certain parts of the audience) can identify that her maternal tendencies were indicative of a responsibility that she took on far too young and subjected her to unnecessary pressure and stress. There are flashes of recognition maybe, but for the most part, the show doesn’t actually confront the negative impact that Katara’s maternal role had on her.

Katara never truly unlearns the maternal behaviours that put so much pressure on her because the text doesn’t see it as a bad thing. Arguably, the text doesn’t see much of a problem with the emotional labour Katara takes on and how that labour goes unreciprocated for the most part (particularly from her canon love interest). We see some reflections, but it’s not enough to support a reading of the text where that element is actually extremely obvious and a prominent point in her character arc.

We’re not the ones “watching the show with our eyes closed”, I think you’re just misremembering the canon progression of Katara’s arc to avoid confronting a real issue in the text.

[sokkastyles]

i think its funny how often i see "not every relationship has to be romantic, ROMANCE IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN FRIENDSHIP" argument applied to zutara because of how often the same antis will use the "colonizer x colonized ship" argument because if anything, they're the ones who perpetuate that romantic relationships are more important than friendships. Why is it okay for the gaang to be canonically friends with a so called colonizer, yet it crosses a line for Katara to date him? its okay to willingly and positively associate with a racist as long as youre not involved romantically? because that implies that friendship is automatically lesser than a romantic relationship if youre not willing to apply the same moral standards to both when being friends with a colonizer isnt any less reprehensible than dating them. just incredibly unserious people

because that implies that friendship is automatically lesser than a romantic relationship if youre not willing to apply the same moral standards to both

Bingo.

[mykingdomforasong]

I do think the dumbest, most egregious overstatement of harm in fandom spaces is acting like someone is doing an active act of modern colonization because they ship two characters from a 2000s animated Nickelodeon show

[kideaternomnom]

I like how Sokka x Suki is the least problematic ATLA ship in the fandom. 😭Zutara has some discourse and haters, so does Kataang and Maiko. However for Sukka everyone just agrees: “Yeah, they work, are well written, and are a good couple.”

[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 😅)

[sad-endings-suck]

something something fire and water are opposites… something about air and earth being opposites… something about moon and sun, and an earthbender appearing to an airbender in a place of strong spiritual connection… something or such about waterbending techniques being used to create new unique firebending maneuvers… oh yes something about age and maturity in relation to peers… sometimes in regards to push and pull… or maybe equal and opposite action and reaction and how balance in all things (especially the elements) is always needed and as such is a primary reason for the avatar’s existence… mmhhh yes yes

[nartml]

Nah, you know what makes my blood boil?

Seeing characters degraded, vilified, and desecrated in the name of ship wars.

No, Aang did not strip Katara of her agency nor did he only accept the "digestible" parts of her, leave my baby alone.

No, Zuko isn't just a selfish colonizer, bro did not have one of the greatest arcs of all time for you to reduce him to that.

No, Katara wasn't just a mother to everyone, for fuck's sake, did we watch the same show?

I can go on and on and fucking on, but all I'm gonna say is I'm fucking tired of y'all's shipping discourse.

It was never that serious, it will never be that serious.

I think that both Zutara and Kataang are great ships in their own right, with their respective pros and cons. I also think it comes down to personal taste.

Of course, people can have differing opinions on characters, regardless of the inclusion of ships or not. But at the very least, stick to your own.

Ship and let ship. Remember when this was fun?

Don't invade spaces that aren't yours to start trouble, and stay appropriate with the tags. Fandom etiquette, it's pretty neat.

Y'all suck the joy out of everything.

[azulas-daddy-kink]

Mai: throws a scroll at Zuko

Fandom: Abuse!

Azula: pranks Zuko as a kid

Fandom: Abuse!

Toph: punches Zuko playfully

Fandom: Abuse!

Zuko: holds Katara captive and threatens to burn her mother’s necklace, while implying he will give her up to pirates who are known for how they hurt women

Fandom: Soul mates! 😍

[fanfic-lover-girl]

Demonization of the Enemies to Lovers Trope

I find it very disingenuous when Zutara antis compare or lump Zutara with problematic ships like Reylo and Dramione. Anyone who makes a claim like this should have not any opinions about ATLA respected. Because they obviously did not watch the show.

There are major differences that set Zutara apart from Reylo and Dramione.

Zutara vs Dramione - Friendship

Zuko and Katara reconciled and became very close friends in season 3. Draco and Hermione disliked each other in canon and the best of their relationship was civility. Dramione could have served the same narrative function as Zutara by representing union after war but Dramione lacked the canon building blocks that Zutara had.

Zutara vs Reylo - Redemption

Zuko has a powerful redemption arc. But even when Zuko was an antagonist, he was never truly evil. And Zuko's actions towards Katara (eg tying her to a tree) were not completely monstrous. Zuko and Katara never crossed any boundaries while enemies. When Katara starts showing compassion to Zuko, it is in season 2 when Zuko is no longer an active threat (eg. offering to heal Iroh and their emotional moment in the catacombs). Compare this to Reylo where there are all these romantic undertones while Reylo and Kylo are still enemies. Kylo also has a worse record than Zuko: murdering his dad, oppressing countless people, killing civilians, and maiming people. And Rey for some reason, before Kylo does anything to deserve it, begins to feel sorry for him. Unlike Zuko, we don't see Kylo truly atone for what he did to Rey. Not to mention the abusive elements in their relationship such as Kylo calling Rey worthless.

The point is that people need to stop demonizing enemies to lovers ships. And stop lumping healthy ships like Zutara with more toxic ships like Dramione and Reylo. It's not a fair comparison.