Follow TV Tropes
Weeeeeeell.... The thing with imperialism is that white people the world over today still enjoy the benefits of imperialism and colonialism in the past (and to some extent the modern day).
I mean... I'm disabled and living just barely above the poverty line, but the main reason I'm not below it (and can thus afford things like the ten year old computer I'm typing this on) is that the wages in certain countries are still so far below the local one because of the aftermath of colonialism that I can afford cheap stuff made there.
Not denying that, but is a jump to go like white imperalism is the only that have being, specially with other countries like china or some lile arabia saudi for example.
I mean is hard to said but US and others white country are better in racism harmony than latin america for example, which is frustrating to a Nth degree.
John Oliver's thoughts on politics as he gears up for a new season of his show:
John Oliver: ‘Maybe Brexit is a great idea. There’s absolutely nothing to suggest that’
The article does talk about things besides Brexit, contrary to the headline. Though he's definitely not a fan of Brexit, which in his opinion was a much worse thing than the Trump win. At least the Trump presidency has a constitutionally mandated end. Brexit has no end to it.
Edited by M84 on Feb 10th 2019 at 11:38:21 PM
However, racists make up reasons why they are justified in doing X all the time. Bill Maher is all about how his Islamophobia is due to Values Dissonance and just ignores that he's extraordinarily ignorant about the differences in Muslim groups. People make up shit like the Bell Curve and so on.
I mean, they are animals. Is reasonable think so. That is the difference, in the Zootopia world, the predators really were predators.
Not that it don't mean that the message is worthless (don't judge people for what their ancestors did), but as a analogy of racism, well...
With Trump being such a Attention Harlot, Brexit gets kinda ignored in the talks of fuck ups.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Feb 10th 2019 at 11:48:58 AM
All analogies start to break down once you look deeply enough. It's only when you do a surface level comparison and it doesn't hold up that it becomes a problem.
YMMV, of course.
That said, noting that predators have a history of eating prey and how that doesn't really fit with real world bigotry doesn't require particularly deep analysis.
Edited by M84 on Feb 11th 2019 at 8:06:26 PM
Wyldchyld has often mentioned in the British Politics Thread that Brexit is far more of a domestic disaster for the country in question, while Trump is doing more damage for the US's internationally.
I still personally consider Brexit to be by far the most damaging of the two, it's the biggest act of going against the nation's self-interest I can think of. If it goes through, it will damage the UK for decades to come. Maybe even centuries...
Which is John Oliver's point. While the fallout of the Trump presidency is difficult to measure, it will at least end in a few years. Brexit is not going to end. It's a fairly permanent change in the UK status quo, and not for the better. Heck, it's already damaging the UK since the referendum itself seems to have divided the country, and the actual Brexit hasn't even happened yet.
Even the best case scenarios leave Britain in a significantly worse situation than what we had before the referendum. As in, if we revoke Article 50 ASAP, many companies have already left for more stable countries and international trust in the UK has been severely damaged. Any other option is much worse. And if we reach No Deal, people will die.
Yeah, Brexit hasn't even happened yet and it's already damaged the UK on multiple levels. Economically, culturally, politically...
Not disegreeing with you, but I feel Brexit is primarily a problem for the UK, while the negative effect of Trump's presidency tends to reach far beyond the USA's borders.
Besides, I do not think Trump is a problem so much as he is a cuomination of one: the alt-right didn't start with him, and the people who elected him are still going to be there, raising hell well after he loses his seat in the White House.
That would be the fallout. But Brexit has fallout too, and it is also a culmination of a lot of problems in the UK. Heck, the calling of the referendum itself was already a bad sign. Even if Article 50 was revoked yesterday it would not solve the problems that led to the Leave vote in the first place.
And it's not like Brexit exists in a vacuum. The same forces that led to Brexit also helped contribute to the Trump win — Wyldchyld has noted this before. And the departure of the UK from the EU has had and will have consequences for the EU. Then there's the diplomatic and trade issues — especially the possible return of the Troubles between the UK and Ireland.
Brexit is not just a problem for the UK.
Edited by M84 on Feb 11th 2019 at 8:33:14 PM
Zootopia: It's admittedly been some time since I watched this film, but I'm reminded of some earlier comments about "applicability versus allegory". The film has a lot of not-so-subtle references and nods to real life situations, but it doesn't make sense as a one-to-one allegory of anything specific (like say, stating that X species represents Y ethnicity and so on), and I don't think it's really supposed to.
And saying that the predators have a "history of abuse" is kind of stretching it anyway, imo. It's like being pissed at someone because their homo erectus ancestors used to attack yours or something. Note how it's always "It's in their DNA!" and never "Remember what they did!".
That don't work because the carnivores still are carnivores. I'm not saying that isn't a worthless message, not judging someone for their ancestors is good. However, that is really FAR from what causes real life bigotry.
Well, a major part of the movie is that the idea that carnivores actually want to eat the other animals and are ruled by their instincts is....well, incredibly racist libel.
One that the villain takes advantage of.
This is another example of how Fantastic Racism doesn't quite work as an allegory for real life bigotry, though admittedly Zootopia does it somewhat better than most.
I find Zootopia to be a fascinating case study not really in any one minority rights struggle (trying to apply it to one will raise Unfortunate Implications), but as a case study in Intersectionality. Note the Predator/Prey divide is not the only one that exists: you also have the divide between big and small animals, and profiling and stereotyping on those lines.
Moreover, animal's stereotypes are brought to the forefront: note how its not carnivores in general, but foxes specifically that are stereotyped as shifty, even though both are looked down upon. Sheep are seen as uniquely demure, even though in the end the villains prove they can be just as vicious as any other animal.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 11th 2019 at 11:07:16 AM
I haven't watched Zootopia yet so I'm not willing to guess at how well it did its message of diversity and tolerance but I'm always extremely hesitant of any majority-minority allegory that has them as different species.
As a premise it's just fundamentally flawed, the entire reason such double standards are unacceptable is that we're all human and thus treating each other as fundamentally different is only justified from bigotry. But when there are significant objective differences then it's pretty much automatically different from racism and the like.
Still, the execution doesn't have to be bad so I'm not going to judge Zootopia until I see it.
The thing about Zootopia is that species is basically substituted for culture as it tries to avoid people are all the same. The appeal of the city of Zootopia (versus the movie) is that it is an INCREDIBLY diverse place that draws its strength from its diversity and cosmopolitanism.
However, the divisions are everywhere and in every level of society both big and small ("never touch a sheep's wool", "only rabbits can call each other cute", "you're articulate for a fox."). Part of what is good about the movie is that it demonstrates racism goes from being a klan-wearing bigot yes to also daily tiny interactions and stereotyping.
Also, that they rarely have any real basis as the instincts of Zootopians are shown as usually not applying to their evolved modern selves:
It takes an interesting stance that there are massive differences among people and that can be overwhelming but that those differences are a good thing that should be celebrated rather than feared.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 11th 2019 at 8:18:09 AM
If one wants to have an allegory concerning real life racism, it's best to avoid having the story told with different species. Maybe use different breeds of the same species or something instead. That still wouldn't be quite perfect, but it'd be closer.
Didn't Blacksad do something like that? There's different species, but the white supremacists were looking at fur color and not species?
Eh, maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's cross-breeding going on in the setting.
Because science is not what's important in the setting.
Like Judy and Nick could have a red furred bunny child.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 11th 2019 at 8:30:09 AM
Yes. What I found really funny is that the "Artic Nation" (basically the story's version of the KKK) is that their insignia is a snowflake. :p
Right, but there's a difference between "we have differences and that's ok" and "we're fundamentally different in major objective ways" and the premise of Zootopia unintentionally endorses the later.
I mean, when we're comparing classes of people men vs women are the most "objectively" different but even then we have far more similarities than differences, I stand by my position that using species to represent differences within humanity is an intrinsically flawed premise.
But I want to emphasize that just because a premise is flawed doesn't mean that the execution can't be excellent, and the benefits of the message offered can certainly outweigh the costs.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 11th 2019 at 12:53:47 PM
Community Showcase More