Joker- DC's latest colossal clusterfuck (spoilers).

[K. A. Pital]

So if they don't support tearing everything down in an orgy of fire and blood than they're "colonialist"? Okay gotcha. Let's ignore that earlier they were discussing the utter hypocrisy of them not using their resources to aid the world.

I am asking about opening borders and or at least creating a way for refugees to naturalize inside the nation. Did this happen? Why this is not shown? Why do they still hide behind the shield, if they opened up? Nothing about blood and fire in my question.

If they did not open their borders and if they don’t actually let people in, how is it hat different from the US setting up their „outreach“ NGOs in other nations, but throwing people from the South who cross their border into cages and camps?

Does a vision of an African nation which treats other nations the way Saudi Arabia and Turkey treat other inhabitants of the Middle East seem a good depiction of how technologically advanced Africans are „different“?

You also have not answered why they have an absolute monarchy, despite actual tribal societies being often against one-man rule?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0
Killmonger is openly planning to send his "liberation" to places like Hong Kong (which also suffered under Colonial rule) AND he also doesn't make any mention about Latinos, Arabs, Asians or OTHER people of color so when you combine the two it's made clear that his "liberation" is blacks only if that. Moreover the fact that he's willing to murder and exploit his fellow blacks to get what he wants and rather hypocritically abuses Wakandan tradition (burning the herb so that NO ONE will be able to challenge his position is the act of a wannabe tyrant not a liberator). The guy doesn't give a donkey's left asscheek about liberation.

Hong Kong is terribly treating black and non-Chinese Asian people, and is one of the most racist cities in Asia (if you‘d care to read up on racism in Hong Kong, you would know that). But that aside, my argument was exactly that the moviemakers chose to vilify a black person from a poor neighborhood as opposed to the isolated, fairly-tale „noble savages“. The way they depicted Killmonger was to make radical African activists seem like madmen. Even though it is the exact opposite: the perfectly normal, perfectly „esteemed“ white people were slavers. The normality and status-quo are not what they seem.

You're sources, while well intentioned, seem to get rather offended at the insinuation that yes it's entirely possible to advocate for Black Revolution and STILL be an evil contemptible shithead

No - they, and me, are dissatisfied with the fact moviemakers chose to make the villain a black person with a poor background (anti-poor, anti-ghetto message), and they chose to depict a poor black person as a „contemptible shithead“ and a white CIA guy as a protagonist. Do you understand? The fact that something is possible does not eliminate the ideology.

If I make a film about how brave Southern soldiers resist an attack by the Union troops who burn down their city, that is possible. You may even find a real incident to base it on (as you notice that there were revolutionaries who became tyrannical or mob-like). Does this mean such a film is a neutral depiction and has no ideological point to make?

and they ignore that Killmonger IS in fact played for tragedy (the whole scene where he takes the herb and has the conversation with his dad shows that if anything his dad's violent death fucked him up rather than any generic "blackness").

So the only character who has been through hardships and experienced racism is only used as a tragic and evil antagonist because he must be a madman, and one who must be killed, no reconciliation is possible here. I guess that is a very American view, but you must understand why it is criticized, then?

You say "The CIA „heroes“ prevent a black empowerment by shooting down Wakandan ships that give weapons to the most vulnerable and oppressed". A more accurate reading of the scene is "CIA guy aligned with the heroes shoot down a Wakandan ship that gives weapons for the explicit purpose of triggering a global uprising that will tear the entire world down in an orgy of fire and blood and kill countless innocents of ALL races". You utterly whitewashed the implications of what Killmonger was planning because golly gee fighting the EVIL West sure seems heroic to you.

After what the West did to Africa, yes, it is heroic to fight the West. The lands of legitimate, „esteemed“ slavers. That was my point one. My next point is the one I made above: the way you choose to depict something is not neutral. If the white character was a civilian, a scientist, it would be different. The way you structure your story and whom you choose as protagonists matters.

Dude. There have been cases where oppressed have become as bad as their oppressors and Mugabe and Dessalines are BOTH excellent examples. That the south shamelessly overplayed the fact that a massacre in haiti happened to try to justify slavery (and in the process shamelessly ignored that it COULD end peacefully) DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WERE FUCKING MASSACRED! More importantly the entire reason it occurred was to "prevent new frenchmen from being born" which is the EXACT logic Colonel John Chivington used to justify the Sand Creek Massacre. That white supremacists shamelessly played up the event does not change that it was an atrocity. Mugabe not only committed mass murder against people of the Mdebele tribe (my teacher told me how he encountered a nurse who had witnessed a mass grave and was reluctant to talk about it to him) but also ran Zimbabwe into the ground and specifically made it so that only He and HIS Supporters benefitted (Which shows that he never really cared about his countrymen all that much). So in that regard they WERE examples of people who fought oppression and either became corrupt themselves or committed needless acts of violence to satisfy their own prejudices. Pointing out that Killmonger is like those guys is NOT racist despite what you so desperately want to believe.

It is, and I have explained why. If you make a fictional structure about evil black poor person and a good white CIA agent, it is your choice to frame it that way. It is your choice to tell a story where white people, inheriting the wealth hoarded by slavers, are „neutral“ or even potential victims, but black people fight among themselves and are a potential evil. It is your choice to make the key villain a poor black person. If you make a story about Southern soldiers resisting Union troops, this story is not neutral. The way you told it is not neutral. You have shown the perpetrators of slavery as victims, but avoided to show the part of the story where they perpetrate and fight to keep slavery.

He also is willing to overlook Wakanda's complicity in the slave trade, blatantly states "the sun shall never set on the Wakandan Empire" (which is basically what ALL colonial empires argue) and after using Wakandan law to get the throne shamelessly ignores it when it's convenient. So no. He's NOT a good leader; even if violent revolution IS necessary (which is dubious) Killmonger would be a HORRIBLE choice for a leader.

So you do agree that a person who argued for actual liberation has been painted as a madman, a villain, and as a bad leader? You seem to have missed entirely the point that the authors chose to paint the character a villain in a certain way. This depiction is intentional, and its intent is what I question, and consider racist. Much as the racists used the scare of „violent black people“ to perpetuate slavery, apartheid, segregation, so do the authors of this story use it to discredit movements for black liberation by painting them senselessly violent, dangerous, only caring about black people and so on. It is like the hack attack on #BLM with „all lives matter“ - yes, but it is not the point of BLM.
[/quote]

I explicitly brought up Mandela because he's proof that Blacks CAN be trusted with self governance. Hell Mandela using violence was entirely acceptable given that the Apartheid government was resistant to meaningful reform for years. Thing is, Mandela ALSO understood that at some point one has to be the bigger man and lay down the sword. When he was elected there were South African Blacks who would have liked nothing more than to forcibly expel all the white people. Mandela DID NOT DO THAT because he realized that moving on and healing meant that on some level you had to let go. Moreover there are nations like Ghana that have been doing pretty well for themselves overall. So no. Pointing out that revolutionary leaders CAN potentially become as bad as their oppressors is NOT inherently racist. And given that you were portraying Killmonger's actions as "heroic liberation" and shamelessly ignored that he was entirely willing to conquer OTHER oppressed peoples AND that his goal was to create a colonial empire himself you basically made it clear that you think Black people should overthrow the system violently, or at the very least view violent revolution as unquestionably good rather as something that is justified in some cases such as 60s-early 90s south africa and Zimbabwe (though it would have been better if someone better than Mugabe had been in charge) but which can also potentially be corrupted or can become a vehicle for something ugly. So no. I'm entirely comfortable judging you.

You failed to understand the simple difference between the realism of a depiction and its intent. I have no idea what gave you the right not to judge, but to ascribe me my views on Mandela?

Ok this largely boils down to attacks on my character, except for the tribal stuff which ignores that a.) in African Tribal customs priests often did imitate animals to "capture their power" and b.) since tribal religion is still alive in Wakanda that M'Baku is imitating a gorilla on purpose is not a way of saying "oh black people are savages" and more "oh they balanced their tribal traditions with being high tech". Otherwise you're just saying I'm an EVIL terrible person for not agreeing with you and that I MUST be a horrible disgusting racist. No substance, just you launching ad hominem attacks on me and ultimately coming off as rather juvenile.

Hell here are a few academics who rather liked the movie and thought it celebrated black culture
https://www.academia.edu/36489552/The_p ... ther_movie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... iberators/
https://www.academia.edu/36559591/Repre ... ck_Panther

I will deal with the articles later. But imitation is also a non-neutral thing, if you depict Africans imitating an ape, that is a conscious choice. You could depict them imitating any other animals. Do you understand?

[Xisiqomelir]

Already posted my review in the OTfantasy thread, on the topic of this thread, I think the studio made the right decision.

Why pander to a ridiculous class of modern-era "critics" instead of avoiding their malign influence entirely and delivering this movie directly to audiences as-is?

EDIT: Nearly forgot about the nontroversies: Spoiler

• Not racist

• Not an incitement to violence

• Not a glorification of the MC

• Not a "how to guide" <---This one I find LUDICROUSLY EGREGIOUS, watch out for the wave of DSM IV psychotics abandoned/not-abandoned by their deadbead billionaire dads/not-dads!

• Rock 'n roll part 2 was perfect for its scene

[FaxModem1]

Yeah, opening weekend came and went. Was this a rallying cry for incels? Or was this film more of a critique on American society and what happens if people are mistreated and how that's bad for society?

[Darth Yan]

I am asking about opening borders and or at least creating a way for refugees to naturalize inside the nation. Did this happen? Why this is not shown? Why do they still hide behind the shield, if they opened up? Nothing about blood and fire in my question.

If they did not open their borders and if they don’t actually let people in, how is it hat different from the US setting up their „outreach“ NGOs in other nations, but throwing people from the South who cross their border into cages and camps?

Does a vision of an African nation which treats other nations the way Saudi Arabia and Turkey treat other inhabitants of the Middle East seem a good depiction of how technologically advanced Africans are „different“?

You also have not answered why they have an absolute monarchy, despite actual tribal societies being often against one-man rule?

The only other time we see the shield was infinity war, where everyone was kinda focused on the whole Thanos going after the Infinity stones to kill half the universe thing. Bringing up refugees THEN would have slowed down the plot. It's entirely possible they're saving that for Black Panther 2. The Shield itself can still be used to fend off invasion (even if you decide to be more open the threat of another country like the USA or Wakanda's neighbors from wanting to take your stuff.) That you

Hong Kong is terribly treating black and non-Chinese Asian people, and is one of the most racist cities in Asia (if you‘d care to read up on racism in Hong Kong, you would know that). But that aside, my argument was exactly that the moviemakers chose to vilify a black person from a poor neighborhood as opposed to the isolated, fairly-tale „noble savages“. The way they depicted Killmonger was to make radical African activists seem like madmen. Even though it is the exact opposite: the perfectly normal, perfectly „esteemed“ white people were slavers. The normality and status-quo are not what they seem.

The Hong Kong racism may be fair but the fact that he's going after OTHER victims of Colonialism is still a sign of hypocrisy. You also ignored that Killmonger was ALSO a CIA agent and Martin Freeman even speculates that Killmonger is acting on his CIA training (he outright states that destroying the herb is part of that.) He's not evil because he's black and poor. He's evil because he grew up in hardship, never really got over his dad's violent murder AND was a CIA agent who got up to a lot of REALLY bad shit on their behalf.

No - they, and me, are dissatisfied with the fact moviemakers chose to make the villain a black person with a poor background (anti-poor, anti-ghetto message), and they chose to depict a poor black person as a „contemptible shithead“ and a white CIA guy as a protagonist. Do you understand? The fact that something is possible does not eliminate the ideology.

If I make a film about how brave Southern soldiers resist an attack by the Union troops who burn down their city, that is possible. You may even find a real incident to base it on (as you notice that there were revolutionaries who became tyrannical or mob-like). Does this mean such a film is a neutral depiction and has no ideological point to make?

Again Killmonger is ALSO a former CIA agent (and in fact he got those scars marking his kills as one of their hitmen.) The movie definitely touches on the dark side of the CIA. And Killmonger's issues go beyond the fact that he's poor (his father being murdered by his uncle also screwed him up a great deal).

So the only character who has been through hardships and experienced racism is only used as a tragic and evil antagonist because he must be a madman, and one who must be killed, no reconciliation is possible here. I guess that is a very American view, but you must understand why it is criticized, then?

T'Challa is entirely willing to save Killmonger. Killmonger refuses to take the aid because he doesn't want to die in prison. And again, it was a whole cauldron of issues that made Killmonger evil. Hell one of the articles I posted pointed out that he could be seen as having internalized some of the values of the white patriarchy (several black leaders have reacted to abuse by becoming strongmen and thus ironically took the values of their oppressors.)

After what the West did to Africa, yes, it is heroic to fight the West. The lands of legitimate, „esteemed“ slavers. That was my point one. My next point is the one I made above: the way you choose to depict something is not neutral. If the white character was a civilian, a scientist, it would be different. The way you structure your story and whom you choose as protagonists matters.

You can say that the west is still reaping the benefits of slavery, and you would be correct. However tearing everything down isn't going to suddenly make Africa's position better. A violent uprising like you endorse would kill a LOT of innocent people and would only really throw the world into chaos. You also ignore that while the West were the primary participants in the slave trade there WERE black tribes who cooperated with those slavers (or in the case of Wakanda participated through their "see no evil" policy of refusing to help the enslaved.)

It is, and I have explained why. If you make a fictional structure about evil black poor person and a good white CIA agent, it is your choice to frame it that way. It is your choice to tell a story where white people, inheriting the wealth hoarded by slavers, are „neutral“ or even potential victims, but black people fight among themselves and are a potential evil. It is your choice to make the key villain a poor black person. If you make a story about Southern soldiers resisting Union troops, this story is not neutral. The way you told it is not neutral. You have shown the perpetrators of slavery as victims, but avoided to show the part of the story where they perpetrate and fight to keep slavery.

You keep pigeonholing Killmonger into the position of "black poor person" and ignore the OTHER factors (his trauma over his dad's murder, which T'Challa does acknowledge was extremely fucked up, the fact that he spent years as a CIA black ops agent committing atrocities on the US's behalf.) The mere fact that Killmonger's backstory involved atrocities for the CIA shows that Everett Ross is portrayed more as "ally of the hero who happens to be a CIA agent" rather than a blanket endorsement of "CIA good". Killmonger being an asshole is NOT portraying all blacks as potentially evil. In fact as I said earlier T'Challa himself admits that Killmonger did make a lot of legitimate points even if his methods were deplorably stupid and violent.

He also is willing to overlook Wakanda's complicity in the slave trade, blatantly states "the sun shall never set on the Wakandan Empire" (which is basically what ALL colonial empires argue) and after using Wakandan law to get the throne shamelessly ignores it when it's convenient. So no. He's NOT a good leader; even if violent revolution IS necessary (which is dubious) Killmonger would be a HORRIBLE choice for a leader.

So you do agree that a person who argued for actual liberation has been painted as a madman, a villain, and as a bad leader? You seem to have missed entirely the point that the authors chose to paint the character a villain in a certain way. This depiction is intentional, and its intent is what I question, and consider racist. Much as the racists used the scare of „violent black people“ to perpetuate slavery, apartheid, segregation, so do the authors of this story use it to discredit movements for black liberation by painting them senselessly violent, dangerous, only caring about black people and so on. It is like the hack attack on #BLM with „all lives matter“ - yes, but it is not the point of BLM.

Depends on scale. You can fight and stand up for yourself and your rights without embracing revenge or advocating bloody murder (As I said earlier the ANC choosing violence was ENTIRELY acceptable given the circumstances, and even the Bush War would have been better if someone better than Mugabe had been the revolutionary leader). Yes the "violent black people" angle was played up for years to justify perpetuating slavery apartheid and segregation, but as mentioned below there WERE blacks in south africa who were angry that Mandela didn't forcibly expel all the white people; in Zimbabwe they DID forcibly expel a lot of white people (which ended badly since white people were still part of the country). They had understandable reasons for feeling that way but that doesn't mean that it would have been okay to actually DO those things.

You seem to be of the opinion that it is only ever permissible to portray Black Revolution as a noble undertaking and ignore the possible darker side of it. Bringing those facts up is NOT in and of itself saying "oh one must never chose violence." T'Challa himself even acknowledges that Killmonger's anger was legitimate even if his way of dealing with it was stupid.

You failed to understand the simple difference between the realism of a depiction and its intent. I have no idea what gave you the right not to judge, but to ascribe me my views on Mandela?

Uh the fact that you portrayed Killmonger's attempts to trigger a global uprising (which would kill a lot of innocent people and arrogantly assumes that most black people would go along with his plan) were unambiguously good and heroic and had absolutely no downside to it at all implies that you're the type who thinks violent revolution is a ok and should never be questioned.

I will deal with the articles later. But imitation is also a non-neutral thing, if you depict Africans imitating an ape, that is a conscious choice. You could depict them imitating any other animals. Do you understand?

Considering how M'Baku is in the comics one could argue that they're trying to be more nuanced by giving him an actual personality and motivations. Yes Blacks have been portrayed as Apes but again you ignore the whole point about tribal religion and that in the comics M'Baku already HAS the ape connotations (and that if anything the movie gives him A LOT more dignity.) More importantly all you did in the original post was say I'm a "fucking sicko" or "sick motherfucker". All you did was attack my character and imply that I'm some evil twisted racist. That was pure ad hominem on your part.

[K. A. Pital]

The only other time we see the shield was infinity war, where everyone was kinda focused on the whole Thanos going after the Infinity stones to kill half the universe thing. Bringing up refugees THEN would have slowed down the plot. It's entirely possible they're saving that for Black Panther 2. The Shield itself can still be used to fend off invasion (even if you decide to be more open the threat of another country like the USA or Wakanda's neighbors from wanting to take your stuff.) That you

It is entirely possible, but unlikely. Western concepts such as shielded existence, enclaves, kings/ male rulers have been evidently applied to Africans without much consideration. Refugees were not mentioned because it is not relevant, the black people or peoples were only a plot device to keep suspense or danger, because if given weapons, they will of course rise up. (Begs the question: if it is a known fact that the black people will rise up and use these weapons, what does this tell us about the conditions they are living in? You must be in a pretty bad (what mild words!) state to consider armed uprising with all the risks to life, limb and family it carries. Trust me, I’ve been there.

The Hong Kong racism may be fair but the fact that he's going after OTHER victims of Colonialism is still a sign of hypocrisy. You also ignored that Killmonger was ALSO a CIA agent and Martin Freeman even speculates that Killmonger is acting on his CIA training (he outright states that destroying the herb is part of that.) He's not evil because he's black and poor. He's evil because he grew up in hardship, never really got over his dad's violent murder AND was a CIA agent who got up to a lot of REALLY bad shit on their behalf.

Hong Kong being racist is tangential; but this is a valid point (Killmonger and the CIA). But note how the black person who was only a low-tier operative is the designated villain, while the white CIA man who is - in all of reality- in a much higher position simply owing to his whiteness and likely the brain behind the assassinations - is the designated good guy. It is exactly what I am talking about: not just whom you choose as heroes and villains, but also how you present them and their backstories.

Again Killmonger is ALSO a former CIA agent (and in fact he got those scars marking his kills as one of their hitmen.) The movie definitely touches on the dark side of the CIA. And Killmonger's issues go beyond the fact that he's poor (his father being murdered by his uncle also screwed him up a great deal).

Yes, but it does not directly relate to my point. You chose to say that a person who undergoes hardship is a villain, while nobility by birth (T’Challa) and the white CIA do-gooder are do-nothings who got their status without lifting a finger, basically never experienced any hardship in life. One white, the other hereditary aristocracy. And the message is, these are the good guys. The ghetto guy is a bad guy who killed for the CIA and also a bad guy for threatening the world with a black uprising.

T'Challa is entirely willing to save Killmonger. Killmonger refuses to take the aid because he doesn't want to die in prison. And again, it was a whole cauldron of issues that made Killmonger evil. Hell one of the articles I posted pointed out that he could be seen as having internalized some of the values of the white patriarchy (several black leaders have reacted to abuse by becoming strongmen and thus ironically took the values of their oppressors.)

If Killmonger didn’t want to live locked in a cage, it does not mean the authors of the film did not make the conflict irreconcilable. One does not follow from the other. The authors could have presented a different ending: reconciliation, his escape or a multitude of other options. They chose death.

You can say that the west is still reaping the benefits of slavery, and you would be correct. However tearing everything down isn't going to suddenly make Africa's position better. A violent uprising like you endorse would kill a LOT of innocent people and would only really throw the world into chaos. You also ignore that while the West were the primary participants in the slave trade there WERE black tribes who cooperated with those slavers (or in the case of Wakanda participated through their "see no evil" policy of refusing to help the enslaved.)

So you think the position of the black peoples is so bad that it warrants an uprising (i.e. that the threat of black revolution is credible), but simultaneously you deny the black people a right to such an uprising. Seems like my ad-hominem attacks were not entirely baseless. You discover people whose position is bad to the point of rising up, but you then say “you can’t rise up because it would harm innocent people”. Am I then to assume that the poor are guilty? Because innocent people are suffering as well under the status-quo simply because of the colour of their skin. If the position of the black people is not so bad in your view to justify an uprising, why do you think black people will start an armed uprising, as opposed to using any weapons they receive first and foremost for self-defense, and in a limited way? Please elaborate.

You keep pigeonholing Killmonger into the position of "black poor person" and ignore the OTHER factors (his trauma over his dad's murder, which T'Challa does acknowledge was extremely fucked up, the fact that he spent years as a CIA black ops agent committing atrocities on the US's behalf.) The mere fact that Killmonger's backstory involved atrocities for the CIA shows that Everett Ross is portrayed more as "ally of the hero who happens to be a CIA agent" rather than a blanket endorsement of "CIA good". Killmonger being an asshole is NOT portraying all blacks as potentially evil. In fact as I said earlier T'Challa himself admits that Killmonger did make a lot of legitimate points even if his methods were deplorably stupid and violent.

This is a matter of portrayal: the poor person is portrayed as a deplorable and violent thug who went to the military, while fairly tale nobility who had never seen any suffering or hardship and a white CIA dude “just happen” to be good. The intent behind such portrayals is questionable. In my view it is racist. Once again: you can show Union soldiers burning down cities in the South, and claim you just offer a neutral realistic story. You don’t.

Depends on scale. You can fight and stand up for yourself and your rights without embracing revenge or advocating bloody murder (As I said earlier the ANC choosing violence was ENTIRELY acceptable given the circumstances, and even the Bush War would have been better if someone better than Mugabe had been the revolutionary leader). Yes the "violent black people" angle was played up for years to justify perpetuating slavery apartheid and segregation, but as mentioned below there WERE blacks in south africa who were angry that Mandela didn't forcibly expel all the white people; in Zimbabwe they DID forcibly expel a lot of white people (which ended badly since white people were still part of the country). They had understandable reasons for feeling that way but that doesn't mean that it would have been okay to actually DO those things.

The authors chose to portray the black people as a potential threat to “world order” (historically formed world order is a white slaver order), they chose to portray them as violent and fighting among themselves, primitive (ritual mutilation, death fights). They chose to portray them that way and tell a story the crux of which is to submit to status-quo, embrace hereditary authority, and any revolutionary actions are shown as acts of a madman.

You seem to be of the opinion that it is only ever permissible to portray Black Revolution as a noble undertaking and ignore the possible darker side of it. Bringing those facts up is NOT in and of itself saying "oh one must never chose violence." T'Challa himself even acknowledges that Killmonger's anger was legitimate even if his way of dealing with it was stupid.

Choosing to portray black revolution as the main threat to black people and its chief backers as madmen is a conscious choice. You could show how oppressed black peoples receive the weapons, but refuse to commit to large-scale violence. But the film never questioned the fact that the position of black people, black nations and peoples, is so untenable and unbearable that an armed uprising would have happened. That is like saying you torture someone but he is not allowed to punch the torturer back, because the torturer has a wife who is innocent, and she will suffer if you injured her family members.

Uh the fact that you portrayed Killmonger's attempts to trigger a global uprising (which would kill a lot of innocent people and arrogantly assumes that most black people would go along with his plan) were unambiguously good and heroic and had absolutely no downside to it at all implies that you're the type who thinks violent revolution is a ok and should never be questioned.

No: I did not portray Killmonger’s actions as such. I said the authors chose to portray him as a madman, a villain and a bad leader. I said the authors chose to portray the black revolution as an evil, dangerous thing and the white-ruled world order built on slavery as a good thing, or at least the status-quo which should not be upset. The film, not me, says black people will go along with this plan, tacitly admitting their life conditions are horrible to the point they are ready to risk their lives in a global revolution. The film says Killmonger is a credible threat because oppressed, tortured black people will go with him. And only fantasy aristocracy and white CIA goon will stand in the way. Not me, I did not write this script. I said it was possible to show peace, reconciliation and - all the best? - black people not abusing their power after receiving the vibranium?

Considering how M'Baku is in the comics one could argue that they're trying to be more nuanced by giving him an actual personality and motivations. Yes Blacks have been portrayed as Apes but again you ignore the whole point about tribal religion and that in the comics M'Baku already HAS the ape connotations (and that if anything the movie gives him A LOT more dignity.) More importantly all you did in the original post was say I'm a "fucking sicko" or "sick motherfucker". All you did was attack my character and imply that I'm some evil twisted racist. That was pure ad hominem on your part.

Well, it is a twisted logic to say black peoples will rise up since their life is hell, but then also say they shouldn’t because they might hurt innocents. Are they also not hurt right now? Are they guilty in some way? Are the slaves guilty of being enslaved for generations? That logic is pretty bad. You seem to keep centered and focused on justifying this logic. It is the logic of the slavers and their descendants who are deadly afraid of the world order changing, and them losing their status, power and robbed wealth. They create myths of violent black people, but also they deny black people a right to violence at the same time as they protect the status-quo and their slavery-hoarded wealth.

[Darth Yan]

It is entirely possible, but unlikely. Western concepts such as shielded existence, enclaves, kings/ male rulers have been evidently applied to Africans without much consideration. Refugees were not mentioned because it is not relevant, the black people or peoples were only a plot device to keep suspense or danger, because if given weapons, they will of course rise up. (Begs the question: if it is a known fact that the black people will rise up and use these weapons, what does this tell us about the conditions they are living in? You must be in a pretty bad (what mild words!) state to consider armed uprising with all the risks to life, limb and family it carries. Trust me, I’ve been there.

I read the script and found the relevant dialogue regarding the uprising. Basically the plan was to ship weapons to the War Dogs....who would in turn distribute weapons. It was also stated that most of the war dogs were kind of skeptical to the new mission (New York London and Hong Kong being the only ones who were currently on board with the plan). There are several problems with that, notably that it''s entirely possible the weapons will wind up in the hands of utterly unscrupulous people who don't really care about "liberation". Secondly Killmonger says "We'll strike there first. The others will come around." So even then there's no guarantee that Killmonger's attempted revolution will get support. The problem is that he's still arranging weapons distribution and even if most blacks are not on board with an uprising there's still the chance they'll wind up in the hand of opportunists.

Hong Kong being racist is tangential; but this is a valid point (Killmonger and the CIA). But note how the black person who was only a low-tier operative is the designated villain, while the white CIA man who is - in all of reality- in a much higher position simply owing to his whiteness and likely the brain behind the assassinations - is the designated good guy. It is exactly what I am talking about: not just whom you choose as heroes and villains, but also how you present them and their backstories.

I made an error. Killmonger WASN'T an agent but his black op squad DOES do wetworks for the CIA. In fact Ross even confirms that the destruction of the herb is part of their training to destabilize (he also mentions things like striking during election years or the death of a monarch.

Yes, but it does not directly relate to my point. You chose to say that a person who undergoes hardship is a villain, while nobility by birth (T’Challa) and the white CIA do-gooder are do-nothings who got their status without lifting a finger, basically never experienced any hardship in life. One white, the other hereditary aristocracy. And the message is, these are the good guys. The ghetto guy is a bad guy who killed for the CIA and also a bad guy for threatening the world with a black uprising.

Except even then T'Challa is forced to confront how painfully unaware about the world he really was. Whether you agree with his outreach at the end or not the reason he's doing it is because he realizes that Wakanda has been sheltered and allowed itself to ignore the hardships that other Blacks were suffering. Another element that plays over from Civil War is that he's seen where revenge can lead (his blind hatred for Bucky allowed Zemo to play him like a violin and he realizes that Zemo, the guy who actually killed his father, is motivated by the same anger and pain that he felt. Hence when he tells Zemo "Hatred has consumed you. It has consumed them. I'm done letting it consume me.") In short a part of it is that T'Challa has realized that revenge can poison people if they're not careful. Killmonger is a bit of a foil in that regard in that he's completely allowed his pain and anger to consume him and ironically make him little better than the white people who oppressed his ancestors. Hell the movie itself states that.


Killmonger: Your reign is over. You sat up here safe and protected.
T'Challa: You want to see us become just like the people you hate so much? Divide and Conquer the land as they did?
Killmonger: No I learn from my enemies--beat them at their own game.
T'Challa: You will destroy the world. Wakanda included.
Killmonger: The world took everything from me! Everything I ever loved!

If Killmonger didn’t want to live locked in a cage, it does not mean the authors of the film did not make the conflict irreconcilable. One does not follow from the other. The authors could have presented a different ending: reconciliation, his escape or a multitude of other options. They chose death.

Given the kind of person Killmonger is he wouldn't chose reconcilliation, and even then Marvel as a whole tends to give their villains more limited shelf lives in their movies (Stane, Malekith, Killian, Ronan, Ego, Ultron, Cross, Kaecillius, Mysterio and Hela are dead at the end of their movies. Vulture's in jail and given that he keeps Peter's identity a secret he may not be coming back. Loki and Thanos lasted more than one movie but they ultimately perished in the end, Red Skull's been permanently trapped in a fate worse than death and Whiplash and Abomination are in prison but probably not coming back due to out of universe reasons.) Given how many MCU villains are dead by the end of their film Killmonger staying dead doesn't necissarily have racial connotations.

So you think the position of the black peoples is so bad that it warrants an uprising (i.e. that the threat of black revolution is credible), but simultaneously you deny the black people a right to such an uprising. Seems like my ad-hominem attacks were not entirely baseless. You discover people whose position is bad to the point of rising up, but you then say “you can’t rise up because it would harm innocent people”. Am I then to assume that the poor are guilty? Because innocent people are suffering as well under the status-quo simply because of the colour of their skin. If the position of the black people is not so bad in your view to justify an uprising, why do you think black people will start an armed uprising, as opposed to using any weapons they receive first and foremost for self-defense, and in a limited way? Please elaborate.

I covered this earlier but I'll cover it again. Basically it's stated point blank that the plan is to distribute weapons through their agents. That's going to lead to disaster even with the best intentions because who's to say they won't wind up in the hand of someone who's just an unscrupulous jerk? Another issue is that Killmonger's ambitions (the sun will not set on the wakandan empire, we will show them the way) are pretty much in line with the thinking used by white colonials and even Killmonger's lofty plans are revealed to be more of an attempt to create a colonial empire. If anything he's just embodied the values of his oppressor. One of the articles I posted pointed out how Killmonger is rather like many (CIA backed) dictators in Africa in that he brutally clamps down on his own people when they defy him and his treatment of black women is similar to how White Slave Masters treated their own slaves.

This is a matter of portrayal: the poor person is portrayed as a deplorable and violent thug who went to the military, while fairly tale nobility who had never seen any suffering or hardship and a white CIA dude “just happen” to be good. The intent behind such portrayals is questionable. In my view it is racist. Once again: you can show Union soldiers burning down cities in the South, and claim you just offer a neutral realistic story. You don’t.

Except here that's a simplification. Like it or not ALL communities have a dark side and the fact that white people shamelessly played up Dessalines and Mugabe does not change that both of those guys WERE in fact awful people. This article from the Mary Sue actually highlights a particular issue.

This other article from the Mary Sue (the writer is a black woman btw) said

It is a question black female authors have talked about at length. From the works of Zora Neale Hurston to Ntozake Shange to Alice Walker and modern day black feminists, they have brought to light the ways in which black men absorb and emulate white patriarchy in order to rebuild and reassert themselves as men from the trauma of slavery.

Yet the female trauma: rape, being used as a broodmare, being forced to raise other people’s children while never having ownership of their own, and of course, a reduction of their own womanhood.

When the film version of The Color Purple came out, there were massive conversations between black men and black women about how black women felt like their needs and desires were being sacrificed for male pride. That they were expected to lift up black men and the black community, but in return, they were not given that same support back. One man, when interviewed about conversations he was having with his female friends said:

”The most frightening thing for me as a male was to look into their eyes,” Mr. McDuffie said. ”I wondered, ‘Is that really what they think of us?’ It’s as if there were an element of cruelty implicit in black men that all black women seem to identify.”

That cruelty is very much present in Killmonger’s interaction with women. The way he dismisses Okoye’s words in favor of being hyped up by W’Kabi. W’Kabi’s own fragility is allowed to come to the surface when he is faced with feeding his own desires for vengeance, versus the greater good of Wakanda. To heal his own pride for how he was wronged by a white man, he was willing to go against his people, his friend, and the woman he loved.

In plays like Fences and A Raisin in the Sun, we see African-American men who are broken down by their subservient jobs under white people in their careers and therefore, in order to heal themselves, come home and act out their hyper-masculine dance with their wives and children. That is how they have been taught to be men, by standing on the necks of those who have less than them. Except with black men, and men of color in general, when they have absorbed enough of that brainwashing, feel like they have to step even harder.

It's a complicated issue but just because certain problems in the Black Community have been overplayed by racists does NOT change that those problems don't actually exist.

The authors chose to portray the black people as a potential threat to “world order” (historically formed world order is a white slaver order), they chose to portray them as violent and fighting among themselves, primitive (ritual mutilation, death fights). They chose to portray them that way and tell a story the crux of which is to submit to status-quo, embrace hereditary authority, and any revolutionary actions are shown as acts of a madman.

Uh again you can also argue that Wakanda was able to reach a balance between their tribal traditions AND being a civilized high tech society. Even M'Baku and the others of the Jafari tribe are shown to be far more nuanced (they're the ones who save T'Challa's life and keep him alive long enough for them. More importantly as I posted above it could also be argued that Killmonger was more "embodying the values of his oppressor" (which yes can indeed happen)

Killmonger's treatment of black women (murdering his girlfriend, physically manhandling the female priest, trying to kill women who resist him) can be seen as a commentary on THAT phenomenon. The article posits that it's less something wrong with Black Men and more the fact that due to abuse many ended up internalizing the values of their oppressors (which if anything is another strike against colonialism. Far from "civilizing" their conquered subjects colonialists just taught them their own twisted brand of evil). If anything the movie's taking the issue that Killmonger has been so consumed by pain and anger that he's literally become just like the colonialists who oppressed his people.

The impression I got from a lot of the articles that you cited was that the idea that things like black revolution should NEVER EVER EVER be questioned, nor should possible darker sides be shown. It's like how again when the Color Purple touched down on domestic abuse with the Black Community a lot of black men were deeply upset and felt that it was being racist rather than admitting that just because someone like Ronnie Reagan might have played up problems doesn't mean those problems never existed.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/27/us/b ... urple.html

It's a deeply thorny issue.

Choosing to portray black revolution as the main threat to black people and its chief backers as madmen is a conscious choice. You could show how oppressed black peoples receive the weapons, but refuse to commit to large-scale violence. But the film never questioned the fact that the position of black people, black nations and peoples, is so untenable and unbearable that an armed uprising would have happened. That is like saying you torture someone but he is not allowed to punch the torturer back, because the torturer has a wife who is innocent, and she will suffer if you injured her family members.

Maybe they could show Black people refusing but to say it "never questioned the fact that the position of black people, black nations and peoples, is so untenable and unbearable that an armed uprising would have happened" is cretinous.The main threat is that Wakanda's weapons (Which are shown to be dangerous) are being distributed. Even if the movie never dwells on it the fact remains that it's entirely possible for the War Dogs to distribute those weapons to some jackass who thinks "nice toys" but puts on the show of being oppressed to get access to those new toys. So either way AT BEST if those weapons get out a lot of people are going to get hurt, and that may bring trouble down on Wakanda.

No: I did not portray Killmonger’s actions as such. I said the authors chose to portray him as a madman, a villain and a bad leader. I said the authors chose to portray the black revolution as an evil, dangerous thing and the white-ruled world order built on slavery as a good thing, or at least the status-quo which should not be upset. The film, not me, says black people will go along with this plan, tacitly admitting their life conditions are horrible to the point they are ready to risk their lives in a global revolution. The film says Killmonger is a credible threat because oppressed, tortured black people will go with him. And only fantasy aristocracy and white CIA goon will stand in the way. Not me, I did not write this script. I said it was possible to show peace, reconciliation and - all the best? - black people not abusing their power after receiving the vibranium?

Except even that's dubious. Remember W'Kabi outright states that most of the Wakandan spies aren't on board with the plan, and the nature of the weapons means that even if most black people WON'T go along with the plan a lot of damage will be done which could hurt Wakanda.

Well, it is a twisted logic to say black peoples will rise up since their life is hell, but then also say they shouldn’t because they might hurt innocents. Are they also not hurt right now? Are they guilty in some way? Are the slaves guilty of being enslaved for generations? That logic is pretty bad. You seem to keep centered and focused on justifying this logic. It is the logic of the slavers and their descendants who are deadly afraid of the world order changing, and them losing their status, power and robbed wealth. They create myths of violent black people, but also they deny black people a right to violence at the same time as they protect the status-quo and their slavery-hoarded wealth.

You mean well but at the same time you ARE ignoring a lot of nuances and only arguing for the most negative interpretation. Please at the very least READ the articles I've linked, especially the one from the washingtonpost and the mary sue. Both of them touch on some issues that your articles don't.