#greenarmada

the black/white language dichotomy, and just the fact that the text is partly just the Noldor colonizing Middle Earth - I didn't know how to put it in words, and you did, and it was wonderful. Your points re: Galadriel definitely got me to think as well, as I didn't notice specifically anything special re: Galadriel, but I completely agree with you there. More people should definitely pay attention to what you're saying - the reality is that the Silmarillion is an inherently colonialist (2/3)

and imperialist text that is told from the pov of the colonizer (noldor), and even if it's fiction&we assume that with elves these elements don't exist (altho i disagree), the fact is that 1st&foremost the text was created and consumed in our world, with our implications and connotations, & we have to treat it as such. I truly love these pointy eared dramamonsters, but it's important to be critical of the literature we consume too. Keep up the great work, and I'm looking forward to other posts!

just to add: it would also be interesting to see the silmarilion from the silvan & esp avari pov. fading (& leaving middle earth to avoid it) seems to be negative in the context of the noldor bc it means they don't have power anymore & their power structure starts to dissolve. Could the end of the elves be read w/parallels to decolonialism? Maybe for the silvan elves fading isn't a bad thing.

 Hey there! Feel free to ask me for any points on clarification, especially on the feanor post. There’s a lot of push back for conversations regarding discussing the deep colonialist themes in Tolkien’s work, and who exemplifies them the most. It’s not hard to believe Galadriel does so considering she was Tolkien’s favorite. And again, Galadriel’s narrative is not the only colonialist one, just one of the biggest and most prominent.

And in general, the idea that the Silmarillion is inherently colonist is constantly rejected, and I just can’t understand why? Tolkien grew up in a society where that was acceptable, and our cultural and personal views will always influence our writings. There are even colonialist vibes in hobbit communities.

And I too would like to see a different perspective. What perspective we do get from them is told by Noldor, and unfortunately incredibly demonized (ie: The Silvan elves). And I do feel like there are some strong decolonization vibes, especially with Loth Lorien eventually beign handed back to the Silvan elvesi in Mirkwood when the ring is removed from them, and when their realm fades.

For the first time in ages they aren’t relying on Noldor technology to sustain their realm, they are relying on reach other. I think fading for the Silvan and fading for the Noldor are two different things!

personally i really liked it. imo the movie wasn’t just about racism but also other forms of discrimination and privilege. i’ve seen an article mentioning a similar criticism so i’m not surprised your friend heard it, but imo it misunderstands the movie & is also a poor understanding of how privilege works as depicted in the movie. here’re my thoughts:

1) first of, the movie isn’t attempting to be a precise allegory like Animal Farm where y’know Old Major is literally standing in for Lenin and Napolean is Stalin. there is a message against prejudice in the movie, but it’s trying to tell the story by setting up its own universe with its own history and rules. it is set in an alternate earth where we never evolved to become the dominant species of the planet, but other mammals collectively gained sentience.

2) anw, the creators said they tried to imagine on what basis such an animal civilisation might distinguish & discriminate and organically grow the story from there, rather than trying to do an Animal Farm. so i think those reviewers who have tried to argue a specific animal species represents a specific group, and therefore say it’s not executed well because it doesn’t fit what they think it is perfectly are mistaken. so, in that respect, about rabbits being called “cute” and the n-word, i don’t think it was trying to suggest it has the exact same level of severity or equivalent because like obviously that slur has its own distinct history. but rather it’s introducing a broader idea- while the n-word is perhaps the most well known example in the US context- that logic does apply to many racial slurs or stereotypical jokes about various ethnic groups. you know how it’s different if you’re joking about your own culture or reclaiming a slur, compared to outsiders doing it? 

3) some of the criticism says the “power + prejudice” dichotomy is muddied by the story. the reason i say this is a poor understanding of privilege is because there are different sorts of privilege in the real world. race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation etc. you could be privileged in one area but not so in others. it is possible to be disadvantaged in one area but also have the power to shit on people in other ways. imo the movie established this quite clearly- there’s the prey-predator dichotomy, but there’s also the big vs small animals + specific stereotypes slapped on specific species. 

4) so judy may be part of the majority in one sense as prey animals outnumber predators 90-10. she certainly could say harmful things that hurt the predator animals-but there’s also the discrimination judy faces as a rabbit in a career field predisposed to large & powerful animals (whether prey or predator- chief bogo is a cape buffalo which isn’t carnivorous but incredibly powerful physically). a lot of things were clearly tailored to larger animals and to me, the difficulties judy faced allowed people to perhaps consider it from an ableist or sexist dimension (constantly being called “cute” or how the furniture and stuff in the ZPD is made for larger animals mostly) what i like about the movie is that it went beyond just showing a simple binary- we also do have one predator who is small…but is a powerful & feared mobster. you have foxes like nick specifically being called sly & untrustworthy- by contrast you didn’t really hear of the cheetahs or lions labelled such. or judy being called “cute”,  a “dumb bunny” and constantly not being taken seriously- which is not something chief bogo or the elephants face. so i thought the movie was quite sophisticated showing how you can have multiple forms of prejudice & privilege. 

5) back to the predator-prey dichotomy, it’s not attempting to be a one-for-one fit for a specific group of people (and trying to do so is probably ill-advised considering what the history of likening specific groups of people to specific animals is like). imo it showed how minorities in any country may be stereotyped as threatening & violent. it was also about how the acts of 1 person from a minority group usually tends to be seen as representative of the whole, rather than individual. as mentioned above, it’s possible to be privileged in some areas but not in others. so those predators who are big and physically strong have certain advantages, but it doesn’t mean they’re not still a minority susceptible to stereotypes by the prey who numerically outnumber them, especially in an animal civilisation that evolved past the food chain of old. i felt the message there was relevant to many current issues concerning both racial and religious minorities. 

6) overall, the reason i think the movie was actually quite sophisticated is because it showed how multiple forms of privilege exist. and also how even characters who thought themselves enlightened & tolerant (like judy, who we see telling her parents not to stereotype foxes in the beginning) could be susceptible to prejudice. nick may be a predator but he could also be condescending specifically about stereotypes of rabbits etc. and that it explored these themes in a way which wasn’t dumbed down but also as accessible as possible. 

Thank you :) 

my favourite meme of esc 2015 is il volo because of how general it is, like they are a meme