Pinned
Every time people use ATLA as an example of progressive children's cartoons that was "unusally politically sound" I remember how there were two whole villain characters (including an orphan kid and an elderly Indigenous lady) who were victims of genocide and settler colonialism but chose to fight back and were thus rebranded in canon as terrorists for harming "innocents", as in, harming the very colonialists who have settled on their land and leeched off their resources and are definitely not in favour of the Fire Nation imperialist propaganda because they are cute little civilian folk ofc, and dont you get, the Fire Nation has good humans too 🥺🥺🥺.
And I'm not usually someone who makes those Hunger Games, AOT style comparisons to real life events etc but I am a literature student and I genuinely think it's not unsurprising the number of people who fall for American liberal "pacifist" propaganda in media, that paints revolutionaries and armed resistance as inherently evil, that has the central character call his indigenous love interest as bad as aforementioned canon "terrorists" because she wanted to kill the colonial officer who murdered her mother during a genocide, and she has to defend herself saying "no that was different Jet was killing civilians (aka settler colonialists are not = military and therefore are totally absolved of their crimes) I am killing a dangerous man (aka safe to blame imperial military)"
And like. Do you not see it. Do you just. Not. See it.
I agree with this post for the most part. But not completely. I definitely emphasize with Jet because he was fighting back on HIS land. He was targeting armies which actually contributed to the war. What made Jet detestable is how he manipulated Katara (and Aang). If he was straightforward about his plans, it would not have been so bad.
As for Hama...she suffered so much and she deserved justice. What makes Hama monstrous is that she is not really fighting back like Jet. She is just sadistically kidnapping civilians and acting like a god with her bloodbending. How is kidnapping a FN delivery boy helping to bring justice to your people??
The Omashu resistance was not painted as evil. Haru's people were not painted as evil when they dropped that coward warden into the ocean, the guy who probably drowned since he can't swim.
I think that ATLA was trying to show how victims can become monsters if vengeance and trauma go unchecked. It's a tragedy that Jet died the way he did - at the hands of the Earth Kingdom. Jet and Hama deserved better.
Who wrote Jet and Hama? Why were they written like that? Were Jet and Hama real people? Were they not fictional characters written by American writers with a specific authorial and narrative logic in mind?
Why was the decision taken in the writers room to paint Hama as a villain, why was she not given room to rehabilitate herself, in the same show where Iroh is redeemed offscreen only after a personal loss, and Pakku becomes Katara's grandfather after DECADES of perpetuating misogyny (which again, why is the Northern Water Tribe a misogynistic culture whereas the Fire Nation is pseudo progressive and employs women in the imperial services? What message is this sending? Do you not see the parallels with contemporary politics, pinkwashing and the most prevalent irl global "progressive vs conservative culture" discourses referencing a certain war/genoc1de right now?)
Yes Jet lied to Katara. And Hama chose to– for reasons contrived but convenient for the leads– for some reason, torture people instead of finding resources to head back home and search for Kanna and her tribe people. That's not the point. I know all that. My point is, who wrote them into these storylines and why did they do this? And when you watch such media, why don't you question the *logic* of these plots?
It's like people who always conveniently hate characters of color in media and then claim "well she was MEAN to the white mc!" without investigating if there was clear narrative logic to said meanness. Kali and Lucas from Stranger Things being hated/portrayed as being in the wrong even if they mean well, while racist Billy gets a sad backstory– you could say "well, Kali was wrong for attacking the victims' families and Lucas was wrong for "mistreating" his friends!" but then you take literally 5 seconds and it becomes so clear why the directors chose them to be scapegoats and why certain individuals get redemption and the others are firmly excluded.
In ATLA's case, a show steeped in diplomatic politics and liberalism, there is a lot to unpack regarding who qualifies as "civilians" when you are describing occupied, colonized land and who is "humanized" against the cost of others. Sure, the gaang fight and there are occasional moments where you'd think they believe in proactive resistance ("The Painted Lady", "Imprisoned") but in both cases, they play it safe by showing easy, bloodless landback and liberation tactics. Do you think the Earth Kingdom folk from s1 went home to peace and quiet? No, they fought, and what's more, they probably fought dirty and violent and did what Jet did.
Again, proactive resistance is ok when it's clothed in Main Character Righteousness but when people feel less than kindly to their colonizers, they are mocked, villainized or in Katara's case, depicted as a case of a character having a dark, immoral, scary arc where she *gasp!* bloodbends an innocent war criminal instead of the one that killed her mother. Authorial logic. Trace it. Etc.
