Let's Talk About Asgardian Colonialism

[lynnenne]

Hello, and welcome to your weekly Sunday discussion post! This week's topic has minor spoilers for Thor: Ragnarok and Infinity War, so I'm putting it beneath a cut for anyone who hasn't seen the films.



In Ragnarok, we learn that Odin was every bit the tyrant Loki always claimed him to be. Hela reveals that, before Thor was born, she and Odin built the Asgardian empire by conquering and subjugating other worlds. I personally loved this reveal because OF COURSE THEY DID.

Taika Waititi, a filmmaker descended from the indigenous people of New Zealand, was the perfect director to take on this topic. But does he take it far enough?

In an early scene, when Loki (as Odin) says that the other worlds are best left with their freedom, Thor replies, "Yes, the freedom to be massacred." This implies a paternalistic attitude to the other worlds, which has often been used (in Earth history) to justify any number of crimes against indigenous peoples - from taking away their children and sending them to church-run schools, to wholesale invasion and slaughter.

Later on, after Odin's past has been revealed, Valkyrie tells Thor, "That's what's wrong with Asgard - the throne, the secrets, the whole golden sham." Thor agrees with her, and says it's why he turned down the throne. Yet at the end of the movie, he accepts it.

Does Thor's acceptance of the throne undercut the implicit condemnation of colonialism in this film? Should Waititi have taken the issue further, and if so, how? If the Asgardian refugee ship had made it to Earth, would Thor have tried to establish some sort of parliamentary democracy? Or would he have stayed on as king, continuing to "protect" the other worlds even though they didn't ask for it?

And in a broader sense, is the very notion of a "superhero" a symbol of imperial military power - the paternalistic "good guy" who intervenes everywhere even when nobody asked for his help? (This topic is touched on in Civil War, but undercut in Infinity War. Of course Marvel is never going to explicitly condemn superheroes because then they'd be out of business.)

Comments

[wannabedarklord]

It didn't take it nearly far enough. But the most glaring reason why for me isn't the shoddy way Thor deals with the outright in your face examples, but the way he STILL turns to Odin at the end of the movie for support. Odin, who massacred realms and used slaves to build Asgard, locked up Hela like so much trash when he "turned over a new leaf", stole Loki as a baby and taught him to hate the people he came from, who is still an unwavering imperialist, just a less violent one, with his "benevolent" protection of the other realms, is the one who helps unlock Thor's ultimate zappy powers.

Is the movie condemning Odin or what? You can't have him get off scot free with a peaceful death and acting as the spiritual adviser for the hero in the same breath as you point out all the atrocities he committed. For a movie that brushes against Asgard's imperialism and condemns it, it sure lets Odin get away with everything he did without repercussions.

And then the movie also positions us to mock Loki for not continuing the active interventionism! So, is it a good or bad thing to impose your will on other realms? The message seems to be yes, as long as it's Thor and not Loki. Nah, Loki's just a lazy asshole who'd rather eat grapes. Hi, I hate that scene a lot, I hate a lot of scenes in this movie a lot.

Not to mention we start the movie with Thor slaughtering a whole bunch of fire demons and then their leader, echoing his disastrous journey to Jotunheim. I mean, I get he was imprisoned, but the novelization goes into his arrival on Muspelheim a bit and it reads like he just goes there, kills a bunch of them to get Sutur's attention and then kills Sutur because reasons. That is not effective information gathering at all (his presumed reason for being there).

And what really grates is how there was no mention at all or tie in to Loki's reaction to these issues! If you wanted to explore Asgard's imperialism and colonialism, what better way to strike an emotional connection than with the one character who personally and viscerally experienced it? You mention it yourself in your examples, Loki was a child from a people widely considered lesser, considered subhuman, taken from his home and stripped of his heritage, taught to hate it even. And we never get his commentary on it, never go into his reactions to Hela's existence and the gilded lies of Asgard. A huge missed opportunity, in my opinion. And no, I don't consider that stupid play and the 'little blue baby icicle' adequate. I think it's condescending and mean spirited to Loki's fans who liked the previous movies and especially the end of TDW.

The colonialism reveal wasn't that much of a reveal to me - the signs were there in the other two movies as well, it was just more subtle. With the propaganda-lite way Odin is the one to tell Asgard's history, to the way they kept referring to other sentient races as 'creatures' and their disdain and paternalism towards Earth and humans, it was there.

I think it did backtrack a bit with crowning Thor, but I also think it makes sense. The Aesir just lost their entire world, it makes sense for them to cling to familiar patterns of power. I just don't particularly think Thor has grown enough to handle it well. Heimdall for king 2020 But if the message was meant to be 'imperialism bad', crowning him does backtrack. Kings aren't good, except for Thor, I guess. (Doesn't help that the one character advocating for more democracy - Korg - is also meant to be a joke as well)

[lynnenne]

If you wanted to explore Asgard's imperialism and colonialism, what better way to strike an emotional connection than with the one character who personally and viscerally experienced it? You mention it yourself in your examples, Loki was a child from a people widely considered lesser, considered subhuman, taken from his home and stripped of his heritage, taught to hate it even. And we never get his commentary on it, never go into his reactions to Hela's existence and the gilded lies of Asgard. A huge missed opportunity, in my opinion.

That's a good point, and I would love to see this angle explored in the upcoming Loki TV series. I think one of the reasons Waititi didn't go that route is because he really wanted to make this Thor's movie; he says in the commentary that he wanted to "make Thor the most interesting character, otherwise don't call the movie Thor." The consensus on The Dark World was pretty much "movie terrible, Loki great" and he wanted to avoid that outcome with this film.

Doesn't help that the one character advocating for more democracy - Korg - is also meant to be a joke as well

Hmmmm. I don't see Korg as being made into a joke. He's certainly there for comic relief, but I thought they did a pretty good job of making him real and lovable. But you're right that he's the only one advocating for more democracy. One of my favorite lines in the whole film is when he says, "The revolution has begun!"

[wannabedarklord]

Well, in my opinion TW pretty much failed, mostly because of the mean spirited way he went about doing it. It mostly just made me resent Thor in this movie.

And like, there's wanting to put Thor front and center, and actively avoiding drawing any link with Loki and the anti-colonialism theme. It's not as that message went to any great depth either, it would have been nice for just an acknowledgement of the link.

The revolution has begun line was funny, but there was also that line about him ending up a gladiator because of his failed pamphlets and the revolution where only his mother and her boyfriend turned up. Not to mention Asgard literally exploding while he was pontificating about rebuilding (hello other joke I also hate very very much, your timing sucked. So he might be lovable, but we were certainly not meant to take his stance on democracy or his methods seriously.

[pennie_dreadful]

I came onto this post to say...pretty much exactly this, so, THIS 👆

[dragoness_e]

Odin has always been a bit of a bastard in mythology; the films stayed true to his nature. When your titles include "Gallows-Reaper", you're not a nice guy. He did many despicable things to insure the survival of Asgard in myth and legend--but they were for Asgard, not for personal gain. "Personal gain" was him out seducing giantesses whenever he got the chance. (Too bad Marvel never had the guts to include that bit of the Prose Eddas!) Thor was the god who was friendliest to humans, not Odin.

Oh, the frost giants aren't "lesser"; they are powerful, dangerous enemies of Asgard and always were, in mythology. They are perhaps the personification of the glaciers and the arctic winters that rampaged over Scandinavia every year.

[glitteryv]

I think that Disney/Marvel took the themes that Waititi brought into the mix as far as they possibly could...and still bring in a profit. TBH, I don't think most of the higher-ups had any idea of how massively popular T:Ragnarok was going to turn out to be. Like, to the point that it's heralded as THE no.1 Thor movie.

Thor's decision to ascend to the throne made sense to me in spite of (and not as a result of) learning the truth behind the myth. For one thing, his people were almost made extinct. Also, based on what I saw in all three Thor movies, there wasn't anything that made me think the Asgardians were unhappy with the monarchy. Everyone seemed well-fed, taken care of, had a variety of occupations, and weren't in any kind of forced labor or, worse, slavery-like conditions. So, the Aesir's decision to crown Thor as they transitioned from an established group of people with their own planet to refugees didn't ring weird.

I'm even thinking that, the majority of the remaining Asgardians would continue to embrace the monarchy idea for their socio-political country if they ever arrived to a planet (including Earth.)

There's a fic that has a B-plot in which Thor and half of the Asgardian group arrive on Earth and they're kinda in a political limbo, eventually settling down in Iceland or Greenland. At the end of the fic, the remaining group shows up with Loki and the two groups reunite. IIRC, at one point, Thor thinkd or talks to someone about some Asgardians wanting to become independent from Thor's rule.

I'm not sure about the answer to your last questions (personally, I think there are larger things to consider--even within the boundaries of the MCU--about military powers and doing things for "the greater good". Also, I lack the emotional spoons to go there right now. Oh, and I did like CACW and I'm no mood to get in arguments about whether or not it sucked, etc). However, I will say that it would be mighty interesting to see Thor, Loki, et al handle the aftermath not only of the destruction of Asgard (instead of barely touched upon at the end of T:R and only being talked about by Thor in IW)

[snickfic]

This is pretty much my take, too. I don't think the MCU intended to present an inherent link between monarchy and colonialism, since the other monarchy in the MCU is isolationist Wakanda, so I don't see any contradiction between what we learn of Asgard's past as a conqueror with Thor taking the throne at the end of movie.

And huge agreement that I would love to see Thor and Asgard deal with that aftermath of the destruction of their world!! IDK if we're going to get it, and if we are, I worry that it'll be handwaved away just like the destruction of Thor's eye and hammer. But that is the genre of Thor fic I am most interested in reading.

[lynnenne]

And huge agreement that I would love to see Thor and Asgard deal with that aftermath of the destruction of their world!!

Same! Thor undergoes some great character growth in Ragnarok and I'd love to see how he handles the huge responsibility he now has to care for all these new refugees.

[lynnenne]

I think that Disney/Marvel took the themes that Waititi brought into the mix as far as they possibly could...and still bring in a profit.

Hahahaha, very true.

the Aesir's decision to crown Thor as they transitioned from an established group of people with their own planet to refugees didn't ring weird.

I completely understand why the Aesir would want to cling to familiar patterns of governance, after their planet is destroyed. I just wonder whether the "imperialism is bad" theme would have hit home more if Thor, himself, had decided to advocate for more democracy. Thor goes through some amazing character growth in this film, and I like to think that he would try to establish a more egalitarian form of government once they were settled somewhere.

I did like CACW and I'm no mood to get in arguments about whether or not it sucked

I liked it, too. I thought the issues it raised were important and even though I didn't agree with every character's opinion, I could certainly understand and empathize with every point of view.

I will say that it would be mighty interesting to see Thor, Loki, et al handle the aftermath not only of the destruction of Asgard (instead of barely touched upon at the end of T:R and only being talked about by Thor in IW)

Same! I was disappointed that we never got to see this.

[dragoness_e]

And in a broader sense, is the very notion of a "superhero" a symbol of imperial military power - the paternalistic "good guy" who intervenes everywhere even when nobody asked for his help?

No. Superheroes have a couple of roots--only one of which is the classic Greek demigod hero who has larger-than-life abilities and larger-than-life drama in his life, and tended to be conqueror. But then, that was the ideal for an ancient Bronze-age Greek man: successful warlord. (Demigoddess heroines, OTOH, seemed to have it easier, less meddling in their lives by jealous goddesses and gods. On the gripping hand, they also did a lot less as far as we know).

The other roots include the chivalric do-gooder, who travels about fighting tyrants, murderers, brigands and rescuing or helping the weak and the oppressed, be it in the medieval form of the chivalric Arthurian knight (Hail, Sir Galahad!), or the classically American form of the U.S. Marshall/county sheriff bringing the Law to remote parts of the Old West (Yo, Matt Dillon!), or the bounty-hunting gunslinger with a Heart of Gold (Hi, Paladin!)

By the way, most superheroes classically intervened when someone called for help, or if the situation was so obviously bad that if they waited for someone to ask for help, people would be dead. That's not paternalism, it's common decency.

[silveradept]

Hi from thisweekmeta.

Regarding superheroes (and the way that Thor takes the crown to perpetuate the government despite becoming a refugee people,) Jen A. Blue's "Near-Apocalypse of '09" series paints them (using Batman and DC more than Marvel, but I think it applies here) as protector fantasies made manifest, and thus, by their nature, superheroes are always going to work toward maintaining and restoring the status quo against forces intended to break it down, subvert it, or destroy it. They may be able to employ all sorts of subversive or unapproved methods in doing so, but ultimately, the superhero's power is that they are protecting Us from The Other.

So if Thor is going to be superhero still, he's taking the mantle of the king, because that is how he protects the Us of the Asgardians against all the Others that are out there. Even if the system is terrible, corrupt, imperialistic, and otherwise shown to be the worst thing for everyone involved.

People who work outside the system stop being heroes, even if their ideals are better or their methods will be more effective. That was the central conflict of Civil War. And as much as we would love Disney to be willing to say "eh, screw the system," they're a little too invested in it to actually go that far and say the Asgardians are colonialists, the Wakandans were right not to mention their existence until they had to, and that people who are scared of superheroes getting out of their control are willing to go to all sorts of means to bring them back inside the fold.

[lynnenne]

by their nature, superheroes are always going to work toward maintaining and restoring the status quo against forces intended to break it down, subvert it, or destroy it.

I completely agree, and that's why I was surprised that this film even raised the issues of imperialism and colonialism. It was brave enough to challenge the system, but it wasn't brave enough to overthrow it.

People who work outside the system stop being heroes, even if their ideals are better or their methods will be more effective.

Very true. Maintain the patriarchy at all costs! :D

[silveradept]

There's money to be made in seeming like you're going to be edgy, and there are enough people that will confuse raising the issue with fighting the issue that you can get a lot of good press for not actually going all that far. So you can maintain the order and get kudos for being willing to acknowledge the problems.