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.