#Still not condoning Azula's other actions though

[sarnai4]

A Comfort To Us All

Whenever you are feeling concerned or unsure if you're good in crowds, don't fret it be self-conscious. No, just remember that even Azula is extremely socially awkward. So, you're really just being like Azula and as long as you aren't taking her murderous qualities, I'd say that's pretty cool😎.

[soopersara]

what’re your thoughts on the anti-zutarian argument citing that a romantic relationship couldn’t work between them because of an inherent oppressor / colonizer and indigenous / oppressed dynamic. love zutara, but that admittedly gave me a lot to think about and i’m still unsure about how i feel :/

Hoo boy. That argument again.

Okay, first of all, nobody has to like Zutara. Enemies to lovers (or, more accurately for Zutara, enemies to friends to lovers) is a trope that doesn't appeal to everyone, and that's fine.

But that does not make it immoral to ship pairings like Zutara. There's nothing inherently wrong with enemies to lovers, and while there probably are enemies to lovers ships out there that would make me uncomfortable, that comes down to the execution more than the ship itself, and... it's still fiction. Last I checked, enjoying murder mysteries doesn't mean that you condone murder. Tastes in fiction =/= real life morality.

As far as Zutara in specific goes, the argument that it could never work "because he's her oppressor" is just... nonsense. I'm going to try to organize this based on arguments I've seen so I don't just ramble for several thousand words, so here goes:

Zuko was her colonizer: No. The Water Tribes were never colonized. The Fire Nation never established settlements in the Water Tribes' territories. They raided the Southern Tribe and captured and killed some of its members, which is obviously horrible, but the Fire Nation never had a lasting presence in any of the Water Tribes ('any' because there's technically 3 tribes and the Foggy Swamp was untouched). Words have meanings, and... that's not what colonization means. Colonization could be a stronger argument against a Zuko/Earth Kingdom character ship since colonization DID happen there, except for a l'il issue I'll get to in a minute.

Zuko participated in a genocide against her people: Okay, while genocide is a more accurate term for what happened to Katara's tribe, this argument (and the previous one too) really falls apart at the "Zuko participated" bit. The Fire Nation committed a gradual, partial genocide of the Southern Water Tribe via raids on its villages. And the last raid happened when Katara was eight years old. At that time, Zuko was ten. At the age of ten, Zuko wasn't involved in any of the Fire Nation's actions anywhere in the world. At the age of ten, Zuko was still so far out of the line of succession for the throne (behind Iroh, Lu Ten, and Ozai) that he didn't have any real prospect of ever being able to make decisions for the nation's actions. And the first time Zuko personally had any interaction with Katara's tribe? He ran his ship through a wall, knocked Sokka over, grabbed Kanna by the coat, yelled a little bit, made a few threats... and then left without doing any further damage. So not great, but also not playing into his nation's attempts at genocide. And Zuko got comeuppance for all those things from the Gaang when they were trying to get Aang out: Zuko broke the ice wall, then Aang wrecked Zuko's ship. Zuko knocked Sokka over, then Sokka returned the favor. A few times. And Zuko grabbed Kanna, then Katara froze a bunch of Zuko's crewmen solid. Despite being wildly underpowered, the Gaang gave as good as they got.

Zuko attempted to kill the Gaang: Again, just no. Seriously, in all the time he was chasing the Gaang, he never once tried to kill anyone. Not killing was his whole deal. That's how he got banished. The kid literally tried to save Zhao, the man who tried to blow Zuko up. Capturing and killing are two very different things. Hiring Sparky Sparky Boom Man is the only exception to Zuko's no-killing thing in the entire show, and that whole plot point is just bad and wildly OOC, so I'm not going to talk about that right now.

Zuko abused Katara: There's a difference between abuse and fighting as enemies on opposite sides of a war. Hurting Katara, gaining power over Katara was never Zuko's goal. He wanted to capture Aang, and he fought anyone who stood in his way. Katara's goal was to protect Aang, and she likewise fought anyone who stood in the way. And on top of that, Zuko never caused Katara any significant harm. He tied her to a tree and tried to negotiate with her. Guess what? The first time the Gaang had the opportunity, they tied Zuko up (after seriously considering leaving him for dead). He knocked Katara unconscious. Then, the very next time they faced each other, she knocked him unconscious. That's... pretty much it. Neither of them was a victim of the other, they were enemies who fought one equal terms.

And ALL of those arguments completely disregard Zuko's redemption and the subsequent friendship between him and Katara. Zuko openly rejected his father and all his nation's actions and teachings. He changed sides in the war with the intention of stopping the harm that his people were doing to the world. He taught Aang, helped rescue Hakoda and Suki from prison, saved Katara from being crushed to death, and helped her find and confront the man who killed her mother. And Katara forgave him for everything. They became friends. But Zuko didn't stop there. He fought Azula on his own to keep Katara safe, threw himself in front of lightning to save her life again, and then, at the age of sixteen, dedicated the rest of his life to dismantling and reversing all the harm his nation had done over the past hundred years.

Zuko was never an oppressor in the way antis like to claim, but even if he had been, the fact that he saw the error of his ways at the age of sixteen and then spent the rest of his life trying to fix not only his own personal wrongs, but those committed by his nation (and many of which happened before he was even born) says a lot. And acting as though his fight to change things for the better (and his close canon friendship with Katara) doesn't matter because he happened to be born to the royal family on the wrong side of the war is incredibly reductive.

Like I said before, no one is obligated to ship Zutara. No one is obligated to like Zutara. And there's nothing wrong with people being uncomfortable with the pairing for their own personal reasons. But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the ship or those of us who enjoy it. Suggesting otherwise undermines the validity of interracial relationships in general, and I would strongly suggest blocking anyone who argues that there is something inherently wrong with shipping Zutara.

PS: I'm not indigenous, but I do know several Zutara shippers who are. There may be some indigenous people who find Zutara uncomfortable, but it's in no way a universal opinion.

[ramblings-of-a-mad-cat]

ok i know you said that reblog didn’t just refer to Rakepick (i’m assuming that’s who you meant by “her” but correct me if not) but i don’t really see how it could refer to her character in the first place?? if you could elaborate that’d be great cos i feel like it’s flying right over my head lmao

Happy to! As I might have predicted, I did get several messages about the post I reblogged so now I’ll try to clarify my feelings on this, as I know it’s been a touchy subject in the past. (This ended up being quite long, so...) @dat-silvers-girl and @heleneplays I thought you might find this interesting.

The original post was talking about shipping and the difference between enjoying character dynamics and actually projecting onto characters to see the relationship style you would want in your own life. I feel like both of these things can happen and that’s okay, but the point was that shipping two characters doesn’t mean you condone any implications that such a relationship would have in real life. Enemies to Lovers is a great example. 

In regards to fiction, I took that mindset a step further and talked about characters in general, notably villains. The same way we shouldn’t assume that people like a certain ship because they want a relationship like that in their own life, I don’t think it says anything about a person if a villain is their favorite character. Very often, villains are the most interesting or fleshed out. They have a unique relationship with the story itself as they are often the driving force or representative of its message. You could say that Harry Potter is a story about love and family...and Voldemort exists as someone who cannot comprehend either, to demonstrate their importance. Anyway, the point is that there’s nothing wrong with liking a villainous character. 

When I was growing up, it didn’t seem like this was a contested idea. It was actually common, particularly for villains who were seen as “cool” and many of them were. You’ll find few people who don’t agree that Darth Vader or Darth Maul look cool. However, in recent years, I’ve noticed that purity culture has spread to the point where liking a villain is considered questionable. It no longer seems to be enough, necessarily, that one is merely enjoying the villain as a character. Just like the idea of shipping two characters now means one must condone that kind of relationship in real life, sometimes it seems as though liking a villain is now tantamount to condoning their actions. 

Then again, there are people who feel sympathy for villains and attempt to justify their actions. Sometimes it’s due to a personal attraction. It’s a meme that people get horny for villains, and there’s probably some overlap there with folks who lean toward the “projection” style of shipping I talked about earlier, but never mind that. Other times, this sympathy can overlap with seeing potential in the character. There is a fine line, of course, between rooting for a redemption for the villain and arguing that they did nothing wrong in the first place, but these days it seems as though rooting for a redemption for the “wrong” kind of villain is something people take as an insult. (Severus Snape comes to mind.) Alternatively, people also seem to take it as an insult if you don’t believe the “right” kind of character deserves redemption. (This happens a lot with Princess Azula.)

Now all that being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with hating a villain and just wanting them to go to hell and die. Like, that makes perfect sense. There are villains out there that we love to hate, characters who are so despicable that most people would agree they deserve a slow and painful death. Joffrey Baratheon is a great example. (Actually, a lot of Game of Thrones characters would apply here...) If a villain inspires true loathing from you, then paradoxically that also means they’re great, because they’ve been written in such a way that you as an audience can feel the evil. But this can become complicated if they overlap such despicable villains with the ones who have potential to be more interesting. It becomes complicated because of the aforementioned binary that now seems to be prevalent. The idea that everything one likes in fiction reflects what they believe should go on in real life.

Which brings us to Rakepick. 

Wow, we finally got here. I appreciate your patience. Rakepick is that character who has overlap. Whether we like it or not, she was presented as an ally for two years of the game’s story, before her betrayal. She spent a lot of quality time with MC and the other apprentices. We got to know her. It is not at all surprising, I don’t believe, that some of us see that “potential” to be more in Patricia Rakepick. But on the other hand, she sure has gone above and beyond in the effort to be one of those villains you just hate, given what she’s done. Having been part of this discourse, I think what’s going on is that the players who still feel a connection to Rakepick feel attacked by the players who ruthlessly condemn her. The players who condemn her feel insulted by the idea that players still like her after the terrible crimes she’s committed, after what she did to Rowan. No one is wrong here. Rakepick is a fascinating character who’s done unspeakable things. We do not need to fight about her. 

Everyone has different opinions about characters for different reasons. I have villains that I simply love because I see something more in them, or because I just think they’re cool. I also have villains for whom I feel the same contempt people have for Rakepick. Villains who I cannot stand and it makes me cringe to see their actions justified or considered - Cersei Lannister comes to mind. Likewise, there are just as many heroic characters that I love and adore, and some others that I find problematic. Others still that I flat out despise because of what they’ve done, villain or no villain, like Nozomi from SMT. Albus Dumbledore is probably the character I hate the most in fiction, even though he’s one of the good guys. I’m “Anti-Dumbledore” but when it comes to Rakepick, I don’t even like to use the term “Antis” because when a character is unquestionably a villain...isn’t it the default setting to hate them and root against them? 

Here’s the main thing. They’re fictional characters, first and foremost. They aren’t real, so it’s not like they know if we’re defending or condemning them. All of us are part of fandom to enjoy their story and share our enjoyment with each other. I feel like that should come before anything else. No matter if Rakepick is one of those villains you find “cool,” no matter if you love to hate her with how evil she is, no matter if you see more to her and wish she wasn’t considered a villain...or even if, like most of the HPHM fandom, you simply can’t stand her and root for a shallow grave...all of us have these opinions because we like HPHM. That matters more than our specific opinions about characters. Even villains. Even ones who have crossed as many lines as Rakepick.

[haytsun]

"is funny those old man standing in the moral high ground saying 14yo child solider is war crime need to punish more than anyone else" A siege isn't a war crime while suggesting and helping implement a genocide is (even if unsuccessful). Though it is still likely Iroh is guilty of war crimes since he probably knew of and supported/condoned the Southern Water Tribe genocide and, if he worked with the Rough Rhinos like it is implied, condoned their burning of villages and innocent civilians.

Um…“A siege isn't a war crime” so…100years war, the siege continue in 100years until the avatar and his team save the world. Oh, wait, does hesitate date still count as siege? Like Iroh fail, and later other general continue, between this time does it still count as siege? If is than Azula wasn’t war crime like Iroh. Because before Iroh 600days BSS it would have hesitated time. If consider as how long they take down a place only count as siege...than this siege...idk

So...em...I don’t really get the Iroh is likely guilty as war crime and supported/condoned the SWT genocide? Doesn’t this just made him look even bad, he knew everything but never any action?😰