#the portrayal of war/genocide is grounded in reality and the portrayal of revolution is not

[snowstories]

[Image: tags reading #hmmm #i think there are things that would have pushed roy et al to revolution but #Fullmetal Alchemist #I don't think you could honestly depict a revolution in a children's narrative #even the rare people like Applegrant]

Sorry to respond like this, I'm not gonna argue whether or not there are things that could've theoretically pushed roy et al to revolution without the fantasy threat because I think it's beside the point, but I DO want to respond to 'I don't think you could honestly depict revolution in children's media' because that's just not true. Volume 15 in this very manga is a grueling, graphic depiction of genocide featuring human experimentation, on-screen immolation, and mass murder. While magic plays a role in the volume, obviously, most of its actual depictions of war and genocide are grounded and realistic. If Arakawa could do that she could've had an at least slightly more grounded version of revolution, if she so chose; she didn't, though.

Yes, depending on the exact target audience, you may have to simplify a revolution when depicted in children's media (hell, I'd argue that the limitations of fiction necessitate simplification even in adult media). Simplification does not necessarily preclude honesty, however, and it irks me when people argue children's media is inherently incapable of handling a certain narrative just because that narrative is complex and dark. You can write a revolution in a story for children and do it well.

It really does actually annoy me when people claim FMA is a pro-revolution narrative because it's no more pro-revolution than any other fantasy series. Like half of the fantasy books in existence contain a spunky gang overthrowing an evil government/king. Fucking Harry Potter ended in a revolution. The presence of a revolution in a fantasy/sci-fi series does not in itself make for a pro-revolution narrative in a real world context.

The catalyst for FMA's revolution is not its genocide or the ongoing racism, discrimination, and disenfranchisement of the Ishvalan people. The catalyst for its revolution is that there are evil fantasy monsters masquerading as a government intent on using the massacres they've already caused to destroy the whole country via a magic ritual. The solution to the actual, real world problems of colonization, discrimination, and genocide is routinely and explicitly stated to be working within the system. Miles' entire character more or less exists to show an Ishvalan working within the military in order to change the system from the inside, and is contrasted with Scar (the only other Ishvalan character), whose chosen method is violence and direct disruption of the system, in a favorable way. And Miles' character is just one way in which this message — work within the system to change minds — is reinforced. 'Violent revolution' is a reaction to a fantasy threat, not real-world problems.

Revolution is a fun plot for fantasy/sci-fi because it pits underdog heroes against an overwhelming evil. And also, most people will agree in the abstract that revolutions are justified when faced with an overwhelming evil. The actual point of contention is what constitutes an 'overwhelming evil'. Most fantasy bypasses this messy question (and otherwise sanitizes revolutions) in various ways, allowing people who shudder at real-life revolutions to root for our heroes. FMA is no different; its fantasy threat, unreplicable in real life, is the driving factor and excuse for revolution, whereas its reaction to more grounded problems in Amestris' society is 'working within the system'.

Without the fantasy threat of the homunculi working towards a nation-wide transmutation circle that'll kill literally everyone in it, FMA never would've justified a revolution. Not on behalf of the Ishvalans, not as a reaction to genocide. Think of this what you will, I'm not here to tell you what to think about violent revolutions, but under these circumstances, I do not think it's accurate to describe FMA as a pro-revolution narrative anymore than it's accurate to describe Harry Potter as one.