Two quick notes: 1. At 24:14 I mistakenly said that the Southern Water Tribe didn't declare independence, but they did at the end of season 2. 2. Yes, Raiko lost his reelection to Zhu Li in the finale, that doesn't change any of my points. The issue isn't that Raiko *will* abuse the U.R.'s political system to become a dictator, the issue is that he (or any successor) *could* do so.
yeah a democracy isn't on the other side of authoritarianism, the other side of authoritarianism is anarco capitalism, it is utopic(somewhat idealistic to think it could actually happen, even though it's theoretically possible). Anarco capitalism is an ideology where everyone has absolute control over their own private property, and everyone follows rules that prevent them from attacking another person or their private property. Aside from respecting private property, anarco capitalism grants a person under its ideology ultimate freedom, where everyone has as much power over their lives as possible, while in authoritarianism, the entire country is run by a small group of sometimes 1 person who wields all the power. The problem with a democracy is that 50 +1 ≠ morally justified decision. So even if the majority decides something, they are still forcing a minority to obey them through force, which is morally wrong. Want to see the flaw in democracy? take brazil for example, leaders literally buy votes for 10 dollars a piece from people who vote for them, not knowing they are voting for politicians who will increase taxes on them by thousands of dollars for their own financial benefit. Democracy is flawed, the only thing it does well is stop people from rebelling(and sometimes it can't even do that) because "you can always vote for what you want if you're unhappy" a phrase that is patently absurd if someone where forced to chose between hillary clinton and donald trump for example, two FAAAR from ideal candidates to implement common sense policies.
@Marshal Marrs Republic city is north Korea? That's a stretch, however it fits for south Korea in the 50s which was only kinda democratic with a strongman dictator like figure in Syngman Rhee who reminds me of Raiko.
@@luizcastro5246 the opposite isn't anarcho-captilaism. The scale goes from Authoritarian to Liberal, left to right. Anarcho-captialism is a liberal right ideology.
I just want to point out how TERRIFYING Avatar Kyoshi is in a world building perspective: Avatar Kyoshi, the strongest Avatar who could move actual mountains as a 16 year old spent her 230years of life as the judge, jury and executioner for the entire world. Just imagine how terrifying that would be for world leaders. Like people probably just looked at her as some sort of god considering how insanely powerful she was (even by avatar standards) and by how long she lived. World leaders probably had to pull their kids aside when they came of age and say: make sure to NEVER do anything even slightly morally questionable bcs there is an immortal, all powerful god women out there who will actually smite you if you take even one step outside of what she deems to be right.
It's funny how the more powerful an avatar is, the less human they are. They literally become a force of nature, a living power that strikes the final cord on all world shacking events. Kyoshi determined the fate of entire civilizations, and for that she is both feared and revered, not as a person with feelings and dreams but as a concept personified.
@@navilluscire2567 I feel like they kind of have to. Kyoshi lived in a time where the earth kingdom was shattered and filled with criminal gangs. She needed to take on this “absolute justice” persona in order to clean up the earth kingdom. The avatar gets the responsibility for taking care of the entire world which isn’t something a normal person can do so it kinda makes sense that they become more spirit like/ just kind of a force of nature.
@@andrithorkristensson2545 Which is the problem, no one asked them to. Literally the avatar is a self appointed position, heck Wan himself the first avatar took it apone himself to act as policeman for the entire world even though the masses did not ask him to.
if you have seen the lost episode from atla, yangchen actually explains aang why the avatar is reborn again and again and not an immortal being. its because the longer the avatar would live, the more discompassionate he or she would become. the avatar won't be able to form any social bonds due to their immortality. hence he or she would only act on basis of their personal moral compass and not take the human side of things much into account. the avatar would become more of a spirit than a person.
@@navilluscire2567 I agree with you to a certain point. Wan was needed to keep the balance as he was more of a peace maker that made sure that the new human colonies did not eradicate each other which is why Rava felt it was important to continue his mission and with time the avatar became somewhat of a mythological figure. Imagen if Santa clause would come down during the cold war and tell russia and USA to stop being mad at each other and just calm down (joking ofc) But with time the roll that the Avatar filled is kinda not needed anymore. The world functions pretty well on it's own without the avatar (except that one time with the fire nation) but that's why I love LoK. Bcs LoK is constantly showing us that the Avatar really isn't necessary anymore (sorry, didn't realize I wrote this much lol, just got really into the topic I guess xD)
One thing to point out: you say that Tenzin in the ruling council of the Republic City only represents his family. That's not entirely true. While Tenzin and his children are the only airbenders, we see that a lot of non benders live in the air temples and basically act as air nomads, albeit without bending, and Tenzin is probably the representative of all of them. So yeah the governing system of the Republic City is unequal, but not that unequal
also, the only reason tenzin only represents a small group of benders is because his people got genocided 💀. so it is kind of a historical restitution to give his people a vote.
@@luizcastro5246 adding to what you both said. That is also a way for him and the non bender nomads to slowly restore their civilization, which is something Aang's generation cpnsidered necessary.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo to be fair the non bender in the temple (at least from what the comics show) are more people that loved air nomad culture and decided to follow it (their start was literally kid fun club in ba sing sa for aang)
@@tonydanatop4912 I think the og air benders was more people group and also religion but in the comics it became more religion while the new air nomads seem to turn it slowly back into nationality but probably less strict about who is in it than it was in the past
Did the elder Air Monks really have any Power over the rest of the population? I would think a dissatisfied Air Nomad could just go to another Temple or live and do whatever the fuck he wants. Probably the best Nation to live. At least until the Fire Nation attacked.
Any of yall seen Kay and Skittles' video on how the writers were interpreting political/economic systems (I guess its legend of Kora the more I think of it)
You said the usage of genocide in LoK was a bit much, but genocide was a major theme of AtLA too. I think a kids show can have some dark topics, especially because genocide affects the lives of children, whether it be after multiple generations or in the recent past.
Even the finale is a good bit them stop a cleansing. And aang all thr time reminded for his, that is dark. The issue korra had was pacing due various reasons, but ATLA did use genocides more.
@@marl3ymarl3y86 oh yeah put some gore and sadomaso in a children show and see how it goes, buddy 😂 Jokes aside, you *can* talk to children about dark topics too, but you need to choose the right words and ways to display them. What most people who think like that forget, is that they are still children, even tho "people". They aren't gonna react like adults, and the way you address them will impact their development along the line. This is why there is an entire field of psychology dedicated to them. You can't act like Michael Scott and start saying "let them do what they want, they are adults too". They aren't, and they have different needs and understanding of the world too.
@@gauntlettcf5669 Even with Adults talking about topics head on in an extremely graphic way doesn't help. It will just block people from learning because it is really horrific. The way to do it is well done by ATLA it goes into the topic and is well explained without having to show gore. Ofc I'm not saying not to talk about some stuff that is really horrible (like going into details of slavery) but the way they are introduced matter no matter the age with the beginning needing to be a slower more gentle approach
@@cencent2189 I agree with the way AtLA did dark topics, it made a connection with their audience (while still being family friendly) and didn’t threat them like they were stupid. To this day a whole generation was impacted by that story and it’s themes, especially if they related to the cultures in the show.
Not a big point, but I feel like it’s worth noting that, in the comics, we find out that the Southern Tribe isn’t just a single town, but a loose confederation of several towns spread throughout the South Pole, with democratically elected leaders. That’s one of the key cultural differences the southerners take pride in, their democracy. However, it makes them militarily quite week. And they are looked down on by the North as uncultured wildlings with no respect for tradition, partially due to their lack of aristocracy.
Something that stood out to me was on paper the Water tribes were both ruled by the North so wouldn't that technically mean that the Republic's council have one water tribe member instead of two? Because having two made it unfair. Also the United Republic in book 1 Korra is confusing because it seems like it's if the real life UN had a stateless country whose leaders were representatives from other countries. But after book 1 the United Republic seems to become an actual country with its own home ruler, the president
That was the biggest problem with the world of Korra, It's the way they just literally Americanized everything The Avatar, the biggest symbol of equality and balance in the world stole land on foreign Kingdoms so he could construct his little Manhattan :D, Wow that's so cool! You know what would've been cooler? If the air nomad's became the fucking avenger's, using suits and fighting crime! Yeah that would've been cool
@@applepinto3942 ATLA took place around the 1850s' - 1860s' in real-world time and LOK takes place about 70 years later in the 1920s'. By that time, western influence had already firmly cemented itself into several East Asian countries. The westernization was biggest in cities too.
I agree with most of it, I just think that the air nomads before the 100 year war were not a dictatorship, there was no government, the old monks ruled only the children, not the adults, so it's more like parents rulling their child than a government rulling people. air nomads were free, they could do whatever they want, that's their philosophy, it's about freedom. That's why Zaheer was so conected to that philosophy, the air nomads were pretty much anarchists
Yeah, the air nomads were more of an Oligarchy that draws its legitimacy from Meritocracy than a Dictatorship, their leadership being a small group of well-respected wisemen. For comparison, I'd label the Fire Nation an Absolute Monarchy drawing legitimacy from a Centralism of Governance, the Earth Kingdom a Traditional Monarchy drawing legitimacy from Vassalage, and the Water Tribe as a Chiefdom drawing legitimacy from Authority.
@@phobics9498Technocracies are based on progress, while Meritocracies are skill-based. The Air Nomads are closer to Anarcho-Primitivisists then technocrats.
The interesting thing about the world of avatar is that it is one of few worlds where you have a de facto benevolent god King of the world who is actually godlike but through reincarnation is immune to the complacency and factionalized interest that comes with immortality. As long as the avatar keeps the level of power in each nation low enough that they cannot seize and brainwash his reincarnated successor then there is a natural counterweight to authoritarian power consolidation.
In theory yes, but in practice the existence of the avatar didn't stop ultraviolet, authoritarian regimes from forming. Remember *Chin "the (sopposed) Great"?* He was a horrible tyrant, even for (non-universal) standards back then yet Kyoshi of all avatars did absolutely NOTHING to stop his reign of terror and oppression, not until he threatened her own home peninsula (at the time) did she decide to face him and even then was more interested in saving her people from his brutal rule...by involuntary separating an entire freakin peninsula and stranded it out in the bumfuck middle of the ocean without even thinking about the ramifications of this, how that might utterly screw with the ecology, the economy and lifestyle of her own homeland and people. (did she even ask what THEY might have wanted?) But anyway, my point is that while any particular avatar could impose an era of relative (and I can't stress that enough!) "peace" and it has happened before but that largely depends on the avatar in question, who are they in one reincarnation may vastly differ from another even with the same role and expectations.
@@navilluscire2567 What also makes them particularly interesting is that the Avatars aren't "foreign" to the world, they're products of the societies they've spent all their days in, and thus more amenable to (and conscious of) their interests and needs which they can use to effectively keep the balance they are tasked with maintaining. In defense of Kyoshi, she would've killed him personally anyway, but I doubt it would've taken that long if she was really trying.
Huh that's true. The avatar could easily become a theocratic leader since they hold absolute power of elements to the point that they could create a religion where the center of power could be themselves.
@@clayongunzelle9555 I mean that would never happen, and even if it did he would probably be fully grown by then and fix stuff like right away when he gets back
Of course every government is a dictatorship. Besides having an internal support base, every government also need to be approved of by the Avatar, or they risk being forcibly removed in the name of balance. And it's much easier for the Avatar to work with one or a few people than a democratic system.
But doesn't the fact that Korra has put and end to the avatar's cycle mean that as soon as she dies, the world won't have any more avatars to rely on? Meaning all the nations will start having to deal with change?
@@gauntlettcf5669 She didn't put an end to the Avatar cycle just restarted it. So there will be more Avatars after her but those before her are currently not accessible
The Avatar just has to keep balance between the nations that's the role it has. If it means killing an Army, yup that too Kiyoshi was going to do that but she only had to kill 1 king
@@mikemorro140 But the job of deciding what is in balance and what is unbalanced lies entirely with the Avatar though. So while in principle, the Avatar's approval isn't needed to rule, in practice, they need to be at least ambivalent towards your rule.
I feel like this is analyzing the governments of avatar too much like they're modern societies, when they're instead feudalistic, which brings different power dynamics. For example, you said that the way that the Earth king lost control to the Dai Li is unknown, but there's a canon reason that's actually rooted in how a lot of Chinese emperors lost power; the Earth King rose to the throne at 4, the reason he became a puppet is that he was literally raised as a puppet. This happened a ton in chinese history, where emeprors would die before their heir was ready, meaning that the new emperor would get groomed into being puppets by their "regents". Whoever controlled emperors like this varied wildly, it could be usual suspects like the military or bereaucrats, or more unconventional people like the Emperor's mother or the Eunuchs that raised him and served him. Overall, my point is that feudal societies aren't just dictatorships, they have all sorts of strange power dynamics that usually depended a lot on oddly specific traditions.
On the Earth King aspect, there is also the possibility of delegation. Kings, Emperors etc. don't manage every aspect of their regimes themselves. It seems perfectly plausible that an Earth King would appoint some to be the head of the Dai Li, to save themselves the headache of dealing with such matters - especially the more trivial/mundane matters - themselves. They might well not have grasped just how much power they were putting into the hands of said individual - especially as there was no hint of a coup. In fact, if anything, the Dai Li would no doubt still be keeping him save from coups and such. IOW, the king never even realised that he'd effectively given up his power or that he was now a puppet.
I disagree.Avatar has a lot of feudal influence(especially in the Earth Kingdom) but it is not entirely so.For instance,I would say the Fire Nation is more of an Imperialist than Feudal society.Yeah none of it is necessarily modern,and I would agree that forcing it thorough a irl modern lens is flawed.Ultimately,I see this as an interesting take on the universe and not exactly what the show is portraying.Ur right to say that it is more complicated tho.
@@Avatar_Ken Avatar's governments make a lot more sense if you think of them as follows. The Fire Nation is Imperial Germany or Imperial Japan (two extremely aggressive industrialized nations that fought destructive wars for resources and had a strong military based aristocracy), the Earth Kingdom is Qing China, a huge and prosperous nation that started out as an absolute monarchy where the power came from the army (in Qing China it was the Banners and in Avatar it was the Dai Li) but as emperors lost control of them so did they lose control of the country, the Air Nomads are Tibet prior to the annexation by China and the Water tribes are a mix of native Americans and medieval Iceland.
@@crazeelazee7524 The Fire Nation is also reflective of the United States during Manifest Destiny. They sought to spread their greatness in both size and their idea of splendour. The Imperial Germany comparison is better suited to the way Kuvira ran the Earth Empire, although comparisons still stand for many, many other nations in various parts of history.
@@crazeelazee7524 Yeah I see your point, though I would say that the fire nation is still relatively feudalistic in ethos, just like Imperial Japan was. At the time of WW2 Japan hadn't even been a modernized country for 100 years, so a lot of the ethos that drew it into fascism could be traced back to the feudalist traditions. The culture of honor and reverence for the emperor played a pretty big role. People would act to further fascism or expand the empire, and officials would turn a blind eye because the militarists "were honorable in intent" and wanted to "serve their country and their emperor", the same attitude that lionized the samurai rebellions 70 years prior.
Here's the thing about autocracies in fiction : we all act surprised at how many fantasy worlds are ruled by dictatorships and talk about it with a negative connotation because we live in a modern world where pretty much every country is a democracy and the autocracies out there are totalitarian shitholes with a history of nonstop genocide and crimes against humanity. We forget that until the 20th Century the world was still pretty much all kingdoms with a few exceptions, and even until the end of WW1 it was still, guess what, mostly kingdoms and empires, with a few exceptions. The only big democracy before the rise of the current ruling western democratic system was the ancient greek democracy, which as we know wasn't anything like a modern democracy and it was rather authoritarian (Because y'know, every citizen in that system got a say on what happened to the polis but their definition of citizen was very strict). What I'm trying to say is that basically any show not set in the present or future and is trying to draw parallels to the real world will be nothing but autocracies. Whether that's a bad thing or not, who knows.
@@AbstractTraitorHero Besides the fact that I'm mostly talking about de facto nations, primitive societies tend to be autocratic in nature too. Most of them are well known for having chieftains or caciques and such, from the bedouin nomads to the native americans, from the Ainu people to the nordic tribes and buryats. The only exception that I can really think off the top of my head are aboriginal tribes.
@@Ramash440 Theres plenty of examples of democratic ideals and anarchism within many of those communities, I think you should do a bit of deeper research into a lot of those society's friend.
@@AbstractTraitorHero Can i have some examples, its very hard to find anarchism that stuck around for more than a couple years or democracy that wasn't actually oligarchy.
@@itshunni8346 Well it depends on your definition of Anarchism? Typically a lot of tribes or nomads were somewhat primitive communists, with little unjustified hiearchy. You can see this a lot in hunter gatherer society's, this kind of stuff was talked about by Marx and Kropotkin and plenty back in the day. I don't really want to go looking to be straight doh for specfics or grab examples that are specific. I am unironically recovering from a medical operation that's messing my head up bad.
In the case of the water tribes, a chief might have the absolute obedience of everybody in the tribe, but that's most likely due to trust. That is to say, the chief continually earns the collective confidence of his tribe. There might be no institutionalized voting, but in practice the tribe as a whole most likely has a very powerful and direct influence on their tribal leader. As far as we know, the society is de facto very democratic, with the leader being easily influenced or proactively anticipating the needs of his tribesmen. Essentially I say that leadership in the northern water tribe might not be a high socio-economic status. that is to say, he doesn't get extensive privileges and wealth, and he doesn't use institutional power to extort his tribesmen. This is supported by the fact that he doesn't have multiple wives, and that we see no social stratification in the northern water tribe. One might suggest that we just didn't see it, but considering that socio-economic stratification was clearly and repeatedly put on display in ba sing se, I'd say the show wouldn't have merely glossed over it if it was there. Only evidence for it is in the way Yueh's arranged husband condescends Sokka, but looking back, that attitude seemed pretty out of place.
In ATLA its more a monarchy than anything. Ans the south seemed to keep that a chief has to earn the trust of the tribe. Still later. Tarlok likely just did earn their trust.
The condescension toward Sokka may have had more to do with him being from the Southern Tribe. More of a nationalist position than a classism position, considering that Sokka is the son of the Southern Water Tribe's chief. Looking strictly on the basis of class, Sokka was of equal rank to Princess Yue and outranked the person condescending him. . Furthermore, Sokka, , both by virtue of succession and upon instruction from his father to bear responsibility for the tribe, was effectively the Prince Regent of the Southern Water tribe.
@@ckl9390 I think Yue's fiancee was also supposed to mirror what kind of person Sokka was at the beginning of the series, someone tied down by his own insecurities. Because of a lot of the fiancee's behavior screams "insecure" to me.
Let's be honest in TLA they were kinda primitive for anything too complex except the fire nation. Giving democracy to people who are not well educated is a recipe for disaster.
when you realize the USA Republic Democracy based on a constitution of Unalienable Rights Is still the only government that protects their citizens rights even to today. Though with china Joe that won't last much longer working with black face Trudeau, We are seeing the return of Concentration camps and Re education camps. A ton of strong arming and acts to take away multiple Rights away from the constitution 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 15th and 19th are all have been attacked directly by Biden we are getting to a point where we need to lock and key the constitution from any more changes Period we are seeing the government corrupt itself faster and faster.
@@snintendog Except...he didn't. If Taiwan wasn't there why was there a controversy around their feed getting cut for a few minutes? They went to the summit
First thing first, Avatar takes place in the feudal system. Feudalism isn´t a form of totalitarism. A feudal leader isn't obligated to people and society but to classes and in most cases religion and in the world with active magic like bending is really hard to develop secular civil society needed for a democratic system like we understood the term nowadays (nor totalitarism)...
@@Danganraptor danganraptor, the most obviously feudal system would be the earth kingdom, but the fire nation is likely an autocratic centralised state
@@Cecilia-ky3uw I didn't mention the Earth Kingdom because that would've been redundant, and the Fire Nation is still a feudal nation, just with totalitarian flavour (like propaganda).
1:00 Authoritarianism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. The level of authoritarianism in a government is dependent on the amount of power assigned to it. If a democracy can vote for any policy or decision with no legal restrictions, so long as it is democratically voted on, is effectively a totalitarian government. Or to put it in a different way, democracy is a measure of who controls the government, while authoritarianism is a measure of the government’s power, the two are very different and thus putting them on opposite ends of the same spectrum doesn’t make sense.
@@Me-yq1fl Highly democratic governments are extremely authoritarian since 'the people' don't like limits on their power (see Athens). It requires people who have to worry about their reputation and how others react to them (aka monarchs and merchant oligarchs) to have stable levels of freedom. Dictators are to busy trying to stay in power and representative democracies have representatives and people with delegated power grabbing whatever they can.
Yep they aren't mutually exclusive. An authoritarian regime can Co exist in a democracy. In a democracy the people can just get the dictator megalomaniac they asked for
@@Me-yq1fl Democracies aren't authoritarian while you're on the majority. Try to stay in the minority to discuss policies and see how authoritarian a democracy can become
Ok, this video turned out to be slightly better than I expected it to be but still I have issues with it. 1) A fair share of factual lore mistakes or straight up presenting assumptions as facts like RC counil not being elected (we don’t know that for a fact) or Tenzin representing no one but his family (it’s just false). 2) Using democracy as a measure of the state being authoritarian. Those are not mutually exclusive especially if we are talking about pre-modern society.
@@Danganraptor sure but way it’s less likely to happen in a democracy, since citizens *usually* don’t vote to sabotage their own freedoms to help governments stay in power
@@priestoffern1608 They can if the full truth isn't presented to its citizens. The United States is a prime example. Monarchies aren't the best form of government, but so long as there's an able heir and no internal opposition, it can last dynasties in terms of stability; the downside is that the citizens have no voting power, although rulers tended to err on the side of caution to prevent open rebellion: even then, the ideals of the people had to be considered.
I think it is wrong to call it a "nightmare". Of course it is by modern standarts, but lets not forget that our understanding of democracy has never really existed before in humanitys history. Even the early "democracies" in the antique were fairly undemocractic on many levels by modern standarts. The existance of slavery effectively banned a huge part of the population from voting to give just one example. Considering that our modern understand is existing for only a century or two compared to the many thousands of years humanity has already existed, one could say we are an autocratic race by nature. It took us literally millennia to develop into democracies and even not complety (large part of worlds population still lives within autocracies) and the democracies we have are not flawless with a chunk of opposition challenging the status quo. Calling the "normality" of humans 1000 years ago a nightmare by our standarts might be justified, but an unfitting statemant. You should always judge a system based on the time it is existing in and what people consider as normal. And since the entire world of Avatar was filled with autocracies and oligarchies these systems should be judged accordingly. The reason avatar opposes some and does not oppose others is that democracy is not what these systems are measured with but, war, aggression and opression. Thats why the Firelord is evil and the Waterking is not. Both rule more or less autocratic, but one is peacefully living in his lands leading his nation, the other one is plungeing the world into a world war and tries to force assimiliate all people of the world into his own culture or just outright purge them entirely from the face of the planet. Thats the standart measurement method for good and bad systems in the avatar universe.
This is best shown with how our concept of modern democracy began. It first began with the Commonwealth of England, which itself wasn't anywhere near our modern definition floating between being an Oligarchy, Dictatorship, and military Junta. The reason it can be seen as the start of our modern democracies is the principle of power from the common people, and seperation of executive and legislative. This eventually turned into the United Kingdom's constitutional monarchy in 1689 and 1707, and those events inspired the French and American Revolution which themselves added much to our modern definition of democracy.
@@freewyvern707 I mean, it was a huge step, but not the first step we took towards "democratic" representation. Greece would be the first, with their very small "white rock black rock" voting system. Rome really took it to another level with the creation of the senate tho. If anything, the Roman Republic did more to establish the foundations of what a democratic republic should look like. Hell, most democracies and Republics today have systems that heavily burrow from them (well, they burrow from the US and French system, who themselves burrow heavily from the Roman) but yes, none of these systems even come close to what a true democracy is, and honestly, people should really try and understand why these systems lasted so long instead of outright calling them wrong and antiquated. That's the equivalent of someone making fun of Windows XP and saying how inferior it is to Win10 because Win10 is faster...
You got some facts wrong throughout your video. We know exactly how and when Tonraq becomes Chief of the SWT because it happens at the end of LOK Book 2. Additionally, we know that Hakoda was Chief in ATLA and Sokka became Chief at some point as well. We also know that Sokka and Katara’s village was not the only village in the south at the start of ATLA.
One point that was missed with the Fire Nation, was how the magic system (bending) plays into the monarchy's power. Virtually all the members of the Fire Nation monarchy are powerful and/or gifted benders. As are a wide cross section of the nobility and elite. This is a separate factor from how skilled they are, which they generally also receive the best bending training available including top secret techniques like lighting bending. This was a simple result of the the practice of Agni Kai, where a dispute would be settled by a fire-bending duel. The best skilled, most powerful, or sometimes just lucky individual would be the victor and gain the spoils of the dispute, even to challenging for position of Fire Lord. This resulted in both the mentality of contest being proliferated and the concentration of fire-bending prowess. In some ways the pre-expansionist Fire Nation is partially a meritocracy, where the merit in question is the ability to fire-bend. There is still a hereditary monarchy and likely hereditary positions in the nobility, government, and military, but all that can be challenged if someone who wants your position can best you in an Agni Kai. This also automatically institutes at least two castes of citizens, benders and non-benders. If a family of non-benders gains a bending child, then they have a chance to better their circumstance simply because they now can participate in a judicial duel. Any non-benders who achieve rank in the nobility are by definition extraordinarily individuals who have made themselves indispensable, or possibly a rare case where non-bending martial artist is capable of besting a fire-bender.
if you check out the comics you see that they intentionally marry based on bending bloodlines, it's why Ozai's father seeks out Roku's granddaughter in order for Ozai to marry, because she has the bloodline of the Avatar, who obviously is a very powerful bender. This likely contributes to why Azula is such a gifted firebender.
So it's more like a military junta, where dictators are chosen by merit and competence (but the merit is in combat/military skills, not anything that helps civilians). This video seems to be using political theories from "The Dictator's Handbook" (there's a famous video on it by CGP Grey). But it's been criticized by another book "Dictators at War and Peace", which discusses military juntas and how their meritocracy makes them more effective at winning wars than absolute dictatorships. ..Wait, that's just like how the Fire Nation was more effective in war than the Earth Kingdom 😳🤯
When I began reading the Kyoshi books was when it dawned on me that the ATLA world really didn't gave any democracies and was ruled by authoritarians. I think I didn't notice back then because I was a kid but also that Team Avatar a lot of the time met world leaders and we got to see their personalities. So like the Earth King and Bumi both were nice guys but the realm they governed were still hard places and had rigid laws and structures in place. With the Kyoshi books this is made more apparent especially with how more in detail some of this is layed out
@@noahmpinto14 yeah it gave me some A Song of Ice and Fire vibes because of how the nobles and clans were mentioned more and how much of an impact they had on people's lives in certain areas
I would say I had reached a similar thought process to this video, but not exactly. In my opinion, the Avatar world is indeed an authoritarian one,and I find it strange nobody else noticed. After all, this is a world where some people can control the elements, spirits and gods exist with one holding the balance of the World, and monarchies claiming divine right( read : " the Earth King is a god", Azula's claim of her family's divine right, the Fire Lord turning out to originally be a Fire Sage position with the first legendary Fire Lord bringing peace and order through both power and religious belief, etc) . However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's...Well, all dictatorships. That would imply modern sensibility is part of the question. It is not. I blame LOK for perpetuating such an illusion. They are either absolute monarchies( Earth Kingdom and Fire Nation) , confederations of Tribes lead by a royal line holding two deities in it's claim( the Water Tribes, both North and South. Book 2 of Korra calls this into question before dropping it) and a theocratic council of Elders, with both complete religious and political authorities ( the Air Nomads. Inferred by their interactions with Gyatso and policy regarding Aang. Confirmed by wiki). They are all perfectly natural to this world, because unlike our world, which is largely built on Western sensibilities and the ideals of freedom,democracy and free thought, there are no such things in the World of Avatar. Their authority is confirmed and abated by the existence of the proclaimed sources of their divine authority, even though they( the spirits. Their deities) may not even care about their politics at all. The claim counts. The source exists. That is all. Again, I blame LOK for any other assumptions. Edit: Fun fact: Part of the Fire Nation's most important traits before and during the War was it's change from holding a powerful clan based aristocracy to what is essentially a system of easily disposable government officials. In other words, whilst there are noble lines and families, the Fire Lord has the power to revoke and give their power as they please. Most of this is, of course, Fire Lord Sozin's idea, but it really began with Fire Lord Zoryu, during the Kyoshi era.
What a great comment. I think there is only one government in both shows that could reasonably be considered a dictatorship, and that is Kuvira's government - concentration of absolute power in one person, lack of a legal line of succession, modernity, etc. All the others are varying levels of authoritarian or oligarchic, as all governments were before the last 200 years or so (and most still are).
@@mariogalindez7427 Thank you kindly. And yes, you are correct. Kuvira does count. That's largely part of what LOK does, though. Instead of following a natural course of evolution from the oligarchies and monarchies previously established and described, we're suddenly introduced to a world with values similar to those of Western thought, for some reason. This trend is admitted by the duo( describing Republic City as " Manhattan in Asia" , as well as modeling it after 1920s America), and in the case of Kuvira, as well as her knack for......re-education camps, I think you can already guess who she represents.
@@alyseleem2692 I had the same thoughts watching the show, and I still think that to some extent, but I was recently exposed to a different viewpoint in a video by Xiran Jay Zhao. She sees Republic City as more of an early 20th century Shanghai, and that the settings and stories, while still western in origin, are not incompatible with the modern history of many parts of Asia. Also, looking back, industrialization and modernization came about pretty quickly historically speaking so I see why they did that.
@@mariogalindez7427 Yes, but the problem in this logic lies in two things: 1. Industrial development in Avatar is clearly commandeered by bending, one way or another. By the laws of economics, it is simply the cheaper, easier way of things. As such, various kinds of appliances like transport, divisions in law enforcement among others, would be drastically different. For example, lightning bending as a source of energy is ridiculously pricey due to it's extreme rarity and therefore not a good investment, but using waterbending to move turbines or fire to burn coal is much easier. Firebenders would also make excellent firefighters. 2. The more important problem: Unlike Shanghai, there was no Western party responsible for influencing the early Republic or rather, the colonies. Instead, it has the Fire Nation. The examples stated by Zhao, while sound, are not really applicable because they are simply not in the same circumstances by any means. For example, the qipao dress would not develop as a response to the Fire Nation's standards of modesty, which as seen in the Beach episode, are actually rather low. Rather, it could be a Fire Nation adaptation of local clothing, ironically a symbol of acceptance and combination between cultures, not resistance. That is,of course, ignoring the more obviously Western clothing, it's focus on sports, democracy, the monument of Aang, and the creators' description of Republic City .
@@alyseleem2692 Kuvira is interesting to me because you can almost tell that the writers realized that having her be Chiang Kai-Shek and genuinely improving the conditions of a Kingdom in a period of warlordism, even if through heavy-handed methods and subterfuge, made her a *bit* too justifiable, especially considering she was expected to hand absolute power over to a pompous twit. That's when they decided to implement the Nazi parallels.
I feel like its just a *bit* disingenuous to call 5 old guys raising kids in a temple an authoritarian hellscape The best part is this means by your own definitions you’re a horrible tyrant over your youtube channel monarchy
Okay maybe not authoritarian he’ll scape, but still highly sus, and definitely deserving of a visit from avatar Chris Henson, defender of childrens buttholes.
the most popular style of government for most of human history was some form of absolute monarchy/autocracy. seeing as this series is not based on ancient greece or a modern democracy, I can see why "every government in Avatar is a dictatorship."
@Tsar Nicholas II How ancient are we talking about, because Genghis Khan codified the four principles of liberal democracy in 1206. Source: Genghis Khan and Modern Mongolian Identity: the Democracy Connection, written by Paula Sabloff, published by the Mongolian Journal of International Affairs on November 8, 2002
@@captainsmolletkermit8986 Not really, and it wouldn't matter if he actually did. His empire lasted maybe a generation. Shows you how much people actually believed in it even if you where right.
@@TheTb2364 I told you not to! I said it was a bad idea, and now there is going to be a murder investigation, because I am sure you didn't dispose of the body, did you? So now you just added to the murder statistic, didn't really solve a thing. If you feel like you need to do it again, then do a full indisputable case before the execution. You aren't a Judge, we don't have that kind of a system, so don't go being judge, jury and executioner on the spot! And even if you have a water tight case, you aren't going through the proper channels, and can you prove that whoever you go after will never reform?
I do feel compelled to point out that while monarchies and dictatorships are similar, that they are not quite the same. Plus, there's not really any evidence that the air monks impose as absolute a rule on their citizen as claimed, especiall since airbenders are known to be free spirits.
kind of weird how you don't address the role of the avatar in balancing the nations of the world at all or how the air nomads (not nation) is somehow a dictatorship when their council of monks only "rule" over children (literal parenting and not even ruling btw) and other monks that voluntarily decided to come back to the temple after they left initially as adults.
Certaintly so, yet fundamentally misguided. Instead of chaos and violence, the freedom as he wanted require responsability. Atleast that is my thought why it failed.
The issue with Zaheer's ideology is that humans are naturally drawn to social hierarchies. We simply can't have large scale cooperation without centralization of at least some decision making. Let's look at fan convention for example. How many people can have the final word on who the schedule looks like? how many people can decide the entry fee, or where each vendor table is set? And you need consensus about these aspects, otherwise you'll double book tables, change different visitors different entree fees and your speakers won't know when their panels happen. Sure you can bring some of the simpler decisions to a vote opened to the entire staff, but the forum of the vote is still a governing body. but some of these desicions are complex and enveloping enough that managing them is a full time work. And I haven't touched about dealing with bad actors and rule barkers yet. Someone need to be empowered to kick out the assholes that sexually harass cosplayers, or do something about a staff member that tries to steal some of the Swag in order to sell it later on eBuy. In other words you need an organization for management and leadership in-order to achieve cooperation required for a convention to happen. Countries are far more complex, by many orders of magnitude than even the biggest and most demanding Convention.
@@LostInNumbers you're not understanding what Anarchism is either. Hierarchies =/= Organization. You do not need a social system based on inherent rolls to organize a society. Cooperation is the key. You can have leaders, but they must be chosen by the people and be subservient to the people. Just because it's more efficient to have one person telling everyone else what to do doesn't make it right. Individual freedom and liberty are more important than the "progress" of creating more luxuries at the cost of those values. In your case, I'm sure that a democratically chosen council could organize a fan convention just fine. However, they cannot and should not be allowed to have absolute control over the running of said convention. Anarchism isn't mob rule, it's democracy taken seriously.
Okay, but, monarchy and dictatorship are not the same thing, that's not to say there are no similarities, and it's not to say that there can't be overlap, but fundamentally, monarchy is generally established when a nation swears allegiance to a particular family, it begins with voluntary selection, the monarch title is passed through a family from generation to generation, it can become oppressive over time, but rarely starts that way; dictatorship is usually established by force and or corrupt manipulation of elective systems. The earth kingdom's monarchy is a confederate monarchy, which means that the power is largely decentralized, and distributed across multiple ruling authorities, with, at worst, a tribute system which requires that the monarchs of all the city states pay a portion to the high king. An Absolute monarchy has a lot of overlap with dictatorship in terms of power, and that seems to be the governing model for the fire nation, however, Constitutional monarchies, Confederate monarchies, and Limited monarchies, do place limits on the main ruling authority that prevent or at a minimum, reduce the monarch's ability to oppress the citizens, it worked for most of Europe for several centuries prior to certain nations (primarily England) over reaching their boundaries and attempting to establish a global Empire (which to be fair, a lot of people tried that). Again, not saying monarchies are perfect, or that they can't become oppressive, but they aren't the completely irredeemable authoritarian regimes that dictatorships generally tend to become within the first generation of their existence. Bottom line, someone being called a monarch doesn't make someone a dictator any more than someone being called a President makes them not a dictator, I would like to point out that a large majority of dictators in recent history have referred to themselves as "President", look at any banana republic. Ultimately, it is a question of unchecked power, one can enter a station of power without election but still have systems in place to limit their authority, and likewise, one can be elected into a station of absolute authority and abuse that authority to the death of their nation... a reminder, hitler was democratically elected, and was easily one of, if not THE most heinous dictator in human history. I realize this is an unreasonably long comment, and I also realize it may come off a lot more aggressive than intended, I'm not saying monarchy is entirely good, or that republics and democracies are entirely bad, just pointing out that it's not as one sided as it's made out to be. (I think it partially depends on the size of the nation) I would like to see a more in depth study of the actual distribution of power within each nation, and what types of monarchy systems each nation actually employs, because the style of monarchy is a big factor in whether it is oppressive or balanced.
You said it yourself but an example for monarchy and dictatorship overlapping is that I doubt napoleon staging a coup, rigging a vote and declaring himself emperor counts as the nation swearing its allegiance to him
I would argue that most governments in Avatar are monarchies, not dictatorships, but I get the feeling that the author of the video refuses to see the difference.
@@gustavju4686 In fact, the actual point of the video is that every government in Avatar is tyrannical (which may very well be the case, but I'd still argue #NotAll). That's the overlap you're thinking of. Many monarchies and most dictatorships in our history have been tyrannical - still, though, not all. But Mr. Tullos chose to call every conceivable tyranny a "dictatorship", a shameful conflation of terms, and shot his credibility in the foot. The actual difference between a monarchy and dictatorship being, by the way (are you reading this, James?), LEGITIMACY. A dictatorship is seized by force or populist propaganda, based on leader's personality and whim, derives its authority from military power, and is usually short-lived. A monarchy is bestowed by inheritance or election, based on tradition and preexisting law, derives authority from people's consent, and has endured for centuries.
I disagree with your reading of Republic City's council - I don't think it's meant to be a *world* gov't so much as a national gov't. That is to say, they represent the nations WITHIN the Republic rather than the nations in their own right. Don't think of it as a Western model (with the central mythos of the individual), but rather akin to states like Lebanon - where each community [Sunni/Shia/Christian] is assured a certain number of representatives to keep the peace between multiple nations within the state. While the two Water-Tribe seats could be considered excessive, it's reasonable to assume that the city's population is roughly divided between those three nations. Even Tenzin having a seat has some historical precedence; look at the outsized political power Indigenous (or other) groups were given in large part due to recognition of the indefensible evils (aka genocide) done against them. Sort of a "hey - your population is still really small & historically marginalized, you get this special perk to keep that from happening again."
@@thetabbyguy921 Unelected doesn't really mean dictatorship. Medieval English monarchs with the magna Carter can't really be called Dictatorships even when they weren't elected.
@Hernando Malinche absolute monarchs are though (the kind the vast majority of people especially americans think of when they think of a king or queen)
But he is right though? He's not attacking the great story itself just that he finds it odd how much of the show's themes and lessons are carried out within authoritarian power structures. Take Zuko for example, despite his good intentions he is STILL one dictator replacing another dictator when you stop to think about it, he just promises to be super *'nice'* (mainly minimizing further bloodshed) about it unlike his father. (and to be fair he does sincerely try to)
@@navilluscire2567 You know what happens when you just.....kill a leader? A fucking power vaccum, we seen this in Korra literally once the Earth Queen died they just went crazy and started to kill each other allowing a warlord to take power by taking over smaller practically tribes of people.
@@WhyYouMadBoi And? That still doesn't change the fact that Firelord Zuko is still an absolute monarch, his people have ZERO input in how things are run. It is just a lucky break that Zuko atleast gives somewhat of a sh*t about his subjects, but here's the thing, the keys, his political power, that is the nobles, the factory owners, most of the military's generals do not care. (in the sense that the citzens of the fire nation are people with feelings) Without the threat of the avatar intervening how long do you think Zuko would've lasted if he wasn't practically best buddies with a demigod that can move literal mountains and sink whole islands whenever he's pissed of? *There is a reason the avatar is so feared even if the current one is a (mostly) pacifist,* its the implied violence on a devastating scale and the sheer force of a avatar's power that keeps many would be exploiters of the downtrodden in check or atleast whenever said super powered being is VERY nearby.
Plenty of countries in the global south try to nationalize their resource production but end up getting fucked by outside nations and forces who have a vested economic interest in the control of those resources. So many examples especially across Latin America and the rest of the world. Iran is a very notable one, where the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran and reinstalled the Shah (monarch) just because he was going to nationalize fossil fuel production in the country to better help his people and keep the money in the country. So much for spreading freedom and democracy what a joke. Norway is lucky enough to be left alone because they were already a wealthy industrialized nation of white europeans, so they are free from the worry of being randomly overthrown by a foreign nation for their natural resources.
Norway is an American ally, so they are left alone. A lot of countries in the 3rd world are basically exploited by the West for their natural resourcess
The issue with Zaheer is that he failed to realize he was becoming what he fought against, a tyrannical authority throwing his weight around regardless of what others wanted.
The problem with anarchism is always that the only thing that can stop a government is another government. Your merry band of freedom fighters managed to band together and depose a government, turning your little group into the sole power in the region? Congratulations, you are now the government. Even if you decide to dissolve, the mere fact everyone (including you) now knows you can come together means you're still the government, just a passive one. If you take steps to prevent that from happening, such as putting literal distance between all of you... well, you're no longer the government, but you won't be able to stop the next one that forms either. When human groups reach a certain size, government is inevitable. The only question is, what type?
@@MalloonTarka I get where you're coming from, but the main problem with your argument is that, just like there are many different anarchist denominations, there are many different definitions of government. To many anarchists, a band of freedom fighters wouldn't constitute a government if the only thing they did was to overthrown governments and prevent governments from forming.
@@MrShadowThief I know, and I'd disagree. The one defining characteristic of a government for me is a monopoly on violence. Once you have that, that power... well, let's hope you're a capable and moral leader. People like to say they wouldn't use it, but everyone has a line. Usually when the first murder or similarly awful crime is committed under their reign. If they have self-control, they might bring them in to be judged by a jury. But make no mistake, that jury is often just a formality. If the jury disagrees with the government, and say, lets the culprit go or sentences them to death by torture, at least some members of the government is going to have doubts. If you have the power to do good, to bring justice, shouldn't you use it, after all? Power is tempting because most people believe they know what's right. And the insidious part is, sometimes they are. In the moment, at least. The only thing that can stand against that is a belief in a higher good. Say, in anarchy, if you believe that. So believers might actually hold their ground for a while. But what do you think the chance is that everyone who forms the government believes in that? And how long will that last?
8:08 there were actually other villages during this times we found that out in north and south when they say two waterbending twins were hidden in a remote village. its a big misconception, in the south and north water tribes the places we saw werent all that there is to see. they have other cities (most likely just smaller villages) that are not their capital cities.
Man, my biggest gripe with LoK season 1 is that Amon has a fantastic point of how social power hierarchies have started to reflect the power hierarchies naturally created by the existence of benders, and that non-benders were not represented/treated well in the system. He has a point, and while his revolutionary methods are less than ethical, his position is not critiqued enough. The election of a president is their answer, but is it enough? I’m not sure
The worst part is that (in season 1), to undersell how right Amon rationally is in the context of this setting, the show refuses to give his arguments any of their necessary weight, i.e. actually show nonbenders be marginalized by the systems that rule their world. The only nonbenders of any narrative consequence are Asami and her dad, who are both wealthy enough that any sincere, systemic barriers which would be present to nonbenders might as well dissolve in their wake, so that their own exemplifications of nonbender marginalization come off lacking at best. The few background nonbenders who are seen protesting their marginalization are similarly presented as annoying, entitled, and broadly in clear opposition to the protagonists whom us as viewers will naturally side with. Because there is nothing substantial to support Amon's ideological claims of bender bigotry (which, again, should in every rational sense be present considering the conditions of the setting) the show ends up presenting him as edgy and crazy instead of having an actual point. This is only exacerbated with the reveal that Amon was actually a secret bender the whole time and his entire mission with the Equalists was some kind of psychotic personal vendetta against his brother or whatever. It's honestly really sad when a show has everything it needs to do something interesting and it instead actively butchers its own premise.
@@yomama5368 very interesting take. To be fair, I haven’t watched the show in a while, but I don’t remember thinking exactly what you’re presenting. I always thought that Amon was presented well, and that the protestors were somewhat obnoxious (as obnoxious as you’d find anyone yelling in the street), but Korra is more obnoxious; her argument against the protestors at one point is “Bending is the coolest thing ever in the world!” This highlights her naivety and inexperience in the world of politics she’s thrusted into. My issue with it is maybe the opposite of yours: I think Amon is presented TOO well, and without our heroes taking the time to grapple with their place within this political revolution, the heroes are presented entirely as good guys, when their position should’ve been ethically ambiguous OR they should’ve found a good reason to take down Amon and use it as a moral counter. I think the writers banked on the actions of Amon being perceived as so inherently evil that a viewer would side against him. But this, of course, misses the point of a morally ambiguous revolutionary type: it totally sidesteps the thematic exploration of whether or not the ends justify the means, and how our heroes might account for Amon’s valid criticisms. I like the show, and I think the introduction of a democratically elected president was the show runner’s attempt to show that Republic City learned from Amon’s attempted revolution… but it’s not presented well that way and it’s a bit too little too late. I do think your take on the portrayal of non-benders is spot on though. The only non benders we really get to know are the super rich, never the lower-middle class people who make up the revolution… this would give Amons point so much more weight. But, Amon makes good points that rationally make sense, so it works well enough I think (but could work a lot better)
@@TheLuckyTim7 I actually think my issue gels well with yours; Amon makes rational sense, but this is a tv show, and as viewers we're informed more by the actual events on screen and their ability to create empathy between us and its characters than we are by the sort of abstract logic that would have us side with Amon's ideology. The main characters are presented in an unambiguously good light, and because we follow them and root for them, the show robs us of the opportunity to view the conflict in any other way than theirs. There is no one else we are allowed to follow who could give weight to Amon's claims, so that, although they make logical sense, it's impossible to _feel_ the truth in them. And then, again, Amon is revealed to be basically a con-artist vying for power, completely deflating what little emotional weight might have been achieved by his side. I didn't really like the show lol, which is sad because it does have a lot going for it. I think ultimately this sort of conflict is more ambitious than what ATLA did; unfortunately, with more ambition comes the need for better execution, and so imo the show sort of fell on its own sword in that sense. Though I will say, this also makes it so that TLOK is one of those shows that's really interesting to think about.
amon is a "ends dont justify the means" villian. the guy has good intentions but he twists them completely until in the big picture the entire thing is a big: wtf no!. he's not wrong, he just didn't had to be such an asshole about it.
Now, I am commenting before watching the video, based solely on the title, but this is like equating Feudal France, Imperial China, Shogunate Japan, or any number of premodern societies with the Dictators of today. By that standard, any historical fiction or historical fantasy is based on a dictatorship. Once we get to Kora, yeah things become dictatorships I suppose, but in the modern world, Dictators are juxtaposed with democracies. But that comparison doesn't work with ATLA since there probably was never a democracy in place.
Do you know what I’d love to see? A show set about twenty years after the events of Korra where the Earth Kingdom is split into a dozen or so nations just duking it out. Sounds like fun.
played a modded game that did just that, its super fun and shows why the fire nation was still fighting a hundred plus years later the earth nation is huge :)
@@chimera9818 There’s absolutely no way it’s going to stay together for long. It’s far too disconnected, diverse and fractured for it to be truly unified. Perhaps it’s more of a confederacy than a true nation, and the name just refers to the continent.
@@dionemoolman I think you're forgetting that Kuvira had built a huge system of high speed rail across the entire country, that would definitely make it a lot easier to maintain control over the whole nation since it would be far more interconnected
The Legend of Korra is so close to making a point about how neoliberal power structures work maintain the status quo not just in their own countries but abroad even at the expense of human lives, and it fumbles at the one yard line by doing a switcheroo and portraying Kuvira, a fascist, in a sympathetic light at the end of her arc.
the issue is she is a pure fascist unless you have another power supporting her then you can't claim that they're talking about neoliberalism as no foreign country or government wants her in power and see her as threat but they don't even use that to show the other nation using the broken earth empire to expand their control as many of these new nations will be poor unconnected and not have the population or resources to compare to the other powers in the world.
Also the way they redeem Varrick after he commited basically the same crimes as Amon, except in his case it was just for profit. And then instead of leaving him alone after he's put in prison at the end of book 2, he ESCAPES prison, appears in Zaofu where Suyin welcomed him with open arms because "people change" and then gets a fucking redemption arc in book 4 NO ONE ADKED FOR, after WORKING FOR KUVIRA where he ONLY rebelled against her after she threatened his life And then even after he supposedly "grew a conscience" he still doesn't turn himself over since y'know he literally broke out of prison but I guess they couldn't let the billionaire character be the bad guy
Sure, but she's still deposed and the Earth Empire is dismantled (and begins a transition into what could hopefully be the most ideal representation of democracy in the Avatar world). The actions/opinions of one character don't necessarily have to reflect the sentiments of the entire show. Literally, none of the other characters show any sort of sympathy towards her. It's only Korra, who as the Avatar serves many roles one of which is essentially being the spiritual guru of the world. She relates to Kuvira's pain that's not her condoning her actions. It's just being human.
To be fair we have Trumped up Fascists Stateside & we give them the right to be that way until they go too far & break certain democratic laws like a bunch of them did a year ago. We didn't really learn much about Fascists in schools Stateside just the actions of Germany from 1930-1945.
It would have been nice to mention all the countries and historical regimes that inspired the various states. I'll list the ones I can see(as they looked during first appearance): Earth Kingdom: Imperial China Fire Nation: Post-Meiji Imperial Japan Northern Water Tribe: Pre-islamic arab city state Southern Water Tribe: Tribal society(too small to establish distinctive form of government) Air Nomads: Tibetan theocracy Earth Empire: Nazi Germany Amon's Regime: Soviet Union Zaofu: Platonic rule of philosophers United Republic: 1920's USA(not fully fledged modern democracy) Omashu: Medieval Feudal Monarchy
@@corvuscallosum5079 Mostly Restoration, but era too, since Imperial Japan kept gathering steam until invading China. Just like in ATLA, where Sozin, Azulon and Ozai succesively built toward the same goal. Sozin is very similar to Meiji, and Ozai is Hitohito
Ozai is drastically different from Hirohito if you studied history, however Fire Nation architecture is essentially Japanese in addition to it being a Volcanic Island Nation. Hirohito was more of a passive ruler, whose biggest actions in the war were in the surrender opposed to Ozai being an active conqueror as seen with the return of Sozin's Comet. Fire Nation should be noted as having Sakura Blossoms when looking at Roku's backstory & if I'm not mistaken Roku is a Japanese Name. In terms of culture I would say Northern Water Tribe is the most complicated where as the other cultures feel directly inspired by others, it mixes & mashes elements from Venice, Inuits, & some other culture I'm unfamiliar with.
@@Me-yq1fl This doesn't seem plausible. Knowing that the creators of ATLA were American it's clear, imo, that the Fire nation is inspired by Imperial Japan. The militarism, heavy indoctrination, rigid honor codes, and imperialist tendencies are clearly taken from the period between the Meiji Restoration and 1945. I would like to know this period you mention in China specifically.
I really hate The Painted Lady episode because it's literally the only time we see the fire nation actually destroy apart of their own nation but then it turns out the actual Painted Lady isn't doing jack dittily squat.
It's established in the episode she couldn't do anything because the water was too polluted. She would have done something if the factory wasn't dumping effluent into her power source.
When Sokka says that he is a prince and Katara laughs I don't get that, he is, he is the son of the Chief, he is, in fact, the prince of the southern water tribe and Katara is the princess, I don't get why that goes unmentioned for most of the show.
Katara probably didn't think of herself as much of a princess. The Southern Tribe nothing more than a village. Katara and Sokka (the latter becoming so over time) were too humble to go around calling themselves royalty when their domain was all of 30 people (maybe a bit more if the warriors Hakoda was leading were counted).
@@Tophadoodledoo technically its a collection of villages, the one we see in atla is just one village of the wider tribe, not the whole tribe. It'd still much weaker than it was pre war though. I don't think the title was a hereditary one in the south(in contrast to the north) so they wouldnt be Prince or princesses in the northern understanding of that term.
It's entirely possible that the position of Chief was an elected one, or that there's an appointment system for successors that isn't based on blood ties. Sokka might claim to be a prince, but if he doesn't automatically inherit the title when his dad passes then he's just the chief's son.
The sandbenders during ALL of this: Just chilling in their own nomadic tribal society. (Okay yes technically Kuvira somehow manages to conquer them but honestly I'm not entirely sure how considering they've managed to resist attempts to subjugate them coming from both the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom for like hundreds and hundreds of years.)
Well the Fire Nation tried 60-70 years before Kuvira so their technology wasn't as advanced as hers when She tried. And after that I assume that the Earth Queen also tried but she is such an incompetent leader that it doesn't surprise me that she probably also failed.
@@starman1144 I mean the fire nation was constantly, repeatedly trying for that time, and the earth kingdom's rulers before the air kingdom's nomads were wiped out also tried several times to subjugate the deserts but nope. (Not just the central monarch but some of their vassal rulers surrounding the deserts too.) It's certainly impressive they managed to keep themselves safe from outside rule for so long in such a volatile setting.
I sincerely doubt, the Fire Nation made any real effort in trying to conquer the sand tribes they're too powerful and frankly nothing in the Si Wong desert is worth a fire nation military presence aside from the Library, heck Fire Nation civilians made themselves right at home in the desert if the traveling circus we saw is any indication so clearly the sand benders aren't really a threat. Kuvira on the other hand is much better equipped to wage war against the sand tribes with her army of Earth Benders and having actual motivation to take the Si Wong Desert.
Isn't that just how it was in past societies? Like, 99% of all society was a dictatorship. So it would have been MORE odd if any society, which were mostly feudal, in Avatar wasn't a dictatorship.
Really nice vid. One point that I would like to differ on is that of each water tribe getting separate representatives. Which, imo makes sense since they are so far apart (literally polar opposite), the cultural differences may also affect the needs and desires of people and so they need two "leaders".
I love this, though the phrase Dictatorship is misused. Dictatorship is just one type of nondemocratic government, with very specific meaning. Kings aren't dictators, they're kings, which by definition requires a feudal system which has its own power interests and challenges. Here's basically how each nation would be categorized, and why they're not dictatorships. Air Nation: Decentralized Elder ruled religious society. Basically a mix between ancient tibet and Native americans. While everyone had their place and role for them in that society, remember that air nomads were already small in population to begin with, its why 100% of air nomad children (before the genocide) were benders, because they were so closed off and spiritual. That is not a dictatorship, because a dictatorship is rule by one. Southern Water tribe: Closer to Native American societies, decentralized, elder ruled societies. Very closely inspired by the Inuit. Again whilst not democratic, they weren't dictatorships. (Technically they were under the northern monarchy, but in practice they were independent). Northern water tribe: Under a monarchy. This one isn't explored more, but it seems that a lot of the decision making wasn't made by the monarchy themselves. Not very centralized, and not a modern dictatorship. Fire nation: This gets closer and closer. Ozai wields almost absolute power, is never really challenged, but again, doesn't match a dictatorship. A dictatorship by its nature is not hereditary and it's leader is appointed by an oligarchy or military. Earth kingdom: In last Airbender, this would fit a corrupt oligarchy or monarchy. It VERY closely mirrors the corruption that would occur in Chinese dynasties (which is fitting because the war is a parallel of the Sino-Japanese War). Whilst the leader is a figurehead, no single person in charge makes it not a dictatorship. Republic City: Definitely not a dictatorship. It's an unequal democracy/closed anocracy, but that's about it. Kuvira's Earth Empire: Yep, this one is a dictatorship, basically to a T. Tl;dr Most of the governments weren't dictatorships. However, they were undemocratic and a better word to describe it would be to say they are all authoritarian
I never finished Korra so it's absolutely wild to me that they added power armor and mechs with lasers to the show. It's not a development that I like and doesn't even seem to make sense how they'd go from rudimentary tanks making up the bulk of the most advanced army in the world to mechs and lasers in less than 100 years.
I'm pretty sure you can develop tecnology at a incredible rate when you can have a guy who just bends metal at will when you need it, even if metal bending was really rare, I' pretty sure the existence of benders accelerated tecnology once the fire nation discovered industrialization
The laser you see is actually a powerful relic from the spirit world, if I recall correctly. As for the mech, well... You've got hundreds of people that can make metal take any shape they want it to, so I don't think it's far fetched for them to make that.
I don’t see the air nomads as a tyranny, what we see is their desperation as the door comes at their doorstep. The adults travel as away to gain knowledge so that may pass down what they know to the young monks when they return and settle down. They’re dedicated to spiritual enlightenment not power.
Omg Tonraq has been so disrespected 10:16 he didn't use the crisis to seize power , he was banished under false reasons by the same guy who also tried to kill his daughter and destroy the world , i mean, he had to step up you know
(I am about to watch the video and this are my thoughts) I mean, their all monarchies, so of course, but the setting isn't exactly modern (at least in the first show), so is it really a problem? To my understanding, the Fire Nation wasn't condemn because of his monarchic government but because of its imperialism, and at the end Zuko was put in power cause they though he was the right guy for the job. It's not awesome, it is still an hereditary autocracy, but considering the setting it is kinda of obvious.
The problem its an imperialist militarist monarchy and there zuko seemed to struggle with the military fraction and hard to reform anything there. Its decent, but republic city came to be because it was still militaristic . And his daughter still is in charge that i get is a decent person likely, bit they have to abolish that or just get worse again.
@@marocat4749 In the real world, one of the best ways to destabilise a country and throw it into generations of rotating military dictators is to "abolish" the monarchy. People with influences from America may think of all monarchies as inherently evil, but most of the ones that survive to the current day are still there because they adapted. They put their people and country before themselves and willingly gave up power to various democratic apparatus' slowly while making sure each step worked and was capable of perpetuating itself. Even if just a figurehead position exists, who's signature is required to legitimise law and major appointments even if they rarely withhold it, the monarchy still serves a purpose by arbitrarily occupying the "top job". A hereditary or at least life long monarch provides stability, Instead of having a "president" on a musical chairs basis. The thing is, Presidents usually have an inordinate amount of power and have a tendency to accumulate more. A constitutional monarchy means that a politician can't achieve a position of absolute authority or abuse it with the same level of impunity that a president can.
@@ckl9390 The monarchies inATL A and korra are not adapting. And constitutionla monarchies arent exactly actual monarchies. And yeah modern monarch are figureheads at best,but avatar is a feudal era with monwrchies and theicracies , where itsabsolute monarchoes,not constitutional ones. I know about the shahivertgrown by the us government for influence, but avatar has feudal like politics, thats not comparable. (I mean if oligarchs are the new nobles, maybe, but thats two different kinds of monarchies
@@ckl9390 Most of the monarchies which survived to the present day did so because either they colonized the others, or had most of their powers removed after domestic/outside influence.
@@ckl9390 I agree with most of your points, except that a president must have an inordinate amount of power. In a presidential system, yes, but in parliamentary republics the president is pretty much a figurehead with soft political power and the responsibility of rubber-stamping new laws and officials - so basically the same job as the monarch you just described, except not chosen by heredity, but by election (though not necessarily a direct election). See the current president of Germany as an example: If you've never heard of him, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, it wouldn't surprise me. They are chosen by the legislature and specially chosen representatives from each of the states.
The Spanish never purposefully gave smallpox to the Inca or any other people. There was only one time where smallpox was given purposefully to a native group. The only historical and actually documented case was in 1757 at the siege of Fort William Henry. All other supposed times it occurred are just legend.
Zaheer was not right, he wanted to cry freedom in the name of tearing down hierarchies, and government but that's not balance. There can't just be freedom because part of freedom is anarchy no matter how you look at it. In my eyes too much freedom is the same as giving permission to criminals to harm children without consequences.
You making a lot of inferences based on little evidence and assumptions and then treating it like it's fact. But we know that the Fire Nation, Earth Kingdom, and northern water tribe or hereditary monarchies we have little in the knowledge of how the southern water tribe or are nomads govern themselves. The air Nomads operate more like a religious order than any form of government I highly doubt their Council of Elders have any actual power. And well we know little about the southern water tribe government it's clear that they are not a hereditary monarchy. Seeing how chords dad is Chief and he was likely appointed there from by his own merits as opposed to being placed there after being banished from the north. Is the northern water tribe did have influence over the southern water tribe it's highly unlikely that he would have managed to become the chief after being banished to destroy of a religious site.
Unalaq is the son of the previous Chief. He was next in line after his older brother, Tonraq, who was banished. The Council of Elders is confirmed to have both religious and political authorities by the wiki. It is also inferred by their treatment of Aang's existence. They wanted him to grow faster so they could fight off Sozin.
18:43 I'm pretty sure that Air Acolytes are also considered part of the Air Nation sense we see that in the Yakone trial flashback a person with Air nomad clothing is representing the Air Nation. But still is a very small population compared to all other nations (I would assume that it's somewhere in hundreds)
I love how author ofthis video treats Democracy as one true good government. Good government is one that works and keep people over which it gowerns safe and happy. If it's authoritarian regime that keeps its citizens happy, it's way better than democracy that doesn't. Water tribes in TLoA were perfect examples of that.
If a democracy isn't materially democratic, then it's a democracy in name only. The US is an imperial genocidal police state that calls itself a democracy because people get to chose between two corporate goons every four years.
@@matheusvillela9150 yeah, that's fair point too. I don't think we have any real example of Democracy anywhere anyways, sadly. The sad truth is that every type of government works amazingly, but only on paper.
I mean, no large group of people can function without a leading body, let alone a whole country or culture. Add to that that Avatars world is based mostly on eastern feudalism in ATLA and turn-of-the-century governance in TLOK, and things are bound to be a bit different from what we are used to. To be fair, the world of Avatar ain't that bad.
Plus, despite the political and historical connections they are trying to make to the real world, the Avatar world is still significantly smaller and easier to wrap our heads around than the real world, which has hundreds if not thousands of cultures and ethnicities, with different nations and empires coming and going, and no avatar to maintain a permanent balance. Honestly the real mind-boggling thing is that guns haven't been invented yet, if they were being realistic even by avatar standards, they would have invented guns instead of taser gloves or giant robot mechs.
@@bullmoosevelt4495 The bending abilities kind of render guns obsolete. Fire doesn't jam or rust or misfire; water doesn't require cleaning after extended use; earth is everywhere while bullets must be made; air allows one uncanny stealth. All, of course, pale in comparison to the Avatar.
@@Danganraptor True, but if you aren’t a bender then you are screwed, imagine if the equalists had guns. Bullets are faster than bending so at that point the only thing that could counter them is metal bending.
Lol your justification on why every nation in it is a dictatorship, makes it sound like the relationship i have with my mom is dictatorship, this some smooth brain analysis
My personal headcanon is that when Zuko became fire lord, he introduced constitutional monarchy or at least freedom of thought, speech, and press. to the fire nation. It’s not in character for Zuko to suppress those that dislike his rule. Zuko isn’t a tyrant, it’s not remotely in his character.
Oof, by far the most researched yet least analyzed video you've done. Air nomads as a dictatorship? They're just exclusive schools with living quarters. Dictatorships need a dictator, which every temple lacks. 5 old people guiding youths to peaceful resolution is far from whatever the hell you were considering.
Idk man who has the power and are they elected by the people? like you can frame any dictatorship as "wise leaders guiding their people for the better" if you so choose. Dictatorship is obviously a loaded term. but are the air nomads democratic? really doesn't seem so. allthough as james pointed out we don't have that much information on how their society is run.
@@freaki0734 The way people "rise into power" in their civilization is literlaly just GETTING OLD. You grow old and teach whatever you learned in life to the new blood. They're not a democracy, but that doesn't mean they instantly are a dictatorship. They're just school teachers
@@GabeDelaSoul how do the children get into the school? without ever knowing their parent's at that. Is there actual discrimination against non bender air nomads (if those do in fact exist)? The system sure sounds like it could have nice aspects to it. but if a system like that existed in the real world it would have sooo much abuse in it. Besides I do think you are adhering to the somewhat clickbaity title lol. He calls their system "essentially one big family" and "kind of wholesome" but it's still bad in many ways it not being democratic being one of the ways that it obviously is.
@@freaki0734 At this point its just overanalyzing what they might not have even written up yet since the first episode. If they're nomads for one, how would the fire nation eradicate them all? They can glide off into the protection of other kingdoms, and then again. Some would live outside of airbender temples too, can't eradicate those who you wouldn't even know are airbenders living inside other borders. Aang mighta never been the last after all
The air nomads being run by a group of elders makes them an Oligarchy, which one could argue is much closer to a democracy than an autocracy, even if they are the ones to ‘elect’ an air bender to their ranks.
I assume it's for the clickbait, but it's pretty inaccurate to compare monarchies and theocracy to tyranny and dictatorship. Not the same ideologies, principles, legitimities. (also the theocracy/monarchy thing is far more coherent in a world like Avatar than Republic City)
You show a strong bias toward democracy. I share your bias, but it's worth examining. Democracy isn't good in and of itself. You described how a democracy can be a front for a dictatorship, but a democracy can be a dictatorship too. A dictatorship of the majority. If all matters in the world of Avatar were decided by direct vote, then the people could decide to deny the Air benders a vote, then the water benders, then the fire benders, then the mixed-blood earth benders, etc etc until only a special class had the vote. And that's just doing it the obvious way. A government is good if it is benevolent, and bad if it is despotic. We have had real-world examples of benevolent dictatorships. And in the lives of those dictators, their government did more good than a democracy could have in a similar time. The problem with dictatorship is what happens when despot gets the throne, which is more likely than not. This is also a problem with democracy, but the need for a larger base is a small check on this in democracy. The real system that makes modern democracies effective or not isn't the democracy itself, but the checks and balances, and the rule of law. You describe checks and balances in the water nation, and the US teaches every student about the most basic checks and balances in its system, but the rule of law is even more important. The rule of law states that the law, or a law (the constitution in the US) is the highest authority in the land, and everyone else is bound by it. This isn't democracy, but it's what makes democracy work. TlDr; more important than democracy is checks and balances and the rule of law to encourage a benevolent regime over a despotic one. Another thing I'd like to add is that the benders will always be the ruling elite. As technology advances, benders will be the ones able to access the best of it; technology that either works because of their bending, or uses their bending as a fail-safe. Consider a pistol with an internal safety mechanism that can only be released through earth-bending, for example. This would make earth benders much more valuable as a security force. And that's just a small application of earth bending that the weakest benders could use to gain an advantage over non-benders, one that could be replicated for all bender types.
You're right, but you missed one part: Part of what those checks and balances in a democracy do. Namely, they allow for the transition of power without violence. *That* is what makes democracies good; they allow a dissatisfied population to change who rules them without needing a revolution. Meaning life for the average common person can't ever get _too_ bad, or else the rulers are deposed. You can convince a population of many things through propaganda, but you can't convince them their bellies are full, or that violent crime or war isn't affecting them. This does make democracies incredibly susceptible to populists, promising things their more honest colleagues never could, but that's what the other part of checks and balances is for, so that when they fail to deliver, they can be voted out.
@@MalloonTarka I like what you're saying, and I agree that I did miss a few things, but your points seem a bit mixed up to me. Checks and balances aren't inherent to a democracy, so if you're going to ascribe the peaceful transition of power to checks and balances, then a well-crafted dictatorship should be able to have the same thing. I think you're including, but not naming, the sense of democratic legitimacy in your argument here. A government that holds a strong sense of legitimacy is unlikely to be rebelled against, and democratic legitimacy allows the transfer of legitimacy from one government/administration to the next. So long as the democracy isn't a sham and the population cares. And since you're not wrong that checks and balances do also contribute to the peaceful transition of power, then I think it's fair to say I missed at least two things, and probably more. These are all things which have a non-democratic analogue, so I still stand by the idea that it's not that democracy itself is inherently good or bad. BUT. It's a lot easier for a dictatorship to lose these things than a functional democracy. So even if a democracy can be bad and a dictatorship can be good, goodness in a democracy is, I think, more stable.
@@thomasjenkins5727 I'll try and make it clearer what I meant by addressing parts of your comment where I feel you misunderstood me or else said something I disagree with. "Checks and balances aren't inherent to a democracy, so if you're going to ascribe the peaceful transition of power to checks and balances, then a well-crafted dictatorship should be able to have the same thing." Not completely. A dictatorship can technically have _some_ checks and balances, for sure, but others are impossible by the very nature of it being a dictatorship: Namely losing the rulership unwillingly through non-violent means if the people as a whole become unhappy enough. A dictatorship will by definition hold on to power no matter what, unless the dictator voluntarily gives it up or they are overthrown by force. If there is some system that replaces them, it isn't a dictatorship. Maybe not a democracy, if that system doesn't involve the people voting, but not a dictatorship. But such a system would also not have another check a democracy does have: The will of the people directly influencing who gets to lead. Some checks and balances are inherent or alien to types of systems of government. You can't copy-paste all types of checks and balances from one system into another, and democracy has a few that can't be implemented in others, like a dictatorship. "I think you're including, but not naming, the sense of democratic legitimacy in your argument here. A government that holds a strong sense of legitimacy is unlikely to be rebelled against, and democratic legitimacy allows the transfer of legitimacy from one government/administration to the next. So long as the democracy isn't a sham and the population cares." Sort of. In regards to a sense of legitimacy being a stabilising influence, that only works if the vast majority of the people believes in the system - aka. that they have a chance of "winning", or at least getting concessions. If that's true, they'll spend their energy and resources on campaigning instead of massing soldiers and weapons to overthrow the government, since that's the safer and easier option for them to get what they want. In that sense, yes, a government with a strong sense of legitimacy allows the peaceful transition, since the losers know that might win next time, and in the meantime they won't be subject to violence and oppression. I came at it from a more practical than principled perspective, but in essence we are saying the same thing. For the rest, I mostly agree, except that I'll note that dictatorships, no matter how benevolent the dictator, are often forced into being less good than democracies can be, because the dictator only holds power by appeasing his (generally small) group of powerful supporters, and must exploit the common folk and gift the rewards of that exploitation to those supporters to keep their support and therefore power; if they don't, the supporters will as a group grow unhappy and will then probably replace the dictator with another via a coup.
@@MalloonTarka I don't think either of your points are accurate. For checks and balances, a dictator abdicating power can easily result in a hereditary dictatorship. Second, you seem to discount that people can support multiple dictators. This can happen in a multitude of ways, but the most common is disinformation campaigns. For legitimacy, it stems from perception and is mainly based on culture, tradition, and daily impact. If citizen's lives keep improving under a dictator, most people will view it as legitimate no matter what else is going on. I think a lot of the bad from this video comes from the fact the UA-camr doesn't know the political definition of dictatorship. After all, the Marxist phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that all power in controlled in the hands of the workers through the overthrow of the capitalist government, which is generally considered illegal to do. As to your last point, dictators frequently turn on their own. The smart ones play the people off against the elite and actively improve the welfare of citizens.
“Benders will always be the ruling class”. Except, before the the LoK, the only country that had benders as ruling class was Fire Nation. Air Nomads were all benders, so they can’t be called a ruling class, since there are no other classes. Rulers of Northern Water tribe and Earth Kingdom were non-benders. Some of the elites, like Toph’s parents, were non-benders. Even in LoK non-benders held positions of power. Most of the technology in the Avatar world does not require bending and has never required it, so benders would likely lose political power and not gain it. Even in LoK bending supremacy doesn’t really make sense. Outside of military and police, and like, working on power plants, benders are pretty much useless. With this, and crimes committed by fire benders during the war, shouldn’t non-benders be the elite?
Literally none of them are dictatorships apart from Earth Empire. *Dictatorship is a system when someone or group of people take power through a coup unlawully and they are based purely on military/police power. Frankly most of the political systems in Avatar are not dictatorships but lawful monarchies, rebublics etc.* Monarchy is not dictatorship. Aristocracy is not a dictatorship. Non-democratic rebublic is not a dictatorship. Chiefdom is not a dictatorship. Theocracy is not a dictatorship. If a system is supported by established law and tradition it is not a dictatorship. For example: Napoleon was a dictator, Louis XVIII was not. I also completly disagree that the fact that a situation that ruler unelected or not chosen in popular vote is intrinsically awful. *Not just that but I think every society needs a part of goverment that would be unelected to prevent sole rule of will of majority (which most often knows nothing about governance); and balance representative side with it's drive to corruption and political particularism. A dynastic monarch rised to be a king from birth would be best suited* for such as both uniting the whole country above conflicts and one who is preapered to rule and care for his people - so *best system would probably be something like a mixed monarchy (regimen commixtum).* All systems have their advantages and disadvantages so there should be a right balance. I am not saying that rulers from ATLA were always good rulers. *But what is important is ultimetly about impelemting right policies and caring for the common good and good of the poeple by the rulers, not the system itself.* So even an absolute monarchy could be a just and good ruleship. That is why Aristotle distinguishes between good and bad versions of different systems: monarchy/tyranny; aristocracy/oligarchy; politeia/democracy.
"take power unlawfully", well that one is kinda pointless, because the people that take power write the law. democracies and monarchies also usually form against current law, which they then change. I find it woefully naive if not outright stupid to make any distinction between monarchy and dictatorship at all, the only actual difference is public image, with monarchies being respected by other leaders in the same cultural sphere, the new monarch usually being the son of the old one (percieved continuity) and dictators being seen as going against "how things should be", literally a distinction without a real difference, just optics. Add to that, that dictatorships often are legally hereditary, or have been renamed into monarchies by the time the dictator dies and gives his son the power, after all, if other powers didn't respect the dictator (therefore now "king"), he would have been overthrown long ago. The exception being north korea which calls itself a monarchy and has inherited it's leadership title for several generations now, but is such a antagonistic force on the world stage that other countries want to still call it a dictatorship, because that has a negative connotation. Also your point about pros and cons of monarchy ond democracy are bs wishfull "goldilocks" thinking. guthoritarian goverments (Monarchies/Dictatorships) have consistently proven themselves to be completely inadequate at governance over the last centuries compared to democracies, because they have literally 0 reason to even TRY to do what is best for the people. Politicians want to be reelected, aristocrats/party officials want what? Well, power, money, etc. as directly as possible, very little reason to even consider ordinary people, just stun them with propaganda. The only reason there are still monarchs in europe is because they are completely powerless and get used for public entertainment. Autocracies only work if they have foreign backing or a geopolitical headstart, for example singapore (biggest harbor city on one of the most important trade routes when it became independent). PS: aristotle is an idiot.
@@authomat6236 I agree to disagree and my point stands. I think there is essential difference between monarchy and dictatorship, based on law, tradition and ruling according to natural law. Monarchy is also not always authoritarian, though it can be if a monarch becomes a tyrant. Authoritarianism pretains to reduction of liberties and rule of law, both of which can fully be present in a monarchy, sometimes even more than in democracy. Even more so if it is an mixed monarchy and also has a representative parliment. I think monarchies showed again and again in history that many monarchs cared for their people and common good with the development of civlization, for example in the last century rulers like Franz Joseph I and his son Karl I of Austria, Albert I of Belgium, Peter I of Serbia, Nicholas II of Russia etc. all were doing what they could for the good of their subjects. Especially in Western world influenced by the Church and idea of natural law tyrannies were an exeption. Moreover kings were always signs of unity above ethnic and status differences of the countrymen. The waning of monarchs left a place for fascism and communism. Politicians in democracies are temporary administrators who have all the reasons to care more about their own profit and benefit from internal factionalism and tribalism. Kings have the prospect of the whole future of their country and dynasty and all the reasons to care for it. Importnat it is to note is that I do not support absolute or even more so despotic monarchy. I think a dynastic monarch (e.g. with power comparable to the president of US) is essential element of a good government alongiside representative assembly. P.S. Aristotle was the opposite of idiot. Probably one of the wisest philosophers in history, especially before Christ. As Edward Feser said abandoning Aristotle in philosphy was single greatest mistake Western world did after mammerings of Descartes and Hume.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 Completely disagree, you're outlook on the past tinted by rose-coloured glasses, aparently by a very conservative world view. Theres no reason to believe at the initial formation of a supposedly limited monarchy (there are ones in the arabic world, africa and asia, and well... not the nicest places to live, if you ask me) the aristocrats and ruling dynasty wont skew the limitations made on the "democratic" part in their favor, securing that essentially no important decisions (if there can be made any at all, historic precedent late 19th century europe tells us NO), will ever be made againt their interests, already creating with that the most powerfull special interest group imaginable, the ones bribing the politicians and using their selfishness to make them go against the populous will, or just straight up misguiding the public via propaganda, the things you probably fear so much about pure democracy. Overwhelmingly all monarchies, even (if not moreso) the circa 1900 "enlightened" ones, a few "good" monarchs (were they really? sick, poor peasants don't pay taxes) notwithstanding, have been violent oppressive regimes (some people like that, if it's "their" rules being enforced, you seem to be religious, i hope you don't want to force it on others), illiberal in every way imaginable, from no free-speech at all, to heavy corporal punishment for things, now at worst considered indecent, to forcing their reign on other peoples at the cost of the lives of their own youth in almost perpetual war. monarchies, with war, imperialism, famines and other nice stuff, have killed and enslaved, by far (just research a handfull random monarchic countries and add up their wars, famines, genocides and executions, will probably get you 100s of millions easy , more people than fascism or communism will probably ever kill, and this wasn't much better in the west than anywhere else, honestly can vaguely imagine from which corner of the internet you got that idea. Why would you even think someone who can never get chosen for office or replaced, except violently, which you would probably condem as "unlawfull" (how do you ever take someone to justice lawfully who's BY LAW essially untouchably, even if legally limited (who wrote those limits, were they friends with the ruling dynasty?)) would do a better job at their task, especially when they're never even chosen in the first place, they might just be born an imcopetent idiot, why would a monarch care about their subjects at all, they're literally just ammunition for his ambitions, he's never even been with anything but aristocrats, bureaucrats or rich businessmen, his wellfare or the size of his realm are really only tangentially related with his peoples welfare and the existence of a monarchy doesn't make special interest groups just go away. If anything, even with the outwardly good intention of keeping up basic rights (probably in reality defined to be essentially just privileges for the core demographics upholding the state, not that any other form of governance comes completely clean from such) monarchies get caught up in inner strife and partisan politics just as much, if not more than democracies, they just more effectively keep up a facade of competence, benevolence and strenght to the inattentive observer with propaganda and violent supression, keeping the people dumb and more at inner rest than today, which, I grant you that, though very cynical might actually make them effective in keeping out (more) totalitarian governace, althought tzar nikolaus probably thought that too, and well... PS: Hume was a Boss
@@authomat6236 It's hard following your argument properly because of the way you formatted your text.. It has no paragraphs and is hard to read.. I am enjoying this debate and like your arguments as well as that of the TheGeneralGrievous19
I think one mistake in a fantasy setting like Avatar is to ignore the motivation to eliminate (genocide?) competing fantasy power sources. The Fire Nation wanted to eliminate or subjugate competing benders to eliminate that source of power. I think there was a sort of intimidation the Fire nation felt when Fire bending is seen as only useful for destruction (as Zuko mentions) and as they discovered, energy sources. They could see the long-term economic/empire consequences of their marginalization from the perspective of their budding industrial phase. And we can see this in Korra. So their manifest-destiny-style cultural zeitgeist was that fire bending was destined to conquer and so they should. Invading for material resources might well be a secondary motivation for the Fire Nation.
A Tyrant is defined as a cruel and oppressive ruler. To claim the avatar was a tyrant presumes that the avatar was an actual ruler, which I don't think really is an accurate description of the Avatar role. Seems more like an enforcer to me; like a divine sheriff with a clear purpose but very little oversight; along with all the good and bad that would entail.
im actually imagining a dystopian avatar world where the bending users are soo rare because of its power now used to develop technology and stuff through experiments or etc…
Well the original could've explored that a bit honestly. Seen as many Water Tribe benders were off at war, and many places in the Earth Kingdom didn't really have too many benders left aswell they could've maybe show some community that persecutes bending. I honestly think the sequel should've gone more in lines with that then a radical change in the way the world works, it ends up feeling almost like another show to me. A few dystopias that hunt benders down would be neat.
This reminds me of a video made a while ago explain by how The United Republic is a rouge state. One of the points I want to bring up is that we see Is the the Ruling Council we’re the judges over Yakone’s trial meaning they are the highest court in the land. So with the council being turned into a sole presidency, all branches of government are held by a single person.
Two quick notes:
1. At 24:14 I mistakenly said that the Southern Water Tribe didn't declare independence, but they did at the end of season 2.
2. Yes, Raiko lost his reelection to Zhu Li in the finale, that doesn't change any of my points. The issue isn't that Raiko *will* abuse the U.R.'s political system to become a dictator, the issue is that he (or any successor) *could* do so.
@Marshal Marrs It's actually Japanese empire. The UR reminds me of South Korea.
yeah a democracy isn't on the other side of authoritarianism, the other side of authoritarianism is anarco capitalism, it is utopic(somewhat idealistic to think it could actually happen, even though it's theoretically possible). Anarco capitalism is an ideology where everyone has absolute control over their own private property, and everyone follows rules that prevent them from attacking another person or their private property. Aside from respecting private property, anarco capitalism grants a person under its ideology ultimate freedom, where everyone has as much power over their lives as possible, while in authoritarianism, the entire country is run by a small group of sometimes 1 person who wields all the power.
The problem with a democracy is that 50 +1 ≠ morally justified decision. So even if the majority decides something, they are still forcing a minority to obey them through force, which is morally wrong. Want to see the flaw in democracy? take brazil for example, leaders literally buy votes for 10 dollars a piece from people who vote for them, not knowing they are voting for politicians who will increase taxes on them by thousands of dollars for their own financial benefit.
Democracy is flawed, the only thing it does well is stop people from rebelling(and sometimes it can't even do that) because "you can always vote for what you want if you're unhappy" a phrase that is patently absurd if someone where forced to chose between hillary clinton and donald trump for example, two FAAAR from ideal candidates to implement common sense policies.
@Marshal Marrs Republic city is north Korea? That's a stretch, however it fits for south Korea in the 50s which was only kinda democratic with a strongman dictator like figure in Syngman Rhee who reminds me of Raiko.
Arcane did what Korra didn't.
@@luizcastro5246 the opposite isn't anarcho-captilaism. The scale goes from Authoritarian to Liberal, left to right. Anarcho-captialism is a liberal right ideology.
I just want to point out how TERRIFYING Avatar Kyoshi is in a world building perspective:
Avatar Kyoshi, the strongest Avatar who could move actual mountains as a 16 year old spent her 230years of life as the judge, jury and executioner for the entire world.
Just imagine how terrifying that would be for world leaders. Like people probably just looked at her as some sort of god considering how insanely powerful she was (even by avatar standards) and by how long she lived. World leaders probably had to pull their kids aside when they came of age and say: make sure to NEVER do anything even slightly morally questionable bcs there is an immortal, all powerful god women out there who will actually smite you if you take even one step outside of what she deems to be right.
It's funny how the more powerful an avatar is, the less human they are. They literally become a force of nature, a living power that strikes the final cord on all world shacking events. Kyoshi determined the fate of entire civilizations, and for that she is both feared and revered, not as a person with feelings and dreams but as a concept personified.
@@navilluscire2567 I feel like they kind of have to.
Kyoshi lived in a time where the earth kingdom was shattered and filled with criminal gangs.
She needed to take on this “absolute justice” persona in order to clean up the earth kingdom. The avatar gets the responsibility for taking care of the entire world which isn’t something a normal person can do so it kinda makes sense that they become more spirit like/ just kind of a force of nature.
@@andrithorkristensson2545
Which is the problem, no one asked them to. Literally the avatar is a self appointed position, heck Wan himself the first avatar took it apone himself to act as policeman for the entire world even though the masses did not ask him to.
if you have seen the lost episode from atla, yangchen actually explains aang why the avatar is reborn again and again and not an immortal being. its because the longer the avatar would live, the more discompassionate he or she would become. the avatar won't be able to form any social bonds due to their immortality. hence he or she would only act on basis of their personal moral compass and not take the human side of things much into account. the avatar would become more of a spirit than a person.
@@navilluscire2567 I agree with you to a certain point.
Wan was needed to keep the balance as he was more of a peace maker that made sure that the new human colonies did not eradicate each other which is why Rava felt it was important to continue his mission and with time the avatar became somewhat of a mythological figure.
Imagen if Santa clause would come down during the cold war and tell russia and USA to stop being mad at each other and just calm down (joking ofc)
But with time the roll that the Avatar filled is kinda not needed anymore. The world functions pretty well on it's own without the avatar (except that one time with the fire nation) but that's why I love LoK. Bcs LoK is constantly showing us that the Avatar really isn't necessary anymore
(sorry, didn't realize I wrote this much lol, just got really into the topic I guess xD)
One thing to point out: you say that Tenzin in the ruling council of the Republic City only represents his family. That's not entirely true. While Tenzin and his children are the only airbenders, we see that a lot of non benders live in the air temples and basically act as air nomads, albeit without bending, and Tenzin is probably the representative of all of them. So yeah the governing system of the Republic City is unequal, but not that unequal
also, the only reason tenzin only represents a small group of benders is because his people got genocided 💀. so it is kind of a historical restitution to give his people a vote.
@@luizcastro5246 adding to what you both said. That is also a way for him and the non bender nomads to slowly restore their civilization, which is something Aang's generation cpnsidered necessary.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo to be fair the non bender in the temple (at least from what the comics show) are more people that loved air nomad culture and decided to follow it (their start was literally kid fun club in ba sing sa for aang)
@@chimera9818
Correct, and honestly I'd consider them more a religion than an ethnicity since pretty much anyone can join or leave at any time 🤔
@@tonydanatop4912 I think the og air benders was more people group and also religion but in the comics it became more religion while the new air nomads seem to turn it slowly back into nationality but probably less strict about who is in it than it was in the past
Did the elder Air Monks really have any Power over the rest of the population? I would think a dissatisfied Air Nomad could just go to another Temple or live and do whatever the fuck he wants. Probably the best Nation to live. At least until the Fire Nation attacked.
Yeah I think the air nomads were more like a loose anarchist collective. The monks are only really shown to have authority over children.
Any of yall seen Kay and Skittles' video on how the writers were interpreting political/economic systems (I guess its legend of Kora the more I think of it)
But you kinda gotta be a monk and I'm not about that life. They probably disrespect people that don't believe intheir religion.
Everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.
@@david21216 Yeah that was a good series. it was only with videos like that that I learned Amon was supposed to be a communist allegory
You said the usage of genocide in LoK was a bit much, but genocide was a major theme of AtLA too. I think a kids show can have some dark topics, especially because genocide affects the lives of children, whether it be after multiple generations or in the recent past.
Even the finale is a good bit them stop a cleansing. And aang all thr time reminded for his, that is dark.
The issue korra had was pacing due various reasons, but ATLA did use genocides more.
@@marocat4749 I’ve never finished LoK but the pacing was very off. That being said children are people too and there are no off limit topics.
@@marl3ymarl3y86 oh yeah put some gore and sadomaso in a children show and see how it goes, buddy 😂
Jokes aside, you *can* talk to children about dark topics too, but you need to choose the right words and ways to display them. What most people who think like that forget, is that they are still children, even tho "people". They aren't gonna react like adults, and the way you address them will impact their development along the line. This is why there is an entire field of psychology dedicated to them. You can't act like Michael Scott and start saying "let them do what they want, they are adults too". They aren't, and they have different needs and understanding of the world too.
@@gauntlettcf5669 Even with Adults talking about topics head on in an extremely graphic way doesn't help. It will just block people from learning because it is really horrific. The way to do it is well done by ATLA it goes into the topic and is well explained without having to show gore. Ofc I'm not saying not to talk about some stuff that is really horrible (like going into details of slavery) but the way they are introduced matter no matter the age with the beginning needing to be a slower more gentle approach
@@cencent2189 I agree with the way AtLA did dark topics, it made a connection with their audience (while still being family friendly) and didn’t threat them like they were stupid. To this day a whole generation was impacted by that story and it’s themes, especially if they related to the cultures in the show.
Not a big point, but I feel like it’s worth noting that, in the comics, we find out that the Southern Tribe isn’t just a single town, but a loose confederation of several towns spread throughout the South Pole, with democratically elected leaders. That’s one of the key cultural differences the southerners take pride in, their democracy. However, it makes them militarily quite week. And they are looked down on by the North as uncultured wildlings with no respect for tradition, partially due to their lack of aristocracy.
Note: that’s also why Tonraq is accepted in LOK as chief as not a colonizer, he was democratically elected.
The whole plan of the protagonists in a:tla is to use a friendly absolute dictator to force the fire nation to end the war
I prefer demigod instead of dictator
@@bwoy12345 i talked about Zuko.
But Aang is also one basically.
@@erdood3235 a theocratic ruler, indeed.
I believe this i more of a fantasy trope in general. "Restoring the right king to the throne", and what not
@@game_boyd1644 yea it is. And it's a bad one.
There are comics that try to explain the formation of Republic City's initial government
Key word try
Unsuccessfully in my opinion
Something that stood out to me was on paper the Water tribes were both ruled by the North so wouldn't that technically mean that the Republic's council have one water tribe member instead of two? Because having two made it unfair. Also the United Republic in book 1 Korra is confusing because it seems like it's if the real life UN had a stateless country whose leaders were representatives from other countries. But after book 1 the United Republic seems to become an actual country with its own home ruler, the president
That was the biggest problem with the world of Korra, It's the way they just literally Americanized everything
The Avatar, the biggest symbol of equality and balance in the world stole land on foreign Kingdoms so he could construct his little Manhattan :D, Wow that's so cool!
You know what would've been cooler? If the air nomad's became the fucking avenger's, using suits and fighting crime! Yeah that would've been cool
@@applepinto3942 ATLA took place around the 1850s' - 1860s' in real-world time and LOK takes place about 70 years later in the 1920s'. By that time, western influence had already firmly cemented itself into several East Asian countries. The westernization was biggest in cities too.
I agree with most of it, I just think that the air nomads before the 100 year war were not a dictatorship, there was no government, the old monks ruled only the children, not the adults, so it's more like parents rulling their child than a government rulling people. air nomads were free, they could do whatever they want, that's their philosophy, it's about freedom. That's why Zaheer was so conected to that philosophy, the air nomads were pretty much anarchists
Yeah, the air nomads were more of an Oligarchy that draws its legitimacy from Meritocracy than a Dictatorship, their leadership being a small group of well-respected wisemen.
For comparison, I'd label the Fire Nation an Absolute Monarchy drawing legitimacy from a Centralism of Governance, the Earth Kingdom a Traditional Monarchy drawing legitimacy from Vassalage, and the Water Tribe as a Chiefdom drawing legitimacy from Authority.
@@1sdani Well a meritocratic oligarchy would be a Technocracy no? The rule of the most proficient
@@phobics9498Technocracies are based on progress, while Meritocracies are skill-based. The Air Nomads are closer to Anarcho-Primitivisists then technocrats.
So the Air Nomad Elders were essentially a group of teachers/babysitters making decisions together. Got it. lol
@@mew2ditto yeah, I guess we can label it this way
The interesting thing about the world of avatar is that it is one of few worlds where you have a de facto benevolent god King of the world who is actually godlike but through reincarnation is immune to the complacency and factionalized interest that comes with immortality. As long as the avatar keeps the level of power in each nation low enough that they cannot seize and brainwash his reincarnated successor then there is a natural counterweight to authoritarian power consolidation.
In theory yes, but in practice the existence of the avatar didn't stop ultraviolet, authoritarian regimes from forming. Remember *Chin "the (sopposed) Great"?* He was a horrible tyrant, even for (non-universal) standards back then yet Kyoshi of all avatars did absolutely NOTHING to stop his reign of terror and oppression, not until he threatened her own home peninsula (at the time) did she decide to face him and even then was more interested in saving her people from his brutal rule...by involuntary separating an entire freakin peninsula and stranded it out in the bumfuck middle of the ocean without even thinking about the ramifications of this, how that might utterly screw with the ecology, the economy and lifestyle of her own homeland and people. (did she even ask what THEY might have wanted?)
But anyway, my point is that while any particular avatar could impose an era of relative (and I can't stress that enough!) "peace" and it has happened before but that largely depends on the avatar in question, who are they in one reincarnation may vastly differ from another even with the same role and expectations.
@@navilluscire2567 What also makes them particularly interesting is that the Avatars aren't "foreign" to the world, they're products of the societies they've spent all their days in, and thus more amenable to (and conscious of) their interests and needs which they can use to effectively keep the balance they are tasked with maintaining.
In defense of Kyoshi, she would've killed him personally anyway, but I doubt it would've taken that long if she was really trying.
unless the Avatar idk disappeared for like 100 years .... 😂😂😂🖐🏾
Huh that's true. The avatar could easily become a theocratic leader since they hold absolute power of elements to the point that they could create a religion where the center of power could be themselves.
@@clayongunzelle9555 I mean that would never happen, and even if it did he would probably be fully grown by then and fix stuff like right away when he gets back
"Didn’t know the Watertribe had a king. I thought they were an autonomous collective."
... It does explain all the watery tarts...
“Well I didn’t vote for him!”
"You're foolin' yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class..."
They are. The king barely has any power and the actual power goes to the tribal chiefs/nobles.
@@KaizoeAzurum "There you go, bringing class into it again..."
Of course every government is a dictatorship. Besides having an internal support base, every government also need to be approved of by the Avatar, or they risk being forcibly removed in the name of balance. And it's much easier for the Avatar to work with one or a few people than a democratic system.
But doesn't the fact that Korra has put and end to the avatar's cycle mean that as soon as she dies, the world won't have any more avatars to rely on? Meaning all the nations will start having to deal with change?
That's not really how it works like the Avatar doesn't actually have to approve of world leaders(at least in the sense of liking them or not)
@@gauntlettcf5669 She didn't put an end to the Avatar cycle just restarted it. So there will be more Avatars after her but those before her are currently not accessible
The Avatar just has to keep balance between the nations that's the role it has. If it means killing an Army, yup that too Kiyoshi was going to do that but she only had to kill 1 king
@@mikemorro140 But the job of deciding what is in balance and what is unbalanced lies entirely with the Avatar though. So while in principle, the Avatar's approval isn't needed to rule, in practice, they need to be at least ambivalent towards your rule.
I feel like this is analyzing the governments of avatar too much like they're modern societies, when they're instead feudalistic, which brings different power dynamics.
For example, you said that the way that the Earth king lost control to the Dai Li is unknown, but there's a canon reason that's actually rooted in how a lot of Chinese emperors lost power; the Earth King rose to the throne at 4, the reason he became a puppet is that he was literally raised as a puppet. This happened a ton in chinese history, where emeprors would die before their heir was ready, meaning that the new emperor would get groomed into being puppets by their "regents". Whoever controlled emperors like this varied wildly, it could be usual suspects like the military or bereaucrats, or more unconventional people like the Emperor's mother or the Eunuchs that raised him and served him.
Overall, my point is that feudal societies aren't just dictatorships, they have all sorts of strange power dynamics that usually depended a lot on oddly specific traditions.
On the Earth King aspect, there is also the possibility of delegation. Kings, Emperors etc. don't manage every aspect of their regimes themselves. It seems perfectly plausible that an Earth King would appoint some to be the head of the Dai Li, to save themselves the headache of dealing with such matters - especially the more trivial/mundane matters - themselves. They might well not have grasped just how much power they were putting into the hands of said individual - especially as there was no hint of a coup. In fact, if anything, the Dai Li would no doubt still be keeping him save from coups and such. IOW, the king never even realised that he'd effectively given up his power or that he was now a puppet.
I disagree.Avatar has a lot of feudal influence(especially in the Earth Kingdom) but it is not entirely so.For instance,I would say the Fire Nation is more of an Imperialist than Feudal society.Yeah none of it is necessarily modern,and I would agree that forcing it thorough a irl modern lens is flawed.Ultimately,I see this as an interesting take on the universe and not exactly what the show is portraying.Ur right to say that it is more complicated tho.
@@Avatar_Ken Avatar's governments make a lot more sense if you think of them as follows. The Fire Nation is Imperial Germany or Imperial Japan (two extremely aggressive industrialized nations that fought destructive wars for resources and had a strong military based aristocracy), the Earth Kingdom is Qing China, a huge and prosperous nation that started out as an absolute monarchy where the power came from the army (in Qing China it was the Banners and in Avatar it was the Dai Li) but as emperors lost control of them so did they lose control of the country, the Air Nomads are Tibet prior to the annexation by China and the Water tribes are a mix of native Americans and medieval Iceland.
@@crazeelazee7524 The Fire Nation is also reflective of the United States during Manifest Destiny. They sought to spread their greatness in both size and their idea of splendour. The Imperial Germany comparison is better suited to the way Kuvira ran the Earth Empire, although comparisons still stand for many, many other nations in various parts of history.
@@crazeelazee7524 Yeah I see your point, though I would say that the fire nation is still relatively feudalistic in ethos, just like Imperial Japan was. At the time of WW2 Japan hadn't even been a modernized country for 100 years, so a lot of the ethos that drew it into fascism could be traced back to the feudalist traditions.
The culture of honor and reverence for the emperor played a pretty big role. People would act to further fascism or expand the empire, and officials would turn a blind eye because the militarists "were honorable in intent" and wanted to "serve their country and their emperor", the same attitude that lionized the samurai rebellions 70 years prior.
“What kind of idiot would make a system like that?” Bosnia and Herzegovina, that’s who.
@@KordonGMV I meant it as a bad example.
@@KordonGMV if you’re from the US you don’t really have a leg to stand on here
@@KordonGMV I said “if you’re from the US,” Jimmy Neutron. “If” is the keyword here.
Now the real question is... *who is Bosnia's Avatar*
@@pavladavlas We didn’t genocide each other based on religion so yah we do.
Here's the thing about autocracies in fiction : we all act surprised at how many fantasy worlds are ruled by dictatorships and talk about it with a negative connotation because we live in a modern world where pretty much every country is a democracy and the autocracies out there are totalitarian shitholes with a history of nonstop genocide and crimes against humanity. We forget that until the 20th Century the world was still pretty much all kingdoms with a few exceptions, and even until the end of WW1 it was still, guess what, mostly kingdoms and empires, with a few exceptions. The only big democracy before the rise of the current ruling western democratic system was the ancient greek democracy, which as we know wasn't anything like a modern democracy and it was rather authoritarian (Because y'know, every citizen in that system got a say on what happened to the polis but their definition of citizen was very strict).
What I'm trying to say is that basically any show not set in the present or future and is trying to draw parallels to the real world will be nothing but autocracies. Whether that's a bad thing or not, who knows.
...What about tribes, nomads and more, peasent republics did indeed exist as well as more communal and stateless societys, you can use them.
@@AbstractTraitorHero Besides the fact that I'm mostly talking about de facto nations, primitive societies tend to be autocratic in nature too. Most of them are well known for having chieftains or caciques and such, from the bedouin nomads to the native americans, from the Ainu people to the nordic tribes and buryats. The only exception that I can really think off the top of my head are aboriginal tribes.
@@Ramash440 Theres plenty of examples of democratic ideals and anarchism within many of those communities, I think you should do a bit of deeper research into a lot of those society's friend.
@@AbstractTraitorHero Can i have some examples, its very hard to find anarchism that stuck around for more than a couple years or democracy that wasn't actually oligarchy.
@@itshunni8346 Well it depends on your definition of Anarchism? Typically a lot of tribes or nomads were somewhat primitive communists, with little unjustified hiearchy.
You can see this a lot in hunter gatherer society's, this kind of stuff was talked about by Marx and Kropotkin and plenty back in the day.
I don't really want to go looking to be straight doh for specfics or grab examples that are specific. I am unironically recovering from a medical operation that's messing my head up bad.
In the case of the water tribes, a chief might have the absolute obedience of everybody in the tribe, but that's most likely due to trust. That is to say, the chief continually earns the collective confidence of his tribe. There might be no institutionalized voting, but in practice the tribe as a whole most likely has a very powerful and direct influence on their tribal leader. As far as we know, the society is de facto very democratic, with the leader being easily influenced or proactively anticipating the needs of his tribesmen.
Essentially I say that leadership in the northern water tribe might not be a high socio-economic status. that is to say, he doesn't get extensive privileges and wealth, and he doesn't use institutional power to extort his tribesmen. This is supported by the fact that he doesn't have multiple wives, and that we see no social stratification in the northern water tribe. One might suggest that we just didn't see it, but considering that socio-economic stratification was clearly and repeatedly put on display in ba sing se, I'd say the show wouldn't have merely glossed over it if it was there. Only evidence for it is in the way Yueh's arranged husband condescends Sokka, but looking back, that attitude seemed pretty out of place.
I think the southern water tribe was more free
In ATLA its more a monarchy than anything. Ans the south seemed to keep that a chief has to earn the trust of the tribe. Still later. Tarlok likely just did earn their trust.
The condescension toward Sokka may have had more to do with him being from the Southern Tribe. More of a nationalist position than a classism position, considering that Sokka is the son of the Southern Water Tribe's chief. Looking strictly on the basis of class, Sokka was of equal rank to Princess Yue and outranked the person condescending him. . Furthermore, Sokka, , both by virtue of succession and upon instruction from his father to bear responsibility for the tribe, was effectively the Prince Regent of the Southern Water tribe.
@@ckl9390 I think Yue's fiancee was also supposed to mirror what kind of person Sokka was at the beginning of the series, someone tied down by his own insecurities. Because of a lot of the fiancee's behavior screams "insecure" to me.
Let's be honest in TLA they were kinda primitive for anything too complex except the fire nation. Giving democracy to people who are not well educated is a recipe for disaster.
"Avatar is a nightmare of authoritarianism"
People who live on Earth: "I think ive seen this one before!"
when you realize the USA Republic Democracy based on a constitution of Unalienable Rights Is still the only government that protects their citizens rights even to today. Though with china Joe that won't last much longer working with black face Trudeau, We are seeing the return of Concentration camps and Re education camps. A ton of strong arming and acts to take away multiple Rights away from the constitution 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 15th and 19th are all have been attacked directly by Biden we are getting to a point where we need to lock and key the constitution from any more changes Period we are seeing the government corrupt itself faster and faster.
@@snintendogOf course, democracy doesn't exist anywhere else. And Biden's bending over to China so much he's inviting Taiwan to international summits.
Just a heads up, I think the comment section is going to become a war zone
@@paulcruz168 lol no he denied Taiwan after china bitched keep up with the basic ass News
@@snintendog Except...he didn't. If Taiwan wasn't there why was there a controversy around their feed getting cut for a few minutes? They went to the summit
First thing first, Avatar takes place in the feudal system. Feudalism isn´t a form of totalitarism. A feudal leader isn't obligated to people and society but to classes and in most cases religion and in the world with active magic like bending is really hard to develop secular civil society needed for a democratic system like we understood the term nowadays (nor totalitarism)...
Very true, at least in the case of the Fire Nation. The Water Tribes are, well, tribal, and the Air Nomads are monks.
wouldn't they get used to the magic?
@@paddlesaddlelad1881 That's not the issue.
@@Danganraptor danganraptor, the most obviously feudal system would be the earth kingdom, but the fire nation is likely an autocratic centralised state
@@Cecilia-ky3uw I didn't mention the Earth Kingdom because that would've been redundant, and the Fire Nation is still a feudal nation, just with totalitarian flavour (like propaganda).
1:00
Authoritarianism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. The level of authoritarianism in a government is dependent on the amount of power assigned to it. If a democracy can vote for any policy or decision with no legal restrictions, so long as it is democratically voted on, is effectively a totalitarian government.
Or to put it in a different way, democracy is a measure of who controls the government, while authoritarianism is a measure of the government’s power, the two are very different and thus putting them on opposite ends of the same spectrum doesn’t make sense.
@@Me-yq1fl
Highly democratic governments are extremely authoritarian since 'the people' don't like limits on their power (see Athens). It requires people who have to worry about their reputation and how others react to them (aka monarchs and merchant oligarchs) to have stable levels of freedom. Dictators are to busy trying to stay in power and representative democracies have representatives and people with delegated power grabbing whatever they can.
Yep they aren't mutually exclusive. An authoritarian regime can Co exist in a democracy.
In a democracy the people can just get the dictator megalomaniac they asked for
@@Me-yq1fl Democracies aren't authoritarian while you're on the majority. Try to stay in the minority to discuss policies and see how authoritarian a democracy can become
If our “democracy” and “free press” was controlled by a group of dictators non of us would know the difference.
@@orthocoinbitzantium1002 Implying that they aren't lol
Ok, this video turned out to be slightly better than I expected it to be but still I have issues with it.
1) A fair share of factual lore mistakes or straight up presenting assumptions as facts like RC counil not being elected (we don’t know that for a fact) or Tenzin representing no one but his family (it’s just false).
2) Using democracy as a measure of the state being authoritarian. Those are not mutually exclusive especially if we are talking about pre-modern society.
sure but a lack of democracy can easily lead to authoritarianism
@@priestoffern1608 A democracy can be authoritarian, especially if it's not a true democracy a la ancient Athens.
@@Danganraptor sure but way it’s less likely to happen in a democracy, since citizens *usually* don’t vote to sabotage their own freedoms to help governments stay in power
@@priestoffern1608 They can if the full truth isn't presented to its citizens. The United States is a prime example.
Monarchies aren't the best form of government, but so long as there's an able heir and no internal opposition, it can last dynasties in terms of stability; the downside is that the citizens have no voting power, although rulers tended to err on the side of caution to prevent open rebellion: even then, the ideals of the people had to be considered.
@@priestoffern1608 "citizens usually don’t vote to sabotage their own freedoms to help governments stay in power"
Please be ironic
I think it is wrong to call it a "nightmare". Of course it is by modern standarts, but lets not forget that our understanding of democracy has never really existed before in humanitys history. Even the early "democracies" in the antique were fairly undemocractic on many levels by modern standarts. The existance of slavery effectively banned a huge part of the population from voting to give just one example. Considering that our modern understand is existing for only a century or two compared to the many thousands of years humanity has already existed, one could say we are an autocratic race by nature. It took us literally millennia to develop into democracies and even not complety (large part of worlds population still lives within autocracies) and the democracies we have are not flawless with a chunk of opposition challenging the status quo.
Calling the "normality" of humans 1000 years ago a nightmare by our standarts might be justified, but an unfitting statemant. You should always judge a system based on the time it is existing in and what people consider as normal. And since the entire world of Avatar was filled with autocracies and oligarchies these systems should be judged accordingly. The reason avatar opposes some and does not oppose others is that democracy is not what these systems are measured with but, war, aggression and opression. Thats why the Firelord is evil and the Waterking is not. Both rule more or less autocratic, but one is peacefully living in his lands leading his nation, the other one is plungeing the world into a world war and tries to force assimiliate all people of the world into his own culture or just outright purge them entirely from the face of the planet. Thats the standart measurement method for good and bad systems in the avatar universe.
ua-cam.com/video/wtbcaWnybzs/v-deo.html
Hell bring on the dictatorship if I Can Do fucking Magic I'll deal with some old fart with an arrow on his head.
This is best shown with how our concept of modern democracy began. It first began with the Commonwealth of England, which itself wasn't anywhere near our modern definition floating between being an Oligarchy, Dictatorship, and military Junta. The reason it can be seen as the start of our modern democracies is the principle of power from the common people, and seperation of executive and legislative. This eventually turned into the United Kingdom's constitutional monarchy in 1689 and 1707, and those events inspired the French and American Revolution which themselves added much to our modern definition of democracy.
@@FrancisR420 yeah but there's no guarantee that you'll be born a bender you could just be normal like you are now
@@freewyvern707 I mean, it was a huge step, but not the first step we took towards "democratic" representation. Greece would be the first, with their very small "white rock black rock" voting system. Rome really took it to another level with the creation of the senate tho. If anything, the Roman Republic did more to establish the foundations of what a democratic republic should look like. Hell, most democracies and Republics today have systems that heavily burrow from them (well, they burrow from the US and French system, who themselves burrow heavily from the Roman) but yes, none of these systems even come close to what a true democracy is, and honestly, people should really try and understand why these systems lasted so long instead of outright calling them wrong and antiquated. That's the equivalent of someone making fun of Windows XP and saying how inferior it is to Win10 because Win10 is faster...
Holy shit throwback to how diverse and complex the worldbuilding of Avatar is
You got some facts wrong throughout your video. We know exactly how and when Tonraq becomes Chief of the SWT because it happens at the end of LOK Book 2. Additionally, we know that Hakoda was Chief in ATLA and Sokka became Chief at some point as well. We also know that Sokka and Katara’s village was not the only village in the south at the start of ATLA.
One point that was missed with the Fire Nation, was how the magic system (bending) plays into the monarchy's power. Virtually all the members of the Fire Nation monarchy are powerful and/or gifted benders. As are a wide cross section of the nobility and elite. This is a separate factor from how skilled they are, which they generally also receive the best bending training available including top secret techniques like lighting bending. This was a simple result of the the practice of Agni Kai, where a dispute would be settled by a fire-bending duel. The best skilled, most powerful, or sometimes just lucky individual would be the victor and gain the spoils of the dispute, even to challenging for position of Fire Lord. This resulted in both the mentality of contest being proliferated and the concentration of fire-bending prowess. In some ways the pre-expansionist Fire Nation is partially a meritocracy, where the merit in question is the ability to fire-bend. There is still a hereditary monarchy and likely hereditary positions in the nobility, government, and military, but all that can be challenged if someone who wants your position can best you in an Agni Kai. This also automatically institutes at least two castes of citizens, benders and non-benders. If a family of non-benders gains a bending child, then they have a chance to better their circumstance simply because they now can participate in a judicial duel. Any non-benders who achieve rank in the nobility are by definition extraordinarily individuals who have made themselves indispensable, or possibly a rare case where non-bending martial artist is capable of besting a fire-bender.
if you check out the comics you see that they intentionally marry based on bending bloodlines, it's why Ozai's father seeks out Roku's granddaughter in order for Ozai to marry, because she has the bloodline of the Avatar, who obviously is a very powerful bender. This likely contributes to why Azula is such a gifted firebender.
So it's more like a military junta, where dictators are chosen by merit and competence (but the merit is in combat/military skills, not anything that helps civilians).
This video seems to be using political theories from "The Dictator's Handbook" (there's a famous video on it by CGP Grey). But it's been criticized by another book "Dictators at War and Peace", which discusses military juntas and how their meritocracy makes them more effective at winning wars than absolute dictatorships.
..Wait, that's just like how the Fire Nation was more effective in war than the Earth Kingdom 😳🤯
When I began reading the Kyoshi books was when it dawned on me that the ATLA world really didn't gave any democracies and was ruled by authoritarians. I think I didn't notice back then because I was a kid but also that Team Avatar a lot of the time met world leaders and we got to see their personalities. So like the Earth King and Bumi both were nice guys but the realm they governed were still hard places and had rigid laws and structures in place. With the Kyoshi books this is made more apparent especially with how more in detail some of this is layed out
It's like it's a fantasy pre-modern world
@@noahmpinto14 yeah it gave me some A Song of Ice and Fire vibes because of how the nobles and clans were mentioned more and how much of an impact they had on people's lives in certain areas
I would say I had reached a similar thought process to this video, but not exactly.
In my opinion, the Avatar world is indeed an authoritarian one,and I find it strange nobody else noticed. After all, this is a world where some people can control the elements, spirits and gods exist with one holding the balance of the World, and monarchies claiming divine right( read : " the Earth King is a god", Azula's claim of her family's divine right, the Fire Lord turning out to originally be a Fire Sage position with the first legendary Fire Lord bringing peace and order through both power and religious belief, etc) .
However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's...Well, all dictatorships. That would imply modern sensibility is part of the question.
It is not.
I blame LOK for perpetuating such an illusion.
They are either absolute monarchies( Earth Kingdom and Fire Nation) , confederations of Tribes lead by a royal line holding two deities in it's claim( the Water Tribes, both North and South. Book 2 of Korra calls this into question before dropping it) and a theocratic council of Elders, with both complete religious and political authorities ( the Air Nomads. Inferred by their interactions with Gyatso and policy regarding Aang. Confirmed by wiki).
They are all perfectly natural to this world, because unlike our world, which is largely built on Western sensibilities and the ideals of freedom,democracy and free thought, there are no such things in the World of Avatar. Their authority is confirmed and abated by the existence of the proclaimed sources of their divine authority, even though they( the spirits. Their deities) may not even care about their politics at all. The claim counts. The source exists. That is all.
Again, I blame LOK for any other assumptions.
Edit:
Fun fact:
Part of the Fire Nation's most important traits before and during the War was it's change from holding a powerful clan based aristocracy to what is essentially a system of easily disposable government officials. In other words, whilst there are noble lines and families, the Fire Lord has the power to revoke and give their power as they please.
Most of this is, of course, Fire Lord Sozin's idea, but it really began with Fire Lord Zoryu, during the Kyoshi era.
What a great comment. I think there is only one government in both shows that could reasonably be considered a dictatorship, and that is Kuvira's government - concentration of absolute power in one person, lack of a legal line of succession, modernity, etc. All the others are varying levels of authoritarian or oligarchic, as all governments were before the last 200 years or so (and most still are).
@@mariogalindez7427 Thank you kindly. And yes, you are correct. Kuvira does count.
That's largely part of what LOK does, though. Instead of following a natural course of evolution from the oligarchies and monarchies previously established and described, we're suddenly introduced to a world with values similar to those of Western thought, for some reason.
This trend is admitted by the duo( describing Republic City as " Manhattan in Asia" , as well as modeling it after 1920s America), and in the case of Kuvira, as well as her knack for......re-education camps, I think you can already guess who she represents.
@@alyseleem2692 I had the same thoughts watching the show, and I still think that to some extent, but I was recently exposed to a different viewpoint in a video by Xiran Jay Zhao. She sees Republic City as more of an early 20th century Shanghai, and that the settings and stories, while still western in origin, are not incompatible with the modern history of many parts of Asia. Also, looking back, industrialization and modernization came about pretty quickly historically speaking so I see why they did that.
@@mariogalindez7427 Yes, but the problem in this logic lies in two things:
1. Industrial development in Avatar is clearly commandeered by bending, one way or another. By the laws of economics, it is simply the cheaper, easier way of things. As such, various kinds of appliances like transport, divisions in law enforcement among others, would be drastically different. For example, lightning bending as a source of energy is ridiculously pricey due to it's extreme rarity and therefore not a good investment, but using waterbending to move turbines or fire to burn coal is much easier. Firebenders would also make excellent firefighters.
2. The more important problem:
Unlike Shanghai, there was no Western party responsible for influencing the early Republic or rather, the colonies. Instead, it has the Fire Nation. The examples stated by Zhao, while sound, are not really applicable because they are simply not in the same circumstances by any means. For example, the qipao dress would not develop as a response to the Fire Nation's standards of modesty, which as seen in the Beach episode, are actually rather low. Rather, it could be a Fire Nation adaptation of local clothing, ironically a symbol of acceptance and combination between cultures, not resistance.
That is,of course, ignoring the more obviously Western clothing, it's focus on sports, democracy, the monument of Aang, and the creators' description of Republic City .
@@alyseleem2692 Kuvira is interesting to me because you can almost tell that the writers realized that having her be Chiang Kai-Shek and genuinely improving the conditions of a Kingdom in a period of warlordism, even if through heavy-handed methods and subterfuge, made her a *bit* too justifiable, especially considering she was expected to hand absolute power over to a pompous twit. That's when they decided to implement the Nazi parallels.
I feel like its just a *bit* disingenuous to call 5 old guys raising kids in a temple an authoritarian hellscape
The best part is this means by your own definitions you’re a horrible tyrant over your youtube channel monarchy
Okay maybe not authoritarian he’ll scape, but still highly sus, and definitely deserving of a visit from avatar Chris Henson, defender of childrens buttholes.
the most popular style of government for most of human history was some form of absolute monarchy/autocracy. seeing as this series is not based on ancient greece or a modern democracy, I can see why "every government in Avatar is a dictatorship."
@Tsar Nicholas II How ancient are we talking about, because Genghis Khan codified the four principles of liberal democracy in 1206.
Source: Genghis Khan and Modern Mongolian Identity: the Democracy Connection, written by Paula Sabloff, published by the Mongolian Journal of International Affairs on November 8, 2002
Plus by his standards Ancient Greece wouldn't be a true democracy, since most of the population was not represented.
@Tsar Nicholas II an Asian Monarch himself! Thank you, sir, for seeing reason
@@captainsmolletkermit8986 Not really, and it wouldn't matter if he actually did. His empire lasted maybe a generation. Shows you how much people actually believed in it even if you where right.
@Tsar Nicholas II what is nightmarish though is the fire nation's suspiciously nazi like foreign policy
"Local man just found out about absolute monarchy", yes I only read the title of the video
I miss the times of cool dictatorships. We barely do public executions nowadays.
Be the change you want to see! Buy a gun, shoot a criminal on sight, don't actually do this, it's a bad idea.
@@KaizoeAzurum says who?
@@KaizoeAzurum tried it. Not the same when there isn't a crowd to cheer at you.
@@TheTb2364 I told you not to! I said it was a bad idea, and now there is going to be a murder investigation, because I am sure you didn't dispose of the body, did you?
So now you just added to the murder statistic, didn't really solve a thing.
If you feel like you need to do it again, then do a full indisputable case before the execution.
You aren't a Judge, we don't have that kind of a system, so don't go being judge, jury and executioner on the spot!
And even if you have a water tight case, you aren't going through the proper channels, and can you prove that whoever you go after will never reform?
İts always cool when you are not the one that got executed
I do feel compelled to point out that while monarchies and dictatorships are similar, that they are not quite the same. Plus, there's not really any evidence that the air monks impose as absolute a rule on their citizen as claimed, especiall since airbenders are known to be free spirits.
The idea that it is bad to elude to ethnic cleansing in avatar is a bad take
I'd agree but I think it was just a joke
Stalin and Hitler would agree
I think he just meant that it's a bit of a dark topic to be presented to young kids in a TV show
@@quarkonium3795 Avatar showed genocide in its third episode, and nobody I remember complained about it being too dark to show.
kind of weird how you don't address the role of the avatar in balancing the nations of the world at all or how the air nomads (not nation) is somehow a dictatorship when their council of monks only "rule" over children (literal parenting and not even ruling btw) and other monks that voluntarily decided to come back to the temple after they left initially as adults.
In other words Zaheer was right?
Edit: I think should clarify, this was a joke, Zaheer is very much the pop culture idea of an anarchist.
Always.
Certaintly so, yet fundamentally misguided. Instead of chaos and violence, the freedom as he wanted require responsability. Atleast that is my thought why it failed.
Yes, but the writers are idiots who don't understand what Anarchism actually is.
The issue with Zaheer's ideology is that humans are naturally drawn to social hierarchies. We simply can't have large scale cooperation without centralization of at least some decision making.
Let's look at fan convention for example. How many people can have the final word on who the schedule looks like? how many people can decide the entry fee, or where each vendor table is set? And you need consensus about these aspects, otherwise you'll double book tables, change different visitors different entree fees and your speakers won't know when their panels happen. Sure you can bring some of the simpler decisions to a vote opened to the entire staff, but the forum of the vote is still a governing body. but some of these desicions are complex and enveloping enough that managing them is a full time work.
And I haven't touched about dealing with bad actors and rule barkers yet. Someone need to be empowered to kick out the assholes that sexually harass cosplayers, or do something about a staff member that tries to steal some of the Swag in order to sell it later on eBuy.
In other words you need an organization for management and leadership in-order to achieve cooperation required for a convention to happen.
Countries are far more complex, by many orders of magnitude than even the biggest and most demanding Convention.
@@LostInNumbers you're not understanding what Anarchism is either. Hierarchies =/= Organization. You do not need a social system based on inherent rolls to organize a society. Cooperation is the key. You can have leaders, but they must be chosen by the people and be subservient to the people. Just because it's more efficient to have one person telling everyone else what to do doesn't make it right. Individual freedom and liberty are more important than the "progress" of creating more luxuries at the cost of those values. In your case, I'm sure that a democratically chosen council could organize a fan convention just fine. However, they cannot and should not be allowed to have absolute control over the running of said convention. Anarchism isn't mob rule, it's democracy taken seriously.
Wow, а world similar to our medieval/pre-industrial state consists of monarchies and chiefdoms, how unexpected.
Okay, but, monarchy and dictatorship are not the same thing, that's not to say there are no similarities, and it's not to say that there can't be overlap, but fundamentally, monarchy is generally established when a nation swears allegiance to a particular family, it begins with voluntary selection, the monarch title is passed through a family from generation to generation, it can become oppressive over time, but rarely starts that way; dictatorship is usually established by force and or corrupt manipulation of elective systems. The earth kingdom's monarchy is a confederate monarchy, which means that the power is largely decentralized, and distributed across multiple ruling authorities, with, at worst, a tribute system which requires that the monarchs of all the city states pay a portion to the high king. An Absolute monarchy has a lot of overlap with dictatorship in terms of power, and that seems to be the governing model for the fire nation, however, Constitutional monarchies, Confederate monarchies, and Limited monarchies, do place limits on the main ruling authority that prevent or at a minimum, reduce the monarch's ability to oppress the citizens, it worked for most of Europe for several centuries prior to certain nations (primarily England) over reaching their boundaries and attempting to establish a global Empire (which to be fair, a lot of people tried that). Again, not saying monarchies are perfect, or that they can't become oppressive, but they aren't the completely irredeemable authoritarian regimes that dictatorships generally tend to become within the first generation of their existence.
Bottom line, someone being called a monarch doesn't make someone a dictator any more than someone being called a President makes them not a dictator, I would like to point out that a large majority of dictators in recent history have referred to themselves as "President", look at any banana republic. Ultimately, it is a question of unchecked power, one can enter a station of power without election but still have systems in place to limit their authority, and likewise, one can be elected into a station of absolute authority and abuse that authority to the death of their nation... a reminder, hitler was democratically elected, and was easily one of, if not THE most heinous dictator in human history.
I realize this is an unreasonably long comment, and I also realize it may come off a lot more aggressive than intended, I'm not saying monarchy is entirely good, or that republics and democracies are entirely bad, just pointing out that it's not as one sided as it's made out to be. (I think it partially depends on the size of the nation) I would like to see a more in depth study of the actual distribution of power within each nation, and what types of monarchy systems each nation actually employs, because the style of monarchy is a big factor in whether it is oppressive or balanced.
You said it yourself but an example for monarchy and dictatorship overlapping is that I doubt napoleon staging a coup, rigging a vote and declaring himself emperor counts as the nation swearing its allegiance to him
I would argue that most governments in Avatar are monarchies, not dictatorships, but I get the feeling that the author of the video refuses to see the difference.
Agreed.
There is some overlap between the two. Though, think he might've stretched that overlap in places.
@@gustavju4686 In fact, the actual point of the video is that every government in Avatar is tyrannical (which may very well be the case, but I'd still argue #NotAll). That's the overlap you're thinking of. Many monarchies and most dictatorships in our history have been tyrannical - still, though, not all.
But Mr. Tullos chose to call every conceivable tyranny a "dictatorship", a shameful conflation of terms, and shot his credibility in the foot.
The actual difference between a monarchy and dictatorship being, by the way (are you reading this, James?), LEGITIMACY.
A dictatorship is seized by force or populist propaganda, based on leader's personality and whim, derives its authority from military power, and is usually short-lived.
A monarchy is bestowed by inheritance or election, based on tradition and preexisting law, derives authority from people's consent, and has endured for centuries.
The author is the type of kid that says families are tyrannical dictatorships.
@@povilzem monarchies are dictatorships with extra jewels
The fact that we don't see the limits to the president's authority doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist.
"President Raikou could always invade his neighbours to install some democracy"
i can't-
I disagree with your reading of Republic City's council - I don't think it's meant to be a *world* gov't so much as a national gov't. That is to say, they represent the nations WITHIN the Republic rather than the nations in their own right. Don't think of it as a Western model (with the central mythos of the individual), but rather akin to states like Lebanon - where each community [Sunni/Shia/Christian] is assured a certain number of representatives to keep the peace between multiple nations within the state.
While the two Water-Tribe seats could be considered excessive, it's reasonable to assume that the city's population is roughly divided between those three nations. Even Tenzin having a seat has some historical precedence; look at the outsized political power Indigenous (or other) groups were given in large part due to recognition of the indefensible evils (aka genocide) done against them. Sort of a "hey - your population is still really small & historically marginalized, you get this special perk to keep that from happening again."
Still a dictatorship though since they're still unelected
@@thetabbyguy921 Unelected doesn't really mean dictatorship. Medieval English monarchs with the magna Carter can't really be called Dictatorships even when they weren't elected.
@Hernando Malinche absolute monarchs are though (the kind the vast majority of people especially americans think of when they think of a king or queen)
The main thoughts I got from this presentation:
This dude is very opinionated
The world of avatar is very authoritatian
But he is right though? He's not attacking the great story itself just that he finds it odd how much of the show's themes and lessons are carried out within authoritarian power structures. Take Zuko for example, despite his good intentions he is STILL one dictator replacing another dictator when you stop to think about it, he just promises to be super *'nice'* (mainly minimizing further bloodshed) about it unlike his father. (and to be fair he does sincerely try to)
@@navilluscire2567 You know what happens when you just.....kill a leader? A fucking power vaccum, we seen this in Korra literally once the Earth Queen died they just went crazy and started to kill each other allowing a warlord to take power by taking over smaller practically tribes of people.
@@navilluscire2567 I would rather have a benevolent dictatorship than anarchy.
@@0816M3RC
And I would rather have a functional democracy than either.
@@WhyYouMadBoi
And? That still doesn't change the fact that Firelord Zuko is still an absolute monarch, his people have ZERO input in how things are run. It is just a lucky break that Zuko atleast gives somewhat of a sh*t about his subjects, but here's the thing, the keys, his political power, that is the nobles, the factory owners, most of the military's generals do not care. (in the sense that the citzens of the fire nation are people with feelings)
Without the threat of the avatar intervening how long do you think Zuko would've lasted if he wasn't practically best buddies with a demigod that can move literal mountains and sink whole islands whenever he's pissed of?
*There is a reason the avatar is so feared even if the current one is a (mostly) pacifist,* its the implied violence on a devastating scale and the sheer force of a avatar's power that keeps many would be exploiters of the downtrodden in check or atleast whenever said super powered being is VERY nearby.
[5:56] a bit off topic but Norway is a good example of natural resources being managed so that they benefit people
It's also a monarchy.
Plenty of countries in the global south try to nationalize their resource production but end up getting fucked by outside nations and forces who have a vested economic interest in the control of those resources. So many examples especially across Latin America and the rest of the world. Iran is a very notable one, where the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran and reinstalled the Shah (monarch) just because he was going to nationalize fossil fuel production in the country to better help his people and keep the money in the country. So much for spreading freedom and democracy what a joke. Norway is lucky enough to be left alone because they were already a wealthy industrialized nation of white europeans, so they are free from the worry of being randomly overthrown by a foreign nation for their natural resources.
That's because they had American influence and they didn't need to get "freedom" if you get what I mean.
Norway is an American ally, so they are left alone. A lot of countries in the 3rd world are basically exploited by the West for their natural resourcess
living there is expensive af though. (ex: it's like $60 for a single pizza)
The issue with Zaheer is that he failed to realize he was becoming what he fought against, a tyrannical authority throwing his weight around regardless of what others wanted.
The problem with anarchism is always that the only thing that can stop a government is another government. Your merry band of freedom fighters managed to band together and depose a government, turning your little group into the sole power in the region? Congratulations, you are now the government.
Even if you decide to dissolve, the mere fact everyone (including you) now knows you can come together means you're still the government, just a passive one. If you take steps to prevent that from happening, such as putting literal distance between all of you... well, you're no longer the government, but you won't be able to stop the next one that forms either.
When human groups reach a certain size, government is inevitable. The only question is, what type?
@@MalloonTarka I get where you're coming from, but the main problem with your argument is that, just like there are many different anarchist denominations, there are many different definitions of government. To many anarchists, a band of freedom fighters wouldn't constitute a government if the only thing they did was to overthrown governments and prevent governments from forming.
@@MrShadowThief I know, and I'd disagree.
The one defining characteristic of a government for me is a monopoly on violence. Once you have that, that power... well, let's hope you're a capable and moral leader. People like to say they wouldn't use it, but everyone has a line. Usually when the first murder or similarly awful crime is committed under their reign. If they have self-control, they might bring them in to be judged by a jury.
But make no mistake, that jury is often just a formality. If the jury disagrees with the government, and say, lets the culprit go or sentences them to death by torture, at least some members of the government is going to have doubts. If you have the power to do good, to bring justice, shouldn't you use it, after all?
Power is tempting because most people believe they know what's right. And the insidious part is, sometimes they are. In the moment, at least.
The only thing that can stand against that is a belief in a higher good. Say, in anarchy, if you believe that. So believers might actually hold their ground for a while. But what do you think the chance is that everyone who forms the government believes in that? And how long will that last?
@@MalloonTarka wow your comment deserves an award. I've tried saying poorly worded versions of this to ancaps I've argued with
@@SlashinatorZ Glad to be of service.
8:08 there were actually other villages during this times we found that out in north and south when they say two waterbending twins were hidden in a remote village. its a big misconception, in the south and north water tribes the places we saw werent all that there is to see. they have other cities (most likely just smaller villages) that are not their capital cities.
Man, my biggest gripe with LoK season 1 is that Amon has a fantastic point of how social power hierarchies have started to reflect the power hierarchies naturally created by the existence of benders, and that non-benders were not represented/treated well in the system. He has a point, and while his revolutionary methods are less than ethical, his position is not critiqued enough. The election of a president is their answer, but is it enough? I’m not sure
The worst part is that (in season 1), to undersell how right Amon rationally is in the context of this setting, the show refuses to give his arguments any of their necessary weight, i.e. actually show nonbenders be marginalized by the systems that rule their world. The only nonbenders of any narrative consequence are Asami and her dad, who are both wealthy enough that any sincere, systemic barriers which would be present to nonbenders might as well dissolve in their wake, so that their own exemplifications of nonbender marginalization come off lacking at best. The few background nonbenders who are seen protesting their marginalization are similarly presented as annoying, entitled, and broadly in clear opposition to the protagonists whom us as viewers will naturally side with. Because there is nothing substantial to support Amon's ideological claims of bender bigotry (which, again, should in every rational sense be present considering the conditions of the setting) the show ends up presenting him as edgy and crazy instead of having an actual point. This is only exacerbated with the reveal that Amon was actually a secret bender the whole time and his entire mission with the Equalists was some kind of psychotic personal vendetta against his brother or whatever. It's honestly really sad when a show has everything it needs to do something interesting and it instead actively butchers its own premise.
@@yomama5368 very interesting take. To be fair, I haven’t watched the show in a while, but I don’t remember thinking exactly what you’re presenting. I always thought that Amon was presented well, and that the protestors were somewhat obnoxious (as obnoxious as you’d find anyone yelling in the street), but Korra is more obnoxious; her argument against the protestors at one point is “Bending is the coolest thing ever in the world!” This highlights her naivety and inexperience in the world of politics she’s thrusted into. My issue with it is maybe the opposite of yours: I think Amon is presented TOO well, and without our heroes taking the time to grapple with their place within this political revolution, the heroes are presented entirely as good guys, when their position should’ve been ethically ambiguous OR they should’ve found a good reason to take down Amon and use it as a moral counter.
I think the writers banked on the actions of Amon being perceived as so inherently evil that a viewer would side against him. But this, of course, misses the point of a morally ambiguous revolutionary type: it totally sidesteps the thematic exploration of whether or not the ends justify the means, and how our heroes might account for Amon’s valid criticisms.
I like the show, and I think the introduction of a democratically elected president was the show runner’s attempt to show that Republic City learned from Amon’s attempted revolution… but it’s not presented well that way and it’s a bit too little too late.
I do think your take on the portrayal of non-benders is spot on though. The only non benders we really get to know are the super rich, never the lower-middle class people who make up the revolution… this would give Amons point so much more weight. But, Amon makes good points that rationally make sense, so it works well enough I think (but could work a lot better)
@@TheLuckyTim7 I actually think my issue gels well with yours; Amon makes rational sense, but this is a tv show, and as viewers we're informed more by the actual events on screen and their ability to create empathy between us and its characters than we are by the sort of abstract logic that would have us side with Amon's ideology. The main characters are presented in an unambiguously good light, and because we follow them and root for them, the show robs us of the opportunity to view the conflict in any other way than theirs. There is no one else we are allowed to follow who could give weight to Amon's claims, so that, although they make logical sense, it's impossible to _feel_ the truth in them.
And then, again, Amon is revealed to be basically a con-artist vying for power, completely deflating what little emotional weight might have been achieved by his side.
I didn't really like the show lol, which is sad because it does have a lot going for it. I think ultimately this sort of conflict is more ambitious than what ATLA did; unfortunately, with more ambition comes the need for better execution, and so imo the show sort of fell on its own sword in that sense. Though I will say, this also makes it so that TLOK is one of those shows that's really interesting to think about.
@@yomama5368 very true, well put
amon is a "ends dont justify the means" villian. the guy has good intentions but he twists them completely until in the big picture the entire thing is a big: wtf no!. he's not wrong, he just didn't had to be such an asshole about it.
Now, I am commenting before watching the video, based solely on the title, but this is like equating Feudal France, Imperial China, Shogunate Japan, or any number of premodern societies with the Dictators of today. By that standard, any historical fiction or historical fantasy is based on a dictatorship. Once we get to Kora, yeah things become dictatorships I suppose, but in the modern world, Dictators are juxtaposed with democracies. But that comparison doesn't work with ATLA since there probably was never a democracy in place.
Do you know what I’d love to see? A show set about twenty years after the events of Korra where the Earth Kingdom is split into a dozen or so nations just duking it out. Sounds like fun.
But the comics show that earth kingdom didn’t break apart just turn democratic
played a modded game that did just that, its super fun and shows why the fire nation was still fighting a hundred plus years later the earth nation is huge :)
The Three (Earth) Kingdoms.
@@chimera9818 There’s absolutely no way it’s going to stay together for long. It’s far too disconnected, diverse and fractured for it to be truly unified. Perhaps it’s more of a confederacy than a true nation, and the name just refers to the continent.
@@dionemoolman I think you're forgetting that Kuvira had built a huge system of high speed rail across the entire country, that would definitely make it a lot easier to maintain control over the whole nation since it would be far more interconnected
The Legend of Korra is so close to making a point about how neoliberal power structures work maintain the status quo not just in their own countries but abroad even at the expense of human lives, and it fumbles at the one yard line by doing a switcheroo and portraying Kuvira, a fascist, in a sympathetic light at the end of her arc.
lmaoo true
the issue is she is a pure fascist unless you have another power supporting her then you can't claim that they're talking about neoliberalism as no foreign country or government wants her in power and see her as threat but they don't even use that to show the other nation using the broken earth empire to expand their control as many of these new nations will be poor unconnected and not have the population or resources to compare to the other powers in the world.
Also the way they redeem Varrick after he commited basically the same crimes as Amon, except in his case it was just for profit. And then instead of leaving him alone after he's put in prison at the end of book 2, he ESCAPES prison, appears in Zaofu where Suyin welcomed him with open arms because "people change" and then gets a fucking redemption arc in book 4 NO ONE ADKED FOR, after WORKING FOR KUVIRA where he ONLY rebelled against her after she threatened his life
And then even after he supposedly "grew a conscience" he still doesn't turn himself over since y'know he literally broke out of prison
but I guess they couldn't let the billionaire character be the bad guy
Sure, but she's still deposed and the Earth Empire is dismantled (and begins a transition into what could hopefully be the most ideal representation of democracy in the Avatar world).
The actions/opinions of one character don't necessarily have to reflect the sentiments of the entire show. Literally, none of the other characters show any sort of sympathy towards her. It's only Korra, who as the Avatar serves many roles one of which is essentially being the spiritual guru of the world. She relates to Kuvira's pain that's not her condoning her actions. It's just being human.
To be fair we have Trumped up Fascists Stateside & we give them the right to be that way until they go too far & break certain democratic laws like a bunch of them did a year ago. We didn't really learn much about Fascists in schools Stateside just the actions of Germany from 1930-1945.
It would have been nice to mention all the countries and historical regimes that inspired the various states. I'll list the ones I can see(as they looked during first appearance):
Earth Kingdom: Imperial China
Fire Nation: Post-Meiji Imperial Japan
Northern Water Tribe: Pre-islamic arab city state
Southern Water Tribe: Tribal society(too small to establish distinctive form of government)
Air Nomads: Tibetan theocracy
Earth Empire: Nazi Germany
Amon's Regime: Soviet Union
Zaofu: Platonic rule of philosophers
United Republic: 1920's USA(not fully fledged modern democracy)
Omashu: Medieval Feudal Monarchy
by "post Meiji" do you mean post Meiji Restoration? or post Meiji Era?
@@corvuscallosum5079 Mostly Restoration, but era too, since Imperial Japan kept gathering steam until invading China. Just like in ATLA, where Sozin, Azulon and Ozai succesively built toward the same goal. Sozin is very similar to Meiji, and Ozai is Hitohito
@@TraumatisedTyrone Cool, thanks for clarifying.
Ozai is drastically different from Hirohito if you studied history, however Fire Nation architecture is essentially Japanese in addition to it being a Volcanic Island Nation. Hirohito was more of a passive ruler, whose biggest actions in the war were in the surrender opposed to Ozai being an active conqueror as seen with the return of Sozin's Comet. Fire Nation should be noted as having Sakura Blossoms when looking at Roku's backstory & if I'm not mistaken Roku is a Japanese Name. In terms of culture I would say Northern Water Tribe is the most complicated where as the other cultures feel directly inspired by others, it mixes & mashes elements from Venice, Inuits, & some other culture I'm unfamiliar with.
@@Me-yq1fl
This doesn't seem plausible. Knowing that the creators of ATLA were American it's clear, imo, that the Fire nation is inspired by Imperial Japan. The militarism, heavy indoctrination, rigid honor codes, and imperialist tendencies are clearly taken from the period between the Meiji Restoration and 1945. I would like to know this period you mention in China specifically.
"Every government in Avatar is a dictatorship"
As it should be.
James, do you think Stalin beats Lenin in a fist fight?
Young Stalin beats Young Lenin, Older Lenin beats Older Stalin.
@@JamesTullos but pre-death Stalin will easily beat pre-death Lenin, because he can walk.
I really hate The Painted Lady episode because it's literally the only time we see the fire nation actually destroy apart of their own nation but then it turns out the actual Painted Lady isn't doing jack dittily squat.
It's established in the episode she couldn't do anything because the water was too polluted. She would have done something if the factory wasn't dumping effluent into her power source.
I like watching videos essays like this because they allow me to learn new stuff and learn bit more about how to view the world differently.
When Sokka says that he is a prince and Katara laughs I don't get that, he is, he is the son of the Chief, he is, in fact, the prince of the southern water tribe and Katara is the princess, I don't get why that goes unmentioned for most of the show.
Katara probably didn't think of herself as much of a princess. The Southern Tribe nothing more than a village. Katara and Sokka (the latter becoming so over time) were too humble to go around calling themselves royalty when their domain was all of 30 people (maybe a bit more if the warriors Hakoda was leading were counted).
@@Tophadoodledoo technically its a collection of villages, the one we see in atla is just one village of the wider tribe, not the whole tribe. It'd still much weaker than it was pre war though. I don't think the title was a hereditary one in the south(in contrast to the north) so they wouldnt be Prince or princesses in the northern understanding of that term.
It's entirely possible that the position of Chief was an elected one, or that there's an appointment system for successors that isn't based on blood ties. Sokka might claim to be a prince, but if he doesn't automatically inherit the title when his dad passes then he's just the chief's son.
The sandbenders during ALL of this: Just chilling in their own nomadic tribal society.
(Okay yes technically Kuvira somehow manages to conquer them but honestly I'm not entirely sure how considering they've managed to resist attempts to subjugate them coming from both the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom for like hundreds and hundreds of years.)
Well the Fire Nation tried 60-70 years before Kuvira so their technology wasn't as advanced as hers when She tried. And after that I assume that the Earth Queen also tried but she is such an incompetent leader that it doesn't surprise me that she probably also failed.
@@starman1144 I mean the fire nation was constantly, repeatedly trying for that time, and the earth kingdom's rulers before the air kingdom's nomads were wiped out also tried several times to subjugate the deserts but nope. (Not just the central monarch but some of their vassal rulers surrounding the deserts too.)
It's certainly impressive they managed to keep themselves safe from outside rule for so long in such a volatile setting.
I sincerely doubt, the Fire Nation made any real effort in trying to conquer the sand tribes they're too powerful and frankly nothing in the Si Wong desert is worth a fire nation military presence aside from the Library, heck Fire Nation civilians made themselves right at home in the desert if the traveling circus we saw is any indication so clearly the sand benders aren't really a threat.
Kuvira on the other hand is much better equipped to wage war against the sand tribes with her army of Earth Benders and having actual motivation to take the Si Wong Desert.
considering kuvira modus operandi they probably got the same treatment as the libian nomads got, 'almost genocide'
Okay I came here for Avatar but I might listen to you describe humanity's impact for a half hour too. That ad drop was wild
I'm so glad I found Zaheer's UA-cam channel.
Isn't that just how it was in past societies? Like, 99% of all society was a dictatorship. So it would have been MORE odd if any society, which were mostly feudal, in Avatar wasn't a dictatorship.
Really nice vid. One point that I would like to differ on is that of each water tribe getting separate representatives. Which, imo makes sense since they are so far apart (literally polar opposite), the cultural differences may also affect the needs and desires of people and so they need two "leaders".
I love this, though the phrase Dictatorship is misused. Dictatorship is just one type of nondemocratic government, with very specific meaning. Kings aren't dictators, they're kings, which by definition requires a feudal system which has its own power interests and challenges.
Here's basically how each nation would be categorized, and why they're not dictatorships.
Air Nation: Decentralized Elder ruled religious society. Basically a mix between ancient tibet and Native americans. While everyone had their place and role for them in that society, remember that air nomads were already small in population to begin with, its why 100% of air nomad children (before the genocide) were benders, because they were so closed off and spiritual. That is not a dictatorship, because a dictatorship is rule by one.
Southern Water tribe: Closer to Native American societies, decentralized, elder ruled societies. Very closely inspired by the Inuit. Again whilst not democratic, they weren't dictatorships. (Technically they were under the northern monarchy, but in practice they were independent).
Northern water tribe: Under a monarchy. This one isn't explored more, but it seems that a lot of the decision making wasn't made by the monarchy themselves. Not very centralized, and not a modern dictatorship.
Fire nation: This gets closer and closer. Ozai wields almost absolute power, is never really challenged, but again, doesn't match a dictatorship. A dictatorship by its nature is not hereditary and it's leader is appointed by an oligarchy or military.
Earth kingdom: In last Airbender, this would fit a corrupt oligarchy or monarchy. It VERY closely mirrors the corruption that would occur in Chinese dynasties (which is fitting because the war is a parallel of the Sino-Japanese War). Whilst the leader is a figurehead, no single person in charge makes it not a dictatorship.
Republic City: Definitely not a dictatorship. It's an unequal democracy/closed anocracy, but that's about it.
Kuvira's Earth Empire: Yep, this one is a dictatorship, basically to a T.
Tl;dr Most of the governments weren't dictatorships. However, they were undemocratic and a better word to describe it would be to say they are all authoritarian
Any form of government: *_Exists_*
James Tullos: I know a dictatorship when I see one!
I never finished Korra so it's absolutely wild to me that they added power armor and mechs with lasers to the show. It's not a development that I like and doesn't even seem to make sense how they'd go from rudimentary tanks making up the bulk of the most advanced army in the world to mechs and lasers in less than 100 years.
I mean... Compare 1920 to 2020. No mechs, but it's basically the same type of transformation.
I'm pretty sure you can develop tecnology at a incredible rate when you can have a guy who just bends metal at will when you need it, even if metal bending was really rare, I' pretty sure the existence of benders accelerated tecnology once the fire nation discovered industrialization
yeah that always broke the world for me. We can't make that thing of stuff now and was have had more time then them.
I honestly prefer the industrial setting of LoK to that of ATLA.
The laser you see is actually a powerful relic from the spirit world, if I recall correctly. As for the mech, well... You've got hundreds of people that can make metal take any shape they want it to, so I don't think it's far fetched for them to make that.
If the Air Tribe adults were largely nomadic in adulthood how did the fire nation manage to eliminate all of them
The Rise of Kyoshi shows the Fire nation 300 to 400 years ago and its really good at the world building
I don’t see the air nomads as a tyranny, what we see is their desperation as the door comes at their doorstep. The adults travel as away to gain knowledge so that may pass down what they know to the young monks when they return and settle down. They’re dedicated to spiritual enlightenment not power.
Omg Tonraq has been so disrespected 10:16
he didn't use the crisis to seize power , he was banished under false reasons by the same guy who also tried to kill his daughter and destroy the world , i mean, he had to step up you know
That's the best sponsorship video I've ever heard. You've appealed perfectly to writers
(I am about to watch the video and this are my thoughts)
I mean, their all monarchies, so of course, but the setting isn't exactly modern (at least in the first show), so is it really a problem? To my understanding, the Fire Nation wasn't condemn because of his monarchic government but because of its imperialism, and at the end Zuko was put in power cause they though he was the right guy for the job. It's not awesome, it is still an hereditary autocracy, but considering the setting it is kinda of obvious.
The problem its an imperialist militarist monarchy and there zuko seemed to struggle with the military fraction and hard to reform anything there. Its decent, but republic city came to be because it was still militaristic . And his daughter still is in charge that i get is a decent person likely, bit they have to abolish that or just get worse again.
@@marocat4749 In the real world, one of the best ways to destabilise a country and throw it into generations of rotating military dictators is to "abolish" the monarchy. People with influences from America may think of all monarchies as inherently evil, but most of the ones that survive to the current day are still there because they adapted. They put their people and country before themselves and willingly gave up power to various democratic apparatus' slowly while making sure each step worked and was capable of perpetuating itself. Even if just a figurehead position exists, who's signature is required to legitimise law and major appointments even if they rarely withhold it, the monarchy still serves a purpose by arbitrarily occupying the "top job". A hereditary or at least life long monarch provides stability, Instead of having a "president" on a musical chairs basis. The thing is, Presidents usually have an inordinate amount of power and have a tendency to accumulate more. A constitutional monarchy means that a politician can't achieve a position of absolute authority or abuse it with the same level of impunity that a president can.
@@ckl9390 The monarchies inATL A and korra are not adapting. And constitutionla monarchies arent exactly actual monarchies.
And yeah modern monarch are figureheads at best,but avatar is a feudal era with monwrchies and theicracies , where itsabsolute monarchoes,not constitutional ones.
I know about the shahivertgrown by the us government for influence, but avatar has feudal like politics, thats not comparable.
(I mean if oligarchs are the new nobles, maybe, but thats two different kinds of monarchies
@@ckl9390
Most of the monarchies which survived to the present day did so because either they colonized the others, or had most of their powers removed after domestic/outside influence.
@@ckl9390 I agree with most of your points, except that a president must have an inordinate amount of power. In a presidential system, yes, but in parliamentary republics the president is pretty much a figurehead with soft political power and the responsibility of rubber-stamping new laws and officials - so basically the same job as the monarch you just described, except not chosen by heredity, but by election (though not necessarily a direct election). See the current president of Germany as an example: If you've never heard of him, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, it wouldn't surprise me. They are chosen by the legislature and specially chosen representatives from each of the states.
The counsel exists solely to ameliorate tensions between benders and non-benders!
No, that's a council. A counsel is an electronic device used by GAMERS
@@wildfire9280 well.know i guess you're right
The Spanish never purposefully gave smallpox to the Inca or any other people. There was only one time where smallpox was given purposefully to a native group. The only historical and actually documented case was in 1757 at the siege of Fort William Henry. All other supposed times it occurred are just legend.
Zaheer was not right, he wanted to cry freedom in the name of tearing down hierarchies, and government but that's not balance. There can't just be freedom because part of freedom is anarchy no matter how you look at it. In my eyes too much freedom is the same as giving permission to criminals to harm children without consequences.
You making a lot of inferences based on little evidence and assumptions and then treating it like it's fact. But we know that the Fire Nation, Earth Kingdom, and northern water tribe or hereditary monarchies we have little in the knowledge of how the southern water tribe or are nomads govern themselves. The air Nomads operate more like a religious order than any form of government I highly doubt their Council of Elders have any actual power. And well we know little about the southern water tribe government it's clear that they are not a hereditary monarchy. Seeing how chords dad is Chief and he was likely appointed there from by his own merits as opposed to being placed there after being banished from the north. Is the northern water tribe did have influence over the southern water tribe it's highly unlikely that he would have managed to become the chief after being banished to destroy of a religious site.
Unalaq is the son of the previous Chief. He was next in line after his older brother, Tonraq, who was banished.
The Council of Elders is confirmed to have both religious and political authorities by the wiki. It is also inferred by their treatment of Aang's existence.
They wanted him to grow faster so they could fight off Sozin.
The Spanish didn’t use smallpox, they just spread it inadvertently and it reached the Inca empire before the Spanish
18:43 I'm pretty sure that Air Acolytes are also considered part of the Air Nation sense we see that in the Yakone trial flashback a person with Air nomad clothing is representing the Air Nation. But still is a very small population compared to all other nations (I would assume that it's somewhere in hundreds)
I love how author ofthis video treats Democracy as one true good government.
Good government is one that works and keep people over which it gowerns safe and happy. If it's authoritarian regime that keeps its citizens happy, it's way better than democracy that doesn't.
Water tribes in TLoA were perfect examples of that.
If a democracy isn't materially democratic, then it's a democracy in name only. The US is an imperial genocidal police state that calls itself a democracy because people get to chose between two corporate goons every four years.
@@matheusvillela9150 yeah, that's fair point too. I don't think we have any real example of Democracy anywhere anyways, sadly.
The sad truth is that every type of government works amazingly, but only on paper.
Haven't even watched yet just saw the title, but wasn't this Zahir's exact argument for killing the avatar and ending the cycle?
almost perfect timing to post a video like this
I mean, no large group of people can function without a leading body, let alone a whole country or culture.
Add to that that Avatars world is based mostly on eastern feudalism in ATLA and turn-of-the-century governance in TLOK, and things are bound to be a bit different from what we are used to.
To be fair, the world of Avatar ain't that bad.
Unless the Fire Nation attacks.
That's coming from a dirty ONI spook...
Plus, despite the political and historical connections they are trying to make to the real world, the Avatar world is still significantly smaller and easier to wrap our heads around than the real world, which has hundreds if not thousands of cultures and ethnicities, with different nations and empires coming and going, and no avatar to maintain a permanent balance.
Honestly the real mind-boggling thing is that guns haven't been invented yet, if they were being realistic even by avatar standards, they would have invented guns instead of taser gloves or giant robot mechs.
@@bullmoosevelt4495 The bending abilities kind of render guns obsolete. Fire doesn't jam or rust or misfire; water doesn't require cleaning after extended use; earth is everywhere while bullets must be made; air allows one uncanny stealth.
All, of course, pale in comparison to the Avatar.
@@Danganraptor True, but if you aren’t a bender then you are screwed, imagine if the equalists had guns. Bullets are faster than bending so at that point the only thing that could counter them is metal bending.
Lol your justification on why every nation in it is a dictatorship, makes it sound like the relationship i have with my mom is dictatorship, this some smooth brain analysis
My personal headcanon is that when Zuko became fire lord, he introduced constitutional monarchy or at least freedom of thought, speech, and press. to the fire nation. It’s not in character for Zuko to suppress those that dislike his rule. Zuko isn’t a tyrant, it’s not remotely in his character.
Oof, by far the most researched yet least analyzed video you've done.
Air nomads as a dictatorship? They're just exclusive schools with living quarters.
Dictatorships need a dictator, which every temple lacks. 5 old people guiding youths to peaceful resolution is far from whatever the hell you were considering.
Idk man who has the power and are they elected by the people? like you can frame any dictatorship as "wise leaders guiding their people for the better" if you so choose. Dictatorship is obviously a loaded term. but are the air nomads democratic? really doesn't seem so. allthough as james pointed out we don't have that much information on how their society is run.
@@freaki0734 The way people "rise into power" in their civilization is literlaly just GETTING OLD. You grow old and teach whatever you learned in life to the new blood.
They're not a democracy, but that doesn't mean they instantly are a dictatorship. They're just school teachers
@@GabeDelaSoul how do the children get into the school? without ever knowing their parent's at that. Is there actual discrimination against non bender air nomads (if those do in fact exist)? The system sure sounds like it could have nice aspects to it. but if a system like that existed in the real world it would have sooo much abuse in it.
Besides I do think you are adhering to the somewhat clickbaity title lol. He calls their system "essentially one big family" and "kind of wholesome" but it's still bad in many ways it not being democratic being one of the ways that it obviously is.
@@freaki0734 At this point its just overanalyzing what they might not have even written up yet since the first episode.
If they're nomads for one, how would the fire nation eradicate them all? They can glide off into the protection of other kingdoms, and then again. Some would live outside of airbender temples too, can't eradicate those who you wouldn't even know are airbenders living inside other borders.
Aang mighta never been the last after all
So you didn't watch the video and are reacting to the tongue-in-cheek title, got it.
The air nomads being run by a group of elders makes them an Oligarchy, which one could argue is much closer to a democracy than an autocracy, even if they are the ones to ‘elect’ an air bender to their ranks.
I assume it's for the clickbait, but it's pretty inaccurate to compare monarchies and theocracy to tyranny and dictatorship. Not the same ideologies, principles, legitimities.
(also the theocracy/monarchy thing is far more coherent in a world like Avatar than Republic City)
You show a strong bias toward democracy. I share your bias, but it's worth examining. Democracy isn't good in and of itself. You described how a democracy can be a front for a dictatorship, but a democracy can be a dictatorship too. A dictatorship of the majority. If all matters in the world of Avatar were decided by direct vote, then the people could decide to deny the Air benders a vote, then the water benders, then the fire benders, then the mixed-blood earth benders, etc etc until only a special class had the vote. And that's just doing it the obvious way.
A government is good if it is benevolent, and bad if it is despotic. We have had real-world examples of benevolent dictatorships. And in the lives of those dictators, their government did more good than a democracy could have in a similar time. The problem with dictatorship is what happens when despot gets the throne, which is more likely than not. This is also a problem with democracy, but the need for a larger base is a small check on this in democracy.
The real system that makes modern democracies effective or not isn't the democracy itself, but the checks and balances, and the rule of law. You describe checks and balances in the water nation, and the US teaches every student about the most basic checks and balances in its system, but the rule of law is even more important. The rule of law states that the law, or a law (the constitution in the US) is the highest authority in the land, and everyone else is bound by it. This isn't democracy, but it's what makes democracy work.
TlDr; more important than democracy is checks and balances and the rule of law to encourage a benevolent regime over a despotic one.
Another thing I'd like to add is that the benders will always be the ruling elite. As technology advances, benders will be the ones able to access the best of it; technology that either works because of their bending, or uses their bending as a fail-safe. Consider a pistol with an internal safety mechanism that can only be released through earth-bending, for example. This would make earth benders much more valuable as a security force. And that's just a small application of earth bending that the weakest benders could use to gain an advantage over non-benders, one that could be replicated for all bender types.
You're right, but you missed one part: Part of what those checks and balances in a democracy do. Namely, they allow for the transition of power without violence. *That* is what makes democracies good; they allow a dissatisfied population to change who rules them without needing a revolution. Meaning life for the average common person can't ever get _too_ bad, or else the rulers are deposed. You can convince a population of many things through propaganda, but you can't convince them their bellies are full, or that violent crime or war isn't affecting them.
This does make democracies incredibly susceptible to populists, promising things their more honest colleagues never could, but that's what the other part of checks and balances is for, so that when they fail to deliver, they can be voted out.
@@MalloonTarka I like what you're saying, and I agree that I did miss a few things, but your points seem a bit mixed up to me.
Checks and balances aren't inherent to a democracy, so if you're going to ascribe the peaceful transition of power to checks and balances, then a well-crafted dictatorship should be able to have the same thing.
I think you're including, but not naming, the sense of democratic legitimacy in your argument here. A government that holds a strong sense of legitimacy is unlikely to be rebelled against, and democratic legitimacy allows the transfer of legitimacy from one government/administration to the next. So long as the democracy isn't a sham and the population cares.
And since you're not wrong that checks and balances do also contribute to the peaceful transition of power, then I think it's fair to say I missed at least two things, and probably more.
These are all things which have a non-democratic analogue, so I still stand by the idea that it's not that democracy itself is inherently good or bad. BUT. It's a lot easier for a dictatorship to lose these things than a functional democracy. So even if a democracy can be bad and a dictatorship can be good, goodness in a democracy is, I think, more stable.
@@thomasjenkins5727 I'll try and make it clearer what I meant by addressing parts of your comment where I feel you misunderstood me or else said something I disagree with.
"Checks and balances aren't inherent to a democracy, so if you're going to ascribe the peaceful transition of power to checks and balances, then a well-crafted dictatorship should be able to have the same thing."
Not completely. A dictatorship can technically have _some_ checks and balances, for sure, but others are impossible by the very nature of it being a dictatorship: Namely losing the rulership unwillingly through non-violent means if the people as a whole become unhappy enough. A dictatorship will by definition hold on to power no matter what, unless the dictator voluntarily gives it up or they are overthrown by force. If there is some system that replaces them, it isn't a dictatorship. Maybe not a democracy, if that system doesn't involve the people voting, but not a dictatorship. But such a system would also not have another check a democracy does have: The will of the people directly influencing who gets to lead.
Some checks and balances are inherent or alien to types of systems of government. You can't copy-paste all types of checks and balances from one system into another, and democracy has a few that can't be implemented in others, like a dictatorship.
"I think you're including, but not naming, the sense of democratic legitimacy in your argument here. A government that holds a strong sense of legitimacy is unlikely to be rebelled against, and democratic legitimacy allows the transfer of legitimacy from one government/administration to the next. So long as the democracy isn't a sham and the population cares."
Sort of. In regards to a sense of legitimacy being a stabilising influence, that only works if the vast majority of the people believes in the system - aka. that they have a chance of "winning", or at least getting concessions. If that's true, they'll spend their energy and resources on campaigning instead of massing soldiers and weapons to overthrow the government, since that's the safer and easier option for them to get what they want. In that sense, yes, a government with a strong sense of legitimacy allows the peaceful transition, since the losers know that might win next time, and in the meantime they won't be subject to violence and oppression. I came at it from a more practical than principled perspective, but in essence we are saying the same thing.
For the rest, I mostly agree, except that I'll note that dictatorships, no matter how benevolent the dictator, are often forced into being less good than democracies can be, because the dictator only holds power by appeasing his (generally small) group of powerful supporters, and must exploit the common folk and gift the rewards of that exploitation to those supporters to keep their support and therefore power; if they don't, the supporters will as a group grow unhappy and will then probably replace the dictator with another via a coup.
@@MalloonTarka I don't think either of your points are accurate.
For checks and balances, a dictator abdicating power can easily result in a hereditary dictatorship. Second, you seem to discount that people can support multiple dictators. This can happen in a multitude of ways, but the most common is disinformation campaigns.
For legitimacy, it stems from perception and is mainly based on culture, tradition, and daily impact. If citizen's lives keep improving under a dictator, most people will view it as legitimate no matter what else is going on.
I think a lot of the bad from this video comes from the fact the UA-camr doesn't know the political definition of dictatorship. After all, the Marxist phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that all power in controlled in the hands of the workers through the overthrow of the capitalist government, which is generally considered illegal to do.
As to your last point, dictators frequently turn on their own. The smart ones play the people off against the elite and actively improve the welfare of citizens.
“Benders will always be the ruling class”.
Except, before the the LoK, the only country that had benders as ruling class was Fire Nation. Air Nomads were all benders, so they can’t be called a ruling class, since there are no other classes. Rulers of Northern Water tribe and Earth Kingdom were non-benders. Some of the elites, like Toph’s parents, were non-benders. Even in LoK non-benders held positions of power. Most of the technology in the Avatar world does not require bending and has never required it, so benders would likely lose political power and not gain it. Even in LoK bending supremacy doesn’t really make sense. Outside of military and police, and like, working on power plants, benders are pretty much useless. With this, and crimes committed by fire benders during the war, shouldn’t non-benders be the elite?
Literally none of them are dictatorships apart from Earth Empire. *Dictatorship is a system when someone or group of people take power through a coup unlawully and they are based purely on military/police power. Frankly most of the political systems in Avatar are not dictatorships but lawful monarchies, rebublics etc.* Monarchy is not dictatorship. Aristocracy is not a dictatorship. Non-democratic rebublic is not a dictatorship. Chiefdom is not a dictatorship. Theocracy is not a dictatorship. If a system is supported by established law and tradition it is not a dictatorship. For example: Napoleon was a dictator, Louis XVIII was not.
I also completly disagree that the fact that a situation that ruler unelected or not chosen in popular vote is intrinsically awful. *Not just that but I think every society needs a part of goverment that would be unelected to prevent sole rule of will of majority (which most often knows nothing about governance); and balance representative side with it's drive to corruption and political particularism. A dynastic monarch rised to be a king from birth would be best suited* for such as both uniting the whole country above conflicts and one who is preapered to rule and care for his people - so *best system would probably be something like a mixed monarchy (regimen commixtum).* All systems have their advantages and disadvantages so there should be a right balance.
I am not saying that rulers from ATLA were always good rulers. *But what is important is ultimetly about impelemting right policies and caring for the common good and good of the poeple by the rulers, not the system itself.* So even an absolute monarchy could be a just and good ruleship. That is why Aristotle distinguishes between good and bad versions of different systems: monarchy/tyranny; aristocracy/oligarchy; politeia/democracy.
"take power unlawfully", well that one is kinda pointless, because the people that take power write the law. democracies and monarchies also usually form against current law, which they then change. I find it woefully naive if not outright stupid to make any distinction between monarchy and dictatorship at all, the only actual difference is public image, with monarchies being respected by other leaders in the same cultural sphere, the new monarch usually being the son of the old one (percieved continuity) and dictators being seen as going against "how things should be", literally a distinction without a real difference, just optics. Add to that, that dictatorships often are legally hereditary, or have been renamed into monarchies by the time the dictator dies and gives his son the power, after all, if other powers didn't respect the dictator (therefore now "king"), he would have been overthrown long ago. The exception being north korea which calls itself a monarchy and has inherited it's leadership title for several generations now, but is such a antagonistic force on the world stage that other countries want to still call it a dictatorship, because that has a negative connotation. Also your point about pros and cons of monarchy ond democracy are bs wishfull "goldilocks" thinking. guthoritarian goverments (Monarchies/Dictatorships) have consistently proven themselves to be completely inadequate at governance over the last centuries compared to democracies, because they have literally 0 reason to even TRY to do what is best for the people. Politicians want to be reelected, aristocrats/party officials want what? Well, power, money, etc. as directly as possible, very little reason to even consider ordinary people, just stun them with propaganda. The only reason there are still monarchs in europe is because they are completely powerless and get used for public entertainment. Autocracies only work if they have foreign backing or a geopolitical headstart, for example singapore (biggest harbor city on one of the most important trade routes when it became independent).
PS: aristotle is an idiot.
@@authomat6236 I agree to disagree and my point stands. I think there is essential difference between monarchy and dictatorship, based on law, tradition and ruling according to natural law. Monarchy is also not always authoritarian, though it can be if a monarch becomes a tyrant. Authoritarianism pretains to reduction of liberties and rule of law, both of which can fully be present in a monarchy, sometimes even more than in democracy. Even more so if it is an mixed monarchy and also has a representative parliment.
I think monarchies showed again and again in history that many monarchs cared for their people and common good with the development of civlization, for example in the last century rulers like Franz Joseph I and his son Karl I of Austria, Albert I of Belgium, Peter I of Serbia, Nicholas II of Russia etc. all were doing what they could for the good of their subjects. Especially in Western world influenced by the Church and idea of natural law tyrannies were an exeption. Moreover kings were always signs of unity above ethnic and status differences of the countrymen. The waning of monarchs left a place for fascism and communism. Politicians in democracies are temporary administrators who have all the reasons to care more about their own profit and benefit from internal factionalism and tribalism. Kings have the prospect of the whole future of their country and dynasty and all the reasons to care for it. Importnat it is to note is that I do not support absolute or even more so despotic monarchy. I think a dynastic monarch (e.g. with power comparable to the president of US) is essential element of a good government alongiside representative assembly.
P.S. Aristotle was the opposite of idiot. Probably one of the wisest philosophers in history, especially before Christ. As Edward Feser said abandoning Aristotle in philosphy was single greatest mistake Western world did after mammerings of Descartes and Hume.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 Completely disagree, you're outlook on the past tinted by rose-coloured glasses, aparently by a very conservative world view. Theres no reason to believe at the initial formation of a supposedly limited monarchy (there are ones in the arabic world, africa and asia, and well... not the nicest places to live, if you ask me) the aristocrats and ruling dynasty wont skew the limitations made on the "democratic" part in their favor, securing that essentially no important decisions (if there can be made any at all, historic precedent late 19th century europe tells us NO), will ever be made againt their interests, already creating with that the most powerfull special interest group imaginable, the ones bribing the politicians and using their selfishness to make them go against the populous will, or just straight up misguiding the public via propaganda, the things you probably fear so much about pure democracy. Overwhelmingly all monarchies, even (if not moreso) the circa 1900 "enlightened" ones, a few "good" monarchs (were they really? sick, poor peasants don't pay taxes) notwithstanding, have been violent oppressive regimes (some people like that, if it's "their" rules being enforced, you seem to be religious, i hope you don't want to force it on others), illiberal in every way imaginable, from no free-speech at all, to heavy corporal punishment for things, now at worst considered indecent, to forcing their reign on other peoples at the cost of the lives of their own youth in almost perpetual war. monarchies, with war, imperialism, famines and other nice stuff, have killed and enslaved, by far (just research a handfull random monarchic countries and add up their wars, famines, genocides and executions, will probably get you 100s of millions easy , more people than fascism or communism will probably ever kill, and this wasn't much better in the west than anywhere else, honestly can vaguely imagine from which corner of the internet you got that idea. Why would you even think someone who can never get chosen for office or replaced, except violently, which you would probably condem as "unlawfull" (how do you ever take someone to justice lawfully who's BY LAW essially untouchably, even if legally limited (who wrote those limits, were they friends with the ruling dynasty?)) would do a better job at their task, especially when they're never even chosen in the first place, they might just be born an imcopetent idiot, why would a monarch care about their subjects at all, they're literally just ammunition for his ambitions, he's never even been with anything but aristocrats, bureaucrats or rich businessmen, his wellfare or the size of his realm are really only tangentially related with his peoples welfare and the existence of a monarchy doesn't make special interest groups just go away. If anything, even with the outwardly good intention of keeping up basic rights (probably in reality defined to be essentially just privileges for the core demographics upholding the state, not that any other form of governance comes completely clean from such) monarchies get caught up in inner strife and partisan politics just as much, if not more than democracies, they just more effectively keep up a facade of competence, benevolence and strenght to the inattentive observer with propaganda and violent supression, keeping the people dumb and more at inner rest than today, which, I grant you that, though very cynical might actually make them effective in keeping out (more) totalitarian governace, althought tzar nikolaus probably thought that too, and well...
PS: Hume was a Boss
@@authomat6236 It's hard following your argument properly because of the way you formatted your text.. It has no paragraphs and is hard to read.. I am enjoying this debate and like your arguments as well as that of the TheGeneralGrievous19
I think one mistake in a fantasy setting like Avatar is to ignore the motivation to eliminate (genocide?) competing fantasy power sources.
The Fire Nation wanted to eliminate or subjugate competing benders to eliminate that source of power. I think there was a sort of intimidation the Fire nation felt when Fire bending is seen as only useful for destruction (as Zuko mentions) and as they discovered, energy sources. They could see the long-term economic/empire consequences of their marginalization from the perspective of their budding industrial phase. And we can see this in Korra. So their manifest-destiny-style cultural zeitgeist was that fire bending was destined to conquer and so they should.
Invading for material resources might well be a secondary motivation for the Fire Nation.
18:57 "The more I think about it the more justified Amon's rebellion was"
*laughs in Amon stan*
This video has fractured my mind
"Large coalition" "Small coalition" someone is reading The Dictator's Handbook (or watching the CGP Grey video)
That Patron thanks section made my Thermic Reactor pulse
*HelloFutureMe has entered the group chat*
The most engaging ad Ive ever seen, I did the old scrub forward but I went back because it was borderline philosophical
A Tyrant is defined as a cruel and oppressive ruler. To claim the avatar was a tyrant presumes that the avatar was an actual ruler, which I don't think really is an accurate description of the Avatar role. Seems more like an enforcer to me; like a divine sheriff with a clear purpose but very little oversight; along with all the good and bad that would entail.
Honestly zahir is my favorite character in Korra. He was right, and Korra herself proved over and over again why he was.
im actually imagining a dystopian avatar world where the bending users are soo rare because of its power now used to develop technology and stuff through experiments or etc…
and they were hunted down for it
Or maybe it would be a little further in the future when technology has become far more powerful than technology and the avatar is no longer useful.
@@fullmetaltheorist At that point they should just stop milking the show then hah.
Well the original could've explored that a bit honestly. Seen as many Water Tribe benders were off at war, and many places in the Earth Kingdom didn't really have too many benders left aswell they could've maybe show some community that persecutes bending. I honestly think the sequel should've gone more in lines with that then a radical change in the way the world works, it ends up feeling almost like another show to me. A few dystopias that hunt benders down would be neat.
@@RenegadeShepard69 well just bringing my idea from 5 years ago i don’t know why.. 😅
Democracy isn’t the opposite or inverse of autocracy, that implies democracy is innately anti-authoritarian.
18:40, actually I think the fire nation with its industrialization might have more people or equal people to the earth kingdom
I dont think so, pre-economic reform china still have more population than Japan
honestly i find it amazing how much complex worldbuilding was put into atla. i guess that's why it's the #10 show of all time on imdb.
James your sponsor segment is NOT convincing me that you aren’t emo.
This reminds me of a video made a while ago explain by how The United Republic is a rouge state. One of the points I want to bring up is that we see Is the the Ruling Council we’re the judges over Yakone’s trial meaning they are the highest court in the land.
So with the council being turned into a sole presidency, all branches of government are held by a single person.