I still think Moana deserved an Oscar for this part
To me, the moral of Moana is that only women can help other women heal from male violence.
The movie starts with the idea that the male god who wronged Te Fiti must be the one to heal her. This seems to make a certain sort of intuitive sense in that I think we all believe that if you do something wrong you should try to make it right. But how does he try to right it? Through more violence. Of course that failed.
It was only when another woman, Moana, saw past the “demon of earth and fire” that the traumatized Te Fiti had become (what a good metaphor for trauma, right?) and met her with love instead of violence that she was able to heal. Note that they do the forehead press before Moana restores the heart, while Te Fiti is still Te Kā. Moana doesn’t wait for her beautiful island goddess to appear in all her green splendor before greeting and treating her as someone deserving of love.
Moana is only able to restore the heart because Te Kā reveals her vulnerability and allows Moana to touch her there. Maui and his male violence could only ever have resulted in more ruin.
This is a touching anaylisis but it’s extremely racist as
not only have you completely ignored the whole point of Maui’s character, but
have managed to incriminate a man of color on a tumblr wide scale.
First of all, Maui’s character does not represent male
violence—it represent human greed. Maui did not take the heart because he is a
man, and Te-Fiti is a woman. He took it because the humans asked him to. The humans asked Maui to do everything for them,
not caring how greedy or selfish their requests were and in the end it was Maui
who suffered for it. Maui is supposed to show the flaw of humanity.
This has nothing to do with sexism, it has everything to do
with the fact that Maui gave and gave to the humans who could never stop being
greedy. Moana giving the heart back wasn’t supposed to be her “making up” for
the male violence that Maui represents. It was her making up for the greed she
and her people represent. It was touching however because yes it was an
important moment between two women, but you missed the point and you’ve come off
racist and very disrespectful to a culture at that.
Yes, Moana is an empowering movie for women, especially
women of color. But the last thing this is about is Maui being an abuser/rapist
or whatever. That is not the point of Maui’s character.
And to assume so is racist. You are a white woman completely
dehumanizing a man of color and ruining his image because of how you see him. And other white girls here
on tumblr have happily picked up that image and interpretation and rolled with
it. Maui’s character is now seen as an abuser or as someone who is violently
because of white girls here on tumblr—which it doesn’t surprise me. (an in a
historical context this is even MORE racist because white women would always
make Maui’s people out to be savages and abusers etc., simply because of the
color of their skin and their culture so yea, this is bad).
You can see the morality of the movie however you want, but
do not be disrespectful toward a character and in this case a culture.
@i-want-cheese Please don’t write this off as another “butthurt comment” or
“male guilt”, because this is really messed up. I see how you’re brushing off
some other people’s comments and I honestly hope that you don’t see mine the
same way because this is an issue I think you need to face/realize. You are
being racist and brushing it off isn’t going to change that.
the
@visibilityofcolor THANK YOU FOR THIS. As a Polynesian woman, reading that post and other replies painting Maui and even Tui as aggressive and violent men had me feeling some type of way, especially since White people have always regarded Polynesian men in such a manner.
I’ve thought about replying because I’m tired of seeing these kind of “Moana is a feminist movie” posts collect hundreds of notes despite the fact that these posts always conveniently fail to mention Pasifika people, but it always stressed me out, so thank you.
As an aside, Maui taking Te Fiti’s heart and Moana restoring it was symbolic of environmental preservation. Because the people who inspired Moana–Pasifika people, not just Polynesian–are always affected first when the environment is threatened. Our way of life is greatly influenced by the ocean and we believe that if you take care of the ocean, she will take care of you.
You’re very welcome.
This is insight for me as well (as I wasn’t aware that the movie also came fro the culture of the Pasifika people), and does give a very important perspective. I do agree with you, this movie is about environmental restoration, not some white fem bullshit.
I tried over and over again to explain to I-want-cheese about how she was being racist, but she responded by blocking me and other poc who called her out (even other polynesian people). People to this day are still trying to explain that she is being racist and culturally insensitive but she ignores us.
I’ve made a few posts about this, hoping that people realize how problematic it is to agree with i-want-cheese. Explaining to her racist white ass that this was problematic was like explaining to a bird. She wouldn’t listen and neither would have of her racist friends.
Sorry you’ve had to see this on your dash every so often, but I’m glad my portion of the post is starting to get around. (reblogged to the wrong blog at first lols)
dang reblogging this as a correction for the very first reblog. this why feminist analysis always needs to be intersectional
My heart just cried
the portrayal of Maui is super important here, the disney crew put a LOT of effort into getting him right because he IS a crucial figure to an entire culture- basically a cross between a central religious figure and superman so handling him poorly would be catastrophically disrespectful
there are basically only two parts of Mauis legend that they flub- they only tell half of the story of when he was abandoned as a baby, and they skip over that stealing the heart of
Te-Fiti
so he could give it to humanity was the legend in which he dies
yes, canonically Maui dies in his quest to give gifts to humanity, its an important element of why Maui is such a profound character, not just ‘man who hurt someone’ strawman
it gets worse when you discover the OTHER legend they fudged, the story of his birth, reinforces this.
Mauis mother had several (Hawaiians only say three, new zealand says five) sons, all named Maui, so when she had ANOTHER son she named him Maui as well, but then cast him into the sea for there was no way she could support another son. the gods did not save Maui, as Moana says, instead they return him to his mother and say she must give him a chance. to which his mother states that for her to take care of him this infant must remove the roof from her house by throwing spears at it.
that is the story of Maui the skillful, abandoned as an infant and then immediately told that he must PROVE his worth, after which all he ever does is prove his worth
his brothers mocked him for being a poor fisherman, he crafts a fishook
from a jawbone and proceeds to raise new islands from the sea
the sky is so low the trees bend, maui raises it for everyone, then fills the new sky with wind
the sun flies so quickly there is not enough time in the day to do the
labors for everyone, maui has to lay traps for each of the suns many
feet, chase after it as it was slowed, and then threaten to chop its
legs off if it would not slow down
he then due to the complaints
of the now longer dark night creates the moon and is upset his creation
will not please humanity for it does not make sufficient light, then
shows it to the sun so that it may learn how to be bright
maui
was credited with having invented as gifts for humanity the outrigger
canoe, stone tools, and seaworthy boats that had no mast or sails. he was credited
with inventing tattoos as a gift to dogs, however
humanity is still not content so maui descends to the land of the dead to ask the secret of creating fire from the grandmother, who kept it hidden in her fingernails. he dropped the fingernail in the water as he tried to return to the land of the living, came back for another, dropped it as well, and went through all ten fingers and toenails untill he had to then interrogate birds the grandmother had shared the secret with to tell him how
a monstrous eel tried to put the moves on his wife, and again maui had to prove his worth to reclaim her by breaking the monster eel’s spine, shoving him into the ground to create the first coconut tree, the single most useful thing for polynesian life, as a gift to humanity yet again
Maui, as a mythological figure, did nothing but give from the day he was born. he gave humans tools, land, fire, boats, light, the wind, everything except life itself and he even tried to give them that- and it killed him, he was bitten in two
a crucial part of Maui as a legend is that he failed, its literally part of the point, also that he was driven to prove himself endlessly to the (during his life) ungrateful.
do not try and drag Maui, its disrespectful on a level i cant express
thank the man, you asshole
Moana succeeded where he failed, for she saw that she did not have to prove herself. the whole movie up untill then she was trying to put on a brave face (there was literally a cut song ‘warrior face’ where maui teaches her Haka), shout her courage, announce to the world at large that she WILL do the thing and fix the world and be the hero, just like Maui
its easy to miss, she stopped trying to prove who she was to anyone, there was nobody she needed to prove herself TO
she just WAS herself, and that brought her peace
Oh man…this is why it’s so important to hear the perspectives of the peoples actually represented. When I was reading through this, the first part seemed to make a lot of sense on the surface, but I could *never* have imagined how racist that perspective was. It makes so much more sense now. Thank you to the folks in this thread who were willing to take the time to share their perspective so that oblivious folks like me could do a little more to chip away at our own internalized racism.
The logic, as far as I can tell, is that gender is not only essential to some people’s identities but everyone’s, while things like culture and time period are nonessential and therefore mutable. So an AU character who’s been socialized in a different culture = a version of the character (maybe an OOC version in execution, but a version), while an AU character who’s been socialized as a different gender = fundamentally a different person = OC.
The end result is a ton of “you should just write them as an OC because they are” that flies around in the general discourse, with apparently zero comprehension that people don’t want to write about any character, they want that character.
In seriousness, I think it was just … his utter complexity as a character? There are so many layers to Loki, you can keep peeling them back and peeling them back and still never quite reach the core of what makes him tick. He is mercurial and callous, he is insecure and damaged, he is jaded and cynical, he is intelligent and witty, he is mischievous and sly. He feels things so deeply, though it is often to his own detriment, and he has an enormous capacity to love, but sabotages it by his equally enormous capacity for self-loathing. He wears so many masks – villain, anti-hero, savior, trickster – but for all of his layers and identities, there isn’t a bit of true, unrepentant evil in him. Not at all. His villainy lacks conviction, as Coulson pointed out, and comes from a place of deep pain, not true cruelty. He is not irredeemable. He’s like a puzzle piece that never quite fits anywhere, but has not yet discovered that this is what makes him so preciously rare. He has yet to find value in himself, but there’s the sense that he could, eventually. He’s made strides in that direction. And I think all of these factors just culminate in a character whose complexity makes him achingly relatable, because in a world full of superheroes, some of us are just the insecure, strange puzzle pieces still trying to figure out where we fit.
My real issue with this(apart from the fact that it’s not a fix for all the pain that Odin caused) is that it’s too damn late. Yes, Loki needed to hear it and it’s good that he finally did. But he needed it much sooner.
He needed to hear “I love you too, brother” from Thor before the coronation instead of “Thank you”.
He needed to hear “I love you” from Odin instead of “You are my son”. Because they aren’t the same thing. He needed to be sure of his place and his father’s love for him instead of feeling like a useless relic: “Bring about permanent peace through you. But those plans no longer matter”.
I was waiting the whole time that somebody tells Loki that he is loved but it didn’t happen.
Next time he sees Odin, he is told that “Your birthright was to die!” and he is sentenced to solitary confinement for life. Thor doesn’t visit. He only sees his mother by illusions. None of his family sees it fit to tell him that his mother died. He isn’t even given a chance to say goodbye.
This “I love you” is too late. These words don’t match the actions. They are too little, too late.
Odin, you used that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
I can’t help but think that must have felt like the worst gaslighting to Loki.
Also, it truly is interesting to note that until that moment, the only person in that entire fucked up family to verbally express love…was Loki.
That read to me as the worst kind of gaslighting too, and my reactions were mostly on the line of poor Loki that gets those words when they not only mean nothing, but actually are a hurt and an insult. Though I can very well see Odin meaning them. I understand that some fans are upset that there was not satisfactory resolution (and some are upset, and IMO kinda rightly-ish about that others have decided that this throwaway bone of gaslighting from an old dad not very clear in their mind WAS enough and should feel enough to Loki, to us), but it actually fits extremely well with the history and MO of that fucked up family, and quite realistically parallels a lot of RL shit. Odin in all likelihood thinks/thought he loved his sons (nobody is a villain in their own mind), and he was still a shit dad. And he died a shit dad, to all his MCU-acknowledged kids. Not that he’s much better dad in comics – and honestly, anyone at least partly familiar with northern mythos would not think Odin would be a ‘good dad’ the way we nowadays think one should be. Odin just… isn’t. Odin is a mean clever tricksy darkish vengeful smart fickle fascinating fear-inducing petty god of the battlefield, wisdom and death. None of those things, except maybe death, are really ever kind to children.
Everyone writes Sam as the replacement Bucky but guys, Bucky is trying to go into hiding because there are now TWO Steves on the loose.
TWO of them.
The only thing that makes him seem relatively sane is the lack of super abilities but anyone who thinks it’s a reasonable idea to attach a LIVE JET ENGINE ten inches from his asshole is nOT SANE.
Bucky went into cryogenic sleep because there were two Steves on the loose. He spent an hour or two with Sam, saw where this was going, and was just like “I’m out.”
Those two are probably giving Clint an ulcer right now. And being a terrible influence on Scott and Wanda.
I wonder if anyone ever told Clint who T’Challa is. T’Challa seems like he actually would be a Responsible One, but he’s got his own country to deal with so he doesn’t usually get involved unless it’s potentially world ending.
They fix up Bucky within months of putting him under because Sam and Steve haven’t sat still for even like, ten??? minutes?
T’Challa raises him from the artic like uhm, you gonna need to go collect ya mans.
Bucky is like “Oh gOD what did Steve do????”
“No not that one, he’s been too Sad and Lost™ without you but the cute one has decided to try his hand at decentralizing the corrupt governance of Klaegia like, four hours plane ride south. Come on the jet’s already packed”
The Dora Milaje have to keep Bucky from smashing the refrost button to go back under he’s Done.
Sam Wilson met Steve THREE TIMES and was like, “oh you want to overthrow the American government great LET’S DO THIS.” Sam Wilson’s first act in that effort was to suggest that they steal his backpack jet, right from where he KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE, almost as if he’d kept his eye on it the whole time and was maybe, y’know, planning to nab it himself at some point. Sam Wilson never met a superassassin or a king or a government agent that he didn’t want to sass and antagonize.
Sam Wilson is not the Sane One. You have been lied to.
[I never understood why the Maquis were supported by non-colonists like Chakotay or Eddington, or viewed with ambiguity by Sisko – most of the colonies were small and recently established. It’s not fair for the colonists to lose their hard work, but they weren’t being rendered homeless, they could colonise other planets, or unsettled parts of other colonies (Planets are big, after all). If that’s the price of ending war with the Cardassians so the Federation can focus on known threats like the Borg, it seems reasonable]
Also, while Voyager’s treatment of Indigenous culture and religion will never fail to be racist most of the time, they did get one thing right. Chakotay’s people came from Indigenous tribes on Earth. They got together, went, white people are fucked up, and left the planet to start their own where they knew their cultures could be respected. They had a place that could be theirs, without interference, a place to start over and figure out who they could be without colonizing nonsense getting in their way.
When all of a sudden, they were told to leave the demilitarized zone, it was like being herded off of their land into reservations again. It’s not just about effort, it’s about being forced to go through the process of being colonized all over again. I totally understand why they wouldn’t want to leave. They escaped a thousand years of white nonsense, they didn’t exactly want to get more of it when they left a space that was supposed to belong to them.
In TNG Piccard is faced with the moral dilemma of “relocating” these Indinginous settlers who settled on that planet because they felt a spiritual connection with it. They are the descendants of Native Americans who were colonised in years gone by, by white people. Then the Federation just ups and decides that they’re going to give away their land to the enemy to make peace. Now people from earth are all Federation citizens, sure, but in real terms, this wasn’t their land to give away. They weren’t the ones settled there, the Indiginous people were.
As for why other people would get so involved? For the same reason anybody gets involved where they see an injustice – because they care. People saw that what was happening to the Marquis and the settlers was unfair, and wanted to do something to help. For a lot of people, like Tom Paris and Thomas Riker, I think joining the Marquis was just a means for them to stick it to the Federation, to make something of themselves, or to prove something to themselves or others. But for the most part, people join the fight because they believe the Federation resettlement it’s fundamentally unjust.
Sisko viewed the Marquis with ambiguity because he’s a realist, not somebody who idolizes the Federation. “It’s easy to be a saint in paradise” remains one of my favourite quotes/speeches from any show, ever, because it very clearly set up the tone for the rest of the series – the Federation isn’t perfect, it does unjust things, and those unjust actions have consequences. People on earth just can’t comprehend that life is actually difficult out here on the border, and the answers aren’t all so simple. This is a show that’s going to ask complex questions and make you think, not spoon-feed you the answers.
[Thorin] is cantankerous and often cross. I found this characteristic interesting and, at the beginning, it was a bit hard for me to determine where it sprang from. I’d say this surly and aggressive side is something all the warrior dwarves share, but Thorin, on top of that, cant stand the thought that he’s been stripped of his kingdom in such a violent way. In addition, he’s suffered the loss of his rank in the dwarf society, going from the privileged status of a royal family member to that of a wandering warrior. He’s ashamed of such a decline..
I love that this is basically the same as the “We have a Hulk” scene in Avengers (and came out before it) but that in terms of the Leverage Crew, the Hulk, who you’d think would be Elliot (rage, not good with talking out his emotions, Mr. Punchy) is actually Hardison (that cheerful grin, the sass, the neverending well of love and joy). Because the truth is, Elliot can’t do that always angry thing. He can’t sustain his anger, he can only sustain his pain. He can’t simmer for ages, he has to get in there and Do Something when he gets mad. He’s Steve, to be honest. But Hardison? Hardison who hacked a foreign bank on prom night to pay back his Nana for all the good she did her foster kids? Hardison who buries himself in games and toys and gummy frogs and orange soda because that’s what people expect of the “geek”? Hardison who grew up poor, and orphaned, and black, and oh so incredibly smart? Hardison who is so constantly afraid, of dust, of small spaces, of high places, who loves a vent-crawling building jumping thief like she’s the sun? Who had to hold Parker’s hand as she panicked about foster kids in Eastern Europe somehow ending up broken like her?
It has come to my attention as of late that people do not fully understand the difference in the punks. Some people seem to think that Steampunk is pretty much everything when you see it.
Let us review the fundamentals. Steampunk is set in an alternate future where steam was the primary technology and they continued on that path till now. That’s basically it. However there are MANY alternate futures with alternate technology’s, and lumping all of them into steampunk is just cheapening them. So let me just show you an example of each.
CLOCK/STEAMPUNK: This era is often Victorian in style for some reason and the steam powered robots often use lots of smoke stacks, gears, clockwork, belts and goggles.
TESLAPUNK: Unlike steampunk, this world functions as if Nikola Tesla had revolutionized the world with his electricity. Lots of lightning rods, Tesla rods and power cables. Often this is confused as steampunk because they often have the a similar look.
DIESELPUNK: This universe takes place in a world where diesel engines and machines using oil are everywhere. This is criminally underused. They usually use a more art deco and WW1/2 style.
ATOMIC/RAYPUNK: This one uses atomic technology. Lasers, blasters, radiation, green glows, aliens and giant robots. Also rarely used but I dare you to watch “The Iron Giant” and tell me you don’t love it.
CYBERPUNK: Possibly more well known than steampunk. A future, in which technology is so advanced people are more technologically advanced than some of the robots. Chainsaw arms, robotic eyes, hooking your brain up to the internet and evil corporations.
BIOPUNK: Imagine a future where technology has advanced so much that we construct living organisms as easily as building a robots. Living machines, weapons, organic clothing and new and improved limbs.
JUNKPUNK: Almost as unknown as candlepunk but still one to remember. This world all technology is composed of random parts you might find in a junkyard. Kind of like the ‘Coolest’ cooler.
SOLARPUNK: This one has been getting some recent attention. However in a world where technology is powered by the sun I have yet to find one robot picture so sorry about this one.
PUNKPUNK: You have gone off the far side of the spectrum. Turn back.
Hopefully now you can tell the different alternate futures apart and can better survive in the world with this Essential information.
(Note this is not my artwork just a quick google search, but I am working on a series that will clarify these examples better with my own work.)
Yo, just saying, but Cyberpunk ISN’T just an aesthetic.
Cyberpunk is a genre about contrast between high technologies and low life, and as such they focus on sadder/violent parts of people’s lives, like crime, law enforcement (treated realistically and not like in cop dramas), cybercrime, drug dealing, terrorism or warfare.
Common themes include any variation on a concept of identity (from identity theft, through search for identity, to identity politics), loneliness in digital age, anti-capitalism focusing on unchecked power of corporations, anti-fascism focusing on technological surveillance state, ethics of artificial intelligence and other technologies.
Best known examples are probably Robocop, Ghost in the Shell, Matrix (especially the first movie, sequels are more like post-apo war stories), Neuromancer, Snow Crash, Deus Ex, Shadowrun, System Shock.
Steampunk was an offshoot of cyberpunk, but since stopped being a genre and became only an aesthetic.
Biopunk is offshoot of cyberpunk, and usually contains similar themes (just with genetic engineering). Other offshoots include nanopunk (with nanotechnology) and, which has recently been getting more attention, nowpunk – stories that use concepts and themes of cyberpunk, but are set in contemporary times – we’re talking stuff like Mr Robot tv show, or Watch_Dogs video games.
Honestly, a lot of the punk settings and ideas are in some way political, or at least VERY good at exploring issues relevant to the time period they pull inspiration from.
Steampunk for imperialism, biopunk for ethical issues of biotechnology, atompunk for the red scare and cold war, etc. etc.
Not saying every story with these looks NEEDS to deal with those specific issues, but each punk type opens itself up to discussing those types of issues much more easily.
Also, each punk doesn’t need to exist separate from each other. I have a setting that is bio, solar, and junkpunk all at once.
These genres and aesthetics are tools, and the rules about ‘em aren’t hard and fast to say the least.
The “punk” part of all of these is a political analysis and a rebellion.
Steampunk without addressing the imperialism and class privilege of the Victorian era is “gaslamp fantasy” or “alternative history sci-fi”, depending on how sci-magical it goes.
Cyberpunk without the dystopia of a world ruled by megacorporations, and the small rebellions people engage in just to survive, is just gritty sci-fi.
Dieselpunk that doesn’t analyze how the imperialism of the late 19th century evolved into the rise of fascism in the early 20th is just more alternative history sci-fi.
Teslapunk have some similar imperialism themes to steampunk plus some of the anti-corporate vibe of cyberpunk. It’s an analysis of thing like “what would the world be like if an autistic dreamer like Tesla hadn’t been ground into the dirt by the corporate greed of Edison and others?” or “what if Edison and the other corporatists had stolen EVEN MORE of Tesla’s work?”
Solarpunk seeks to build clean energy, green spaces, and sustainable industries in response to the real threat of climate change.
The “punk” part is important. It gives us tools to dismantle injustice in the real world by analyzing or overcoming the injustice in a fictional one.
y’all notice how black panther quietly but fervently rejects western assumptions about women in non-western countries by not only displaying Wakandan women in a variety of influential positions but by making clear that only outsiders question them
women are shown in all levels of Wakandan society – Ramonda as a trusted advisor for her son, Shuri as the country’s leading innovator, Okoye and the Dora as respected warriors, Nakia as a spy and philosophical compass, unnamed women who serve as tribal representatives and spiritual leaders. it is not at any point suggested that their gender is a barrier to achieving anything in Wakanda.
there’s a moment during T’Challa’s crowning that’s small but very good, when M’baku questions letting a child handle the country’s technological advancement. he specifically calls her a child, not a girl, questioning her youth and perceived lack of respect for tradition but not her gender, which flies in direct defiance of many western assumptions about how masculine non-western men like M’baku treat women and girls.
that moment, as far as I recall, the most any Wakandan man ever directly disrespects a woman. a lot has been made of how much faith T’challa places in his female relatives and warriors, so I won’t rehash that, but it’s Good.
Ross briefly insults Okoye with his assumption that she doesn’t speak English, but 1.) the narrative and the audience both understand this to be an ignorant statement on Ross’ part for which he is promptly put in his place by Okoye herself and 2.) Ross immediately learns and does better. when he wakes up in Wakanda his disbelief is only for the level of the technology, not that a teenage girl is the mastermind behind it, and during the final fight he defers to Shuri’s guidance despite his piloting expertise.
a lot of words have already been written about Killmonger’s treatment of black women: the casual murder of his partner, his disregard and abuse of a spiritual leader, the slaughter of a Dora. it’s just one of many parts of his ideology that mark him as fundamentally misunderstanding Wakanda and being an Other in the kingdom.
Wakanda is a futuristic fantasyland that makes absolutely no narrative room for men who don’t respect the authority of women.
In addition to the Killmonger point –
I love how it circles back to the cultural disparity between Wakanda and the Western world. It demonstrates how similar ideologies – the drive for resource sharing and international responsibly – can appear so vastly different (ie Killmonger and Nakia). It speaks to the cultural environment in which they existed. I believe Killmonger to be a reflection of the internalised toxic values Western society presents poor Black boys – essentially following the well trodden path from vulnerability to violence.
Returning to Ross for a moment – I didn’t read that as disrespect at all? She’d never spoken English in front of him, he had no way of knowing whether or not she did, and she seemed very angry about something. Verifying how much she actually understood what everyone around her was saying was kind of important? His delivery could have been better but…am I missing something?
I mean, it’s a more subtle moment than a lot of the shit Killmonger pulls for sure, but I think we have to consider the implications of a white American assuming that an African woman, despite her high-ranking position, is unable to take part in or understand a conversation being held in her presence. this is especially true given that the movie’s point of view is Wakandan, allowing us as viewers to know exactly how wrong Ross is, and Okoye’s expression and tone when she corrects him, at least to me, seem to suggest that she finds the question an insulting one.
I’m not trying to say that Ross is a bad guy for asking, but it was undoubtedly one of the many examples in the movie of white Westerners underestimating Wakandans at every turn because of their own preconceived ideas.
Also, he asks T’Challa whether Okoye speaks english, rather than asking her himself.
There's a Mirror on the Wall 