This has always bugged the shit out of me so thank you for saying it. If lions in suits started biting people of course I'd be scared shitless of lions. I guess that makes me a lion racist .
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Am I crazy or does Zootopia's racism allegory not work?
- Thread starter CloudWolf
- Start date
It's not a perfect allegory but it doesn't really try to be a 1:1 one. It's about animals who have evolved societally and biologically beyond whatever they were in the past, mostly living in peace with each other. As such any prejudices between the two groups isn't justified. Even if there is violence in the past, that's no reason for prejudice in the now. In the context of Zootopia's story and the message it tries to convey, I don't find it too problematic that one group used to hunt the other group because that's how predators survived because it really doesn't try to make it seem, like, as if predators are like black people and prey are white people who have justifiable prejudices against them.
If anything it makes the messaging even stronger. These are animals who HAVE naturally been enemies who have come to live peacefully together. If even natural enemies of nature can do so, why couldn't humans who have no such predisposition to hunt people with different skin colour or religion for food/resources?
If anything it makes the messaging even stronger. These are animals who HAVE naturally been enemies who have come to live peacefully together. If even natural enemies of nature can do so, why couldn't humans who have no such predisposition to hunt people with different skin colour or religion for food/resources?
Yeah, that part of it is fine. There are just some flaws in the delivery. You can't really blame people for taking issue with the idea that a minority group is genetically predisposed to violent behavior. The movie puts that front and center and it kind of overshadows the other idea that they were somehow a privileged group. It's messy.
Do the predator animals actually have those instincts though at this point, even so much as a hint of them, anymore than in the real world we humans have caveman or hunter-predator instincts so to speak? It's been a while since I watched it but from what I remember, the movie doesn't do much to support that notion, and that seems to be kinda the point here... That those supposed "instincts" don't exist anymore and yet nonetheless the predator animals are assumed to have them anyway based on their looks and history. In much the same way that we humans were all hunter-gatherers at once point but that was a very long time ago and just because that's our past doesn't mean there's any such thing as "going caveman" or anything, because that's not how anything works. Zootopia seems to be using a similar logic for its predators: that yeah, some undefined time ago, they were "savage," but assuming that means anything for the predators of today and being all sins of the father about it, that that was ever a thing ever must mean it's also true today, is reasoning that makes no sense and does no one any good to make those kind of assumptions.
Of course, just change "do" to "did" in that sentence, and that's a valid take on why the analogy obviously isn't a 1:1 because the point remains that there's nothing specific to minorities in the real world while there was something specific to predators in the world of Zootopia. It's still a nonsensical reason for hating on predators that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny when you think about it and as the film points out, but predators nonetheless did something at some point while real world minorities did nothing ever.
I don't personally think the metaphor is meant to be carried through that far and the whole point is that being prejudiced, making generalizations and assumptions about entire groups of people is an extremely bad thing to do and no one should do that ever, but I can't blame anyone if they're personally uncomfortable with the analogy, especially since in the real world minorities often are compared to animals in all kinds of offensive ways. That's not the intent here and I don't believe the metaphor is believed to be carried through that far, to actually imply that real-world minorities ever actually did anything at any point that "started it" and makes them "deserve it" or anything like that, but whether it's intended or not ultimately doesn't matter, so I can't really blame anyone if that does rub that the wrong way.
Yea I get that, it's a bit tricky to divide what is alegory and what is fantastical. I suppose because I assumed the predators were white I just saw that as a plot element. If I had saw them as a different race than me I might have flinched at bit at that being a possible connection due to historicaly racist perceptions.
Yes, I think the movie implies that. That the instincts were gone. The flaw is still there since, as you said, that distinction never existed between humans. We were all hunters/gatherers, not just a specific portion of us. We were always the same level of dangerous while in their world the predadors ate other animals at some point in time.
I still think the movie works and I agree with you that you are not supposed to take it that far but given that in our world predators are dangerous still I think the movie does lose something by using that allegory. We can't easily imagine a where lions aren't going to eat it which makes the fact that, in Zootopia, they don't have that instinct much harder to buy or even internalize.
The message was for children, and basically "prejudice is bad". I don't see any deeper meaning really.
Nope, honestly you can put it in the pile with the other useless allegory for racism stuff in sci-fi and fantasy stuff that's probably unironically enjoyed by bigots. If you really wanna tackle racism then the talk about actual racism.
That's almost like using nanomachines as an excuse.
When you get down to the bedrock of it, it just doesn't work.
I didn't even know it was possible to watch Zootopia and not realize it's a movie that's largely about racism. They weren't exactly subtle with a lot of the lines, there were even jokes about microaggressions.
Anyway, I agree with the people saying that it doesn't need to be a perfect analogy to be effective and make a point. It all made sense in the context of its own world and it told a competent story, and I think that's more important than trying to force all the components and historical context of real-world racism into Zootopia's universe just to make it line up better. Judy had somewhat more of a point than real-world racists do, but she was still wrong and her comment was still rooted in ignorance.
I agree that the movie's sexism and racism messages were a bit confused and awkwardly implemented. If you apply any sort of logic to the movie is starts falling apart, and so the movie does require a particularly strong suspension of disbelief. On top of that, it also kinda sugar coats or glides over much of the most important aspects of racism and sexism such that it dilutes its own message.
Also: The predators were obviously meant to be white people.
Also: The predators were obviously meant to be white people.
Yes and Omega mutants and all the mutant villains that can kill a person in seconds justify the fear society has of mutants pretty well
The only REALLY good racism analogy is the Star trek one with the half white half black dudes and the half black half white dudes
The only REALLY good racism analogy is the Star trek one with the half white half black dudes and the half black half white dudes
Last edited:
I don't think it is an allegory to racism, as much as it is an allegory of segregation in its different forms. The movie fully explores the segregation that would happen in a world inhabited by animals, not because of a direct correlation with human society and racism, but because segregation can happen for any type of difference and be as complex as those differences are.
Maybe it would be better to apply the allegory to the sexes, then. People make the same sort of evolutionary / anthropological arguments about men and women thinking differently, e.g. men as "hunters" and women as "nurturers", and it is probably more pervasive (or at least more socially acceptable) than scientific racism is these days. You still find a lot of people who think there is nothing wrong with arguing that it is better for a woman to be a stay-at-home parent than a man due to genetics.
The specific problem with racism is that there's no actual biological behavioural differences between any ethnicity or race that isn't societally programmed. Ergo racism is unjustified in the real world.
Zootopia is the exact opposite of this, as there is definitive differences in behaviour between the species, life threatening even. Ergo racism is actually 100% justified in the world of Zootopia.
And that's the problem with the film.
Zootopia is the exact opposite of this, as there is definitive differences in behaviour between the species, life threatening even. Ergo racism is actually 100% justified in the world of Zootopia.
And that's the problem with the film.
Blacksad handles it completely different.
They just go straight into "fur colour".
(It's a great comic and more people should read it)
They just go straight into "fur colour".
(It's a great comic and more people should read it)
Moana was 10x better than Zootopia, and The Red Turtle was 10x better than Moana.
Hmm? What differences in behavior are there in the modern world of Zootopia?
Zootopia may have flaws. But that's not one. The whole point of the film is that there is no biological or behavioral basis for hatin' on predators, just bringing up history that has nothing to do with modern predators or modern Zootopia society.
There are certainly other potential issues, such as predators so much as having that historical basis to begin with, as you touch in in your first paragraph, which obviously does not translate to real-world minorities. But nonetheless there is no difference in behavior between the species, and yet it's common to think there is anyway. That kind of prejudice, those kind of stereotypical assumptions are exactly the type of thing the film was critiquing. The modern "predator animals" aren't a threat to the "prey animals" in Zootopia, in any way, not by merely being one anyway.
How do you miss the point so hard to even think that? Like, with Nick's character arc and everythng? Him being bullied as a kid due to being a fox and thus it being in his nature to only end up doing bad things, even though Nick had no interest in doing any of that stuff and just wanted to be the equivalent of a Boy Scout at the time, like the other kids? There was no difference in behavior, he wanted to be the same as the others, but everyone just seeing "fox" and thus there MUST be a difference even though there wasn't, and so it winding up with them going so far as to try and muzzle him and stuff.
Like, are the people saying this stuff, and going "but he is a fox and in OUR world (key word being our world, as in, not Zootopia's) foxes are still wild creatures that are violent and dangerous and therefore the analogy doesn't work" people that would agree with the kids that bullied Nick as a kid? Do you really not get why those kids were wrong to bully him and make those assumptions about him? And if you do get it, what's with this "but there were difference in behavior between the species" stuff? 'Cause there aren't any, not any that have any modern relevance in the film anyway. But yet they persisted anyway, and stuff like what happened to Nick happened and you have the true antagonist's plot in the film, etc.
Of all the criticisms to lobby at the film (and indeed, there are valid ones), this one, which seems to be the same one the thread itself is based on, is just weird to me and seems to be missing the point of the film so badly it baffles me.
Blacksad handles it completely different.
They just go straight into "fur colour".
(It's a great comic and more people should read it)
i love blacksad but it's definitely not for childrens, lol
the message isn't exactly the same either
That Nick chooses not to be violent does not change the fact that as a Predator he is naturally violent.
The message of the film is that racism is bad in this world because the aggressive races (the Predators) can just surpress their violent and awful racial behaviours.
The problem is the implication that they even have anything to surpress at all ruins the analogy.
ITT : People who have a very narrow view of how these subjects should be tackled and therefore take things as 1:1 parallels. Really even they are ignoring how throughout history, even to this day, humans have seen other cultures/races as being savages and tried to either "civilize" or destroy them based on those beliefs.
The fact that some are arguing that the prejudice against predators is justified really makee me question their reading comprehension. Predators haven't been eating prey for thousands of years at this point and any threat they might pose because of teeth and claws is nothing compared to what prey animals like elephants or hippos could do. No prey living in this time period has even come close to ever legit fearing that a predator will up and eat them or their friends, any stories passed down will have been lost to time and change. So no, the prejudice isn't justified as it is based upon ancient behaviors no longer present. Judy can buy into believing that it is possible to revert because of her own prejudices to a bad experience with a fox in childhood and warped beliefs spouted by her parents. The roots are the same.
The fact that some are arguing that the prejudice against predators is justified really makee me question their reading comprehension. Predators haven't been eating prey for thousands of years at this point and any threat they might pose because of teeth and claws is nothing compared to what prey animals like elephants or hippos could do. No prey living in this time period has even come close to ever legit fearing that a predator will up and eat them or their friends, any stories passed down will have been lost to time and change. So no, the prejudice isn't justified as it is based upon ancient behaviors no longer present. Judy can buy into believing that it is possible to revert because of her own prejudices to a bad experience with a fox in childhood and warped beliefs spouted by her parents. The roots are the same.
Okay, I'll bite. What was the original storyline supposed to be?
Another thread where posters discover that allegories/metaphors/analogies work by drawing parallels between relevant similarities, not by supplying a perfect 1:1 map of the subject.
Based on what? There's no evidence to support that predators are naturally violent in any way. Which is also part of why Nick gets so disappointed when Judy gives the press conference. That he briefly started to trust someone again against his better instincts, decidedly to naively give some one a chance, and despite her knowing better, her nonetheless so much as entertaining the notion of there being some type of actual biological basis for what was going on.
Some unstated time ago (pretty sure the timeframe in the play was unstated though I don't really remember) predators were indeed violent. But then in the hundreds of thousands-millions of years since, society and stuff happened. They developed language, and grew, and became members of civilized society like everyone else. There's absolutely zero support in the film for any claim that modern day Predators are "naturally violent" and it does absolutely everything in it's power to refute it. The idea that their past has any relevance or should be given any credence in the world of the film would be just as insane as thinking there's some kind of "caveman" switch or that humans can magically, in any way, go all "hunter-gatherer" on others out of nowhere, and again, that's part of why Nick's so disappointed at Judy during the press-conference scene. That he thought that perhaps, after everything thus far, maybe, just maybe, she would know better than that, but she slipped into those same thinking he'd been seeing his entire life.
Or let me put it like this: what evidence, whatsoever, is there in the film that modern Predators in Zootopia society are "naturally violent" that's not the fact that they are capable of doing damage naturally, without weapons, if they so choose? Because that's a completely different subject than being naturally violent. Being capable of causing harm and being naturally violent are too different things.
Like, I don't know what Nick's nonetheless "naturally violent" is supposed to mean. He didn't just "choose" not be violent, he was never violent to begin with. To say he's "naturally violent" implies that he's, like, fighting off violent tendencies or something and that if he didn't do that, he would be a violent beast or anything... But there's no evidence for anything of the sort. He's just not violent, period. There's no natural or whatever about this. There's no evidence that he's violent period, in any way, without using the flawed thinking that the film criticizes that "well, millions of years ago, your evolutionary ancestors were violent, so therefore you must be naturally violent too."
Feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Its supposed to be a world where prey and predators evolved to be more or less the same intellectually and emotionally
If I'm recalling correctly, the story involved predators wearing shock collars or something that kept their emotions in check, due to fear that they'd attack.
Yes, if you try to make it a 1-1 allegory, it falls apart. I don't think it was ever supposed to be 1-1. And it's kind of offensive that people keep trying to make it so.
If you watch movie thinking predators = black people, one fuck you, two you missed the point that they still have their own world.
If you watch movie thinking predators = black people, one fuck you, two you missed the point that they still have their own world.
Zootopia was better by a mile.
It doesn't make sense because the majority, for mellennia, was oppressed and eaten by the minority. And even though the predators and prey evolved, they still retained the physical characteristics of being a predator or prey. The scene where the kid puts on an elephant costume as an allegory for being transgender was really awkward too. Zootopia tried to take advantage of the current political climate and suffered because of it. Should have just been a buddy cop movie.
I don't think the movie was even making direct parallels to any particular race just general fear of minorities due to assumptions that may have been true at one point they have evolved way past that and none of the predators we see are particularly violent than any other race
Not that it's perfect but I feel like people missing the point
It was a good movie for framing discussions about prejudice and oppression with a very young child so she can start internalizing those ideas young and learning behaviors to help herself and her friends. Does it stand up to 1:1 analysis done by adults? No. Was it meant to?
That's what I thought this thread was going to be about actually, considering the movie tries to cut both ways in terms of discrimination against prey and against predators. I recall Lindsay Ellis intimating that she might do a video about Zootopia and Racial Allegory vis a vis "false flag sheep."
I do recognize that message isn't meant to go deeper than "prejudice and profiling bad" and the movie still rocks on a technical level, but I am definitely curious to hear more about this particular angle.
You're right. People saying the analogy is ruined basically need a documentary on real-life racism to be satisfied. The analogy in Zootopia works fine, as it was given more than enough context. Even if we might consider it flawed, it wouldn't be ruined. An analogy does not need to be perfectly 1:1 to work.
It's not a problem because they aren't drawing any kind of direct parallels to real-life humans. It's a world where animals have evolved into societies & beings that can co-exist without eating each other/being eaten. And in such a world, it's dumb to hold on to prejudices based on past behaviour of any given animal species. It's not an allegory of animalistic black people and civilized white people or terrorist Muslims and victim Christians. It's just a story of a world where two groups with past animosity have learned to co-exist and how some people's prejudices almost bring that down.
Allright, I went back and watched a couple of scenes before getting into any drawn out argument and I will more than admit you are right. The predators are not naturally violent, I was misremembering the film (in my defence it was a while back). So i apologise for that.
Not necesarily black but they are definitely using some of that imagery.
Okay I really did not get that out of that scene. I viewed it as "kid dressing up as a princess or astronaut or animal," since that's a thing kids do...
Come to think of it, it is kind of weird that the kid is dressing up as another species in the context of "oh kids like to play dress-up and play make believe" when the film is trying to lean into "different species=different races/ethnicities/cultures"
I'd chalk it up to "This is not one of the things the film is focusing on" and leave it there
Because that is how human (and in this case, anthromorphised animal) prejudice manifests itself, regardless of the motivations behind the prejudice.Allright, I went back and watched a couple of scenes before getting into any drawn out argument and I will more than admit you are right. The predators are not naturally violent, I was misremembering the film (in my defence it was a while back). So i apologise for that.
Not necesarily black but they are definitely using some of that imagery.
Considering it's a con by Nick to use to get pity and him saying iirc along the lines of "get these ideas into his head" I don't think you're supposed to think much of it besides Nick being slimy and for a joke
Moana was literally a better Pocahontas. Granted, I liked really liked it. Zootopia had a watered down, santitized racism allegory that doesn't hold up when you think of it. People can say that it is a kids movie, but the in the movie, the evil rabbit is afraid of predators because they are inherently more dangerous than the prey. It's a shitty lesson to me teaching children that racists are kind of right because black people are inherently dangerous.
Yes, aspects of it are based around that. But then other aspects of the world are based around the same concept. The sheep for example with the hair scene.Allright, I went back and watched a couple of scenes before getting into any drawn out argument and I will more than admit you are right. The predators are not naturally violent, I was misremembering the film (in my defence it was a while back). So i apologise for that.
Not necesarily black but they are definitely using some of that imagery.
OP
OP
There actually is evidence to support that in the movie though. Not with Nick specifically (I have no issues with Nick at all and think he's the best character in the movie), but there is evidence in the movie that the change in behaviour is societal rather than biological, even without the deleted scene that made it super obvious what was going on. The most obvious is the entire 'drugs that turn an animal savage' plot. If the change was truly 'evolution', surely a drug wouldn't just change them back to being savage? Just like how if we drink alcohol we don't turn back in Neanderthals. That's what I'm arguing when I'm saying that when Judy says 'Maybe we should watch out for predators', she kind of has a point. The predators are clearly still able to be a huge danger to society if a piece of vegetable that can be bought at a grocer is enough to turn them into killers again.
I don't think anyone is arguing 'predators = black people', no? Predators are the minorities in the world, but I don't think they are supposed to be a specific race. It's not like Bright.