I feel like people are purposefully misunderstanding the argument scene, so ill try to explain it in simple terms.
First off, there is a difference in understanding where a person is coming from and saying what a person did was right.
Secondly, lets give some context of the scene, okay? aang is leading them through the tornados and stuff along with tagah. During the storm, aang realizes that they should go back bc its too dangerous but tagah convinces him to keep moving on and to “trust in [his] friends” (which aang does. tagah knows this and purposefully uses aang's trust to make him do what he wants)
But after quite literally almost dying, katara decides to talk to aang, asking him what he was thinking (rightfully so). Tagah then once again interferes, telling them that they need to keep going.
Here is where the heat of the moment comes into play.
Aang gives an excuse that is true, BUT not really his main motive, and says that
"The staff is still out there. the Denied are after it".
(he's bringing their responsibility into this. trying to convince her)
Katara then reasons sense with him bc theres no way they could get thru the storm, and then as a last effort of trying to convince her, the core reason of it all is revealed:
This is the true point of the entire movie: Aang’s grief and loneliness and how he desperately yearns for community, for his tribe, people who can understand him, people who he lost and feels that he failed.
And then Katara tries to reason by saying she “understands how much [he] wants that” and then we get the infamous line where aang says
“You don’t understand. None of you understand,”
This is a perfect example of a very commonly used trope in media where a person saying something hurtful or what they didn't really mean in the heat of an argument.
Sometimes what is said is said to “win” an argument:
But sometimes what is said is objectively true, despite how hurtful it is to the other person:
In this scenario, aang’s words are objectively true. BUT that doesnt mean what he said was fair or kind.
This is a parallel to the Southern Raiders episode where Katara, in the heat of the moment, and in her grief/anger/frustration, tells Sokka this:
This moment too falls under this trope and would also be objectively true, because yeah, Katara was closer to her mother than Sokka.
But notice this, in both the movie and this ep, neither the narrative nor the characters say that what aang/katara said was right instead they paint it was something ill-spoken and uncalled for as we can see the reactions:
And both aang and Katara immediately regrets their words bc they both knows they took it too far
So while yes objectively, what both they said is true to an extent (katara being closer to their mom // no one fully understanding aang) what they said is painted as uncalled for and rude by the narrative/writing.
This is a common trope used in multiple forms of media to create tension between characters. Typically it happens in the third arc, but thats not always the case.
So yes, if you were watching both scenes and went "wtf aang/katara" when they said their statements, then the writers did their job because youre meant to be saying "wtf".
you're meant to question them at this moment because this a moment of moral grayness. (also pay attention the the background when aang says this?? that sickly green color?? its meant to make you feel uncomfortable. its meant to show the moral grayness at play)
no one is defending what aang said. but it is stupid to not understand why it was said. because in the end of the day, aang's statement is true despite it being uncalled for. no one can ever fully understand aang, not even katara, bc while katara is the last SWT waterbender, she still has her culture, people, customs (ex ice dodging), and older people like Gran Gran who could tell her of times of old. Aang?? he has nothing but his memories. his custom, culture, songs, folklore/stories, foods, people---theyre all gone. and he was only 12. there was so much he never got to learn, so much of the Air Nomads culture lost in the flames.
when people "defend" this scene we're only giving a reasoning, an explanation, a deep dive into aang's thoughts and why he said what he said. no one is defending what he said as okay or acceptable. similarly, no one is defending what katara said to sokka. but we do understand why she said it.
this is just a writing trope put into play. but keep in mind that this low point of grief for both aang and katara does not define their characters as a whole. so it is unfair to characterize them or judge them by their respective arguments.
ill bring Toy Story up bc everyone's watched it: it would be as dumb for us to hate woody just bc his character revolves around andy, likewise it would be dumb for us to hate aang just bc his character revolves around everything he lost: his culture, music, customs, food, community, people, everything. its who he is.
also if you dont like aang maybe dont watch a movie called "Avatar Aang: The Last Airbender"??? i mean... it is HIS movie... and like... he's the main character here so...
ellievsbear
amandla
gamechangershow
andulkaphoto
stormborns
romaincrisis
areudirty
origamiaround
izzy806
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
