who is bobby dylan wrote: ↑
Tue May 22, 2018 3:34 pm
It is not clear that the King wields absolute power. There is no evidence based on T'Chaka or T'Challa's rule that they were autocratic rulers or that the system functioned as an autocracy. We have to base all assumptions about this on Killmonger's brief rule and whether he is acting within the normal powers of the King or going beyond them. How can a King have absolute power over a country that has completely independent regions within it? The tribal leaders aren't just advisers, we know that they control actual geographical boundaries within the country and in the case of the border tribe, a branch of its government. That W'Kabi follows the order of Killmonger to use the army in the way he does is not proof that Killmonger has absolute authority over the army. We do not know if W'Kabi had the power to refuse or if such refusals would be within the norm. The film gives us reasons to believe that he goes along with Killmonger because of his apprehension of Klaw and because he is in ideological agreement with him, this would all be superfluous information if he just had to do it. The only person/group that we know who have a specific loyalty to the King are the Dora Milaje, which makes sense since they are his personal body guards. We also know that the King's reign can be challenged (though the time intervals are not clear) by a representative of any of the tribes, so again, not absolute power. We just don't see any of the King's exercise a wide enough array of powers to know that they rule absolutely. All the powers we do see are essentially related to foreign policy, where you would expect the King to have the most latitude in using their power.
You can provide no evidence of checks, balances, or anything within the system to demonstrate it is not authoritarian. We see little to nothing of T'Chaka or T'Challa's rule. You can give no evidence that Killmonger wouldn't already
have control of the army. At best, W'Kabi's motivations just tell us why he doesn't side with T'Challa from the start and head a revolution. We see both the army and W'Kabi do nothing that suggests transgressing laws or exceeding their social or political roles. No one questions or is outraged at the actions of the army. You're nit picking this because you want me to be wrong, not because you have evidence of it.
Frankly, if a king doesn't control the army, he is no king, he is a puppet of the generals. History is pretty conclusive about this. Control of the army is necessary to all kingships. Wakanda is a warrior cult. That a warrior cult with a king at its head would neuter its king by placing its army under the command of its generals only is ludicrous and not to be taken seriously.
I can provide plenty of evidence through Killmonger for how that system works when a ruler wishes to be autocratic. If a system allows a ruler to be autocratic, then the system is autocratic. The best you're able to do is try to nit pick my evidence with information you don't have.
who is bobby dylan wrote:We see Killmonger threaten the life of one subordinate, an older woman in a private setting. That she did not refuse the second order of someone who threatened her with violence is not proof that the King normally has absolute power. The fact that she initially refused the order, until threatened is actually proof of the opposite. If he had absolute power the threat wouldn't have been necessary. The only other people in the room at the time are other older women. That they did not stand up to an enhanced individual, capable of murdering all of them, who had just threatened one of them, is not proof that what is happening is normal.
No. She hesitated and said it was tradition, and he choked her in front of the others to make an example of her. There was no refusal, there was only hesitation because she was flabbergasted. The king can physically threaten and manhandle subordinates in full view of witnesses without negative repercussions. Ergo, this is something the king is allowed to do.
who is bobby dylan wrote:The reason there is a fight at the end is because Killmonger refuses to resume the challenge and W'Kabi (whom the film has taken pains to show is in ideological agreement with Killmonger) backs Killmonger, in what is in effect a civil war at that point. They never bring up any illegality as to the circumstances of the challenge, so that is imagined on your part. Zuri intervenes (wrongly and is killed). The challenge continues, Killmonger believes he kills T'Challa by throwing him off the side of the falls and the heads of the tribe acknowledge the legality of the outcome. Perhaps you're making the point that M'Baku's people violated the rules by fishing him out of the river instead of letting him die, but no one in the film makes this charge or uses it as a justification for their actions. Whereas Okyoe (who we know adheres to the rules) uses Killmonger's refusal to resume the challenge as a justification for backing T'Challa who is effectively still King at that point.
You are wrong at pedantic length. T'Challa survived the duel because of illegal outside interference, regained his powers due to the theft of palace property by a loyal follower, and was allowed to start battle through an illegal attempt by the previous royal family to restore him to power. This is not disputable.
I would actually argue that T'Challa should not have been able to resume any contest. Any battle or duel or fight is over once one combatant is rendered unable to continue. I think knocking someone unconscious, including by throwing them over a waterfall, counts as winning, unless someone wants to argue that, in Wakandan royal contests, if you knock someone out you are forced either to kill them or wait until they wake up and then fight again until they submit, are killed, or get knocked out again.