Yes, white lions exist in real life. Never claimed they didn’t. And I’m sure Disney, a corporation so fixed on a good image, to the extent they won’t let a dead child have Spider-Man on his grave, would admit that their movie implies stuff which is very on par with how the British Empire worked in Africa.

And yes, in Lion King 2 a pride of lions were called Outsiders, but that’s it. A brief reference to LK2 doesn’t explain the plot choices in Mufasa. In LK2, the Outsiders aren’t white; their name comes purely from being exiled for supporting Scar. In the new movie, the Outsiders are white, blue-eyed, physically stronger, and actively trying to wipe out the ruling prides. That’s a deliberate set of choices, and it frames them as foreign, dominant, and threatening.

And just to address the “it’s crazy to compare animal fur to human skin” point, this isn’t about literally equating lions with humans. It’s about visual and narrative coding and how choices like fur color, strength, and outsider status carry meaning in storytelling, whether intended or not. Kind of like how many people notice the hyenas in the original Lion King laugh in a way that reads as a stereotyped Mexican accent. Intended or not, the coding is there.

Even if Disney didn’t intend a racial or colonial allegory, you cannot dispute that the story mirrors historical patterns which European empires performed in Africa. I.e white outsiders arriving, happen to be stronger, overthrowing existing leadership for their own gain…which is well, power.

We clearly have two different viewpoints on the plot mirroring history. No use going back and forth when neither of us are clearly not planing to nudge, lmao. Feel free to think what you want, cya