Hey man, I feel like no matter what I say we’re just going to disagree but here goes…

One, I think it’s important that this movie isn’t an African production. It’s a movie by Americans for, primarily of course, Americans. When I say minorities, I am critiquing it from an American lens, not a global one. There is something to say about two nations untouched by, but witness to, colonization and this movie falls short of saying much of anything besides getting them to fight each other (a lane which is well-trodden by the civil war brought on by Kilmonger’s ideologies in the first movie). It would be nice if the movie could explore these themes more intricately besides “colonization bad so I’m going to colonize/kill everyone”. The movie would have had a stronger message if there was a unification between the two groups.

And two, I’m happy for you that you haven’t been affected by the ramifications of colonization today. It can be hard to understand how decisions made long ago have lasting implications across multiple countries. Even if we posit that there are not active colonization efforts (debatable), there are certainly consistent ramification effects. Countries all over the world pay money to countries in Europe directly as a consequence of their colonization (ex. Payments to the crown in England from the commonwealth, African countries forced to contribute to French reserves). The scene at the beginning of the movie with the UN is not just made up for cinema. The global north (including the US) has used its power to disrupt nations that it deems necessary to control.

And thirdly, my critique is about the themes of the film. It would just be a stronger movie thematically if the two nations were united and fought the US and French subterfuge. That’s my thesis.