I watched this movie a very long time ago so my memory could be hazy. I also might be reading too much into it.

Asgard is destined to be completely destroyed in a catastrophe called Ragnarok. This is something from Norse mythology which I don’t know anything about but is a popular theme in popular media. The whole film is about Thor trying to deal with Rigmaroll.

His solution in the end is to evacuate Asgards inhabitants and remove them from the land, let Ragnarok happen which also destroys the Bad Guy. So Asgard is destroyed but Asgardians live on. His rationalisation is that Asgard is not made by its land, geography etc. but its people, the Asgardians, and they can possibly make another Asgard later on unburdened by predetermined destruction.

Now I gotta be honest, overall I thought the movie was alright. The Bad Guy was terrible and uninteresting. But I liked the comedy in it. And this interpetation of Ragnarok is pretty clever IMO. The problem I have is that this complete disentanglement of the people and their land is incorrect. I guess in a fictional treat slop based on magical mythology it would never come up. But IRL the people and the land make each other. There is a recent Prolekult documentary which focuses on how an integral part of capital accumulation is the dispossesion of land from people which I am not intelligent enough to rehash.

I think this could be ignored but then you realise that this movie is by and (mostly) for cultures that are built on colonialism and settlerism, processes that are centuries old and still ongoing. Downplaying the ills of robbing people of their land and sovreignty is done on a regular basis. Palestinians are currently being robbed of their lives and their land at the moment. How do Marvel treat enjoyers understand the implications of removing all Palestinians from Palestine and relocating them to a neighbouring country?

As I said I am probably reading too much into it.