Maya and the Three Critique

Whilst created well for its target audience, there were so many problems in this show that it was hard for any good bits to shine through. 

Eroding Culture

The fact that the show made a habit of eroding indigenous American culture and replacing it with that of their Spanish conquerers was truly awful.

The characters using Spanish words was the worst decision made in this show. 
      Spanish conquistadors took indigenous peoples' land, killing and enslaving their people. Conquistadors took away the wealth, health, life, liberty, land, language, future and religion of the indigenous populations. 
      So this show replaces native identity with a Spanish one, despite everything the Spanish did to them. For a show promoting native culture, this was awful.

The theme of eroding culture continues.
      The show is presented as pre-Columbian. Black people didn't arrive until post-Columbian contact. Yet this show has black people. 
      Representing the diversity of today isn't appropriate when the show is celebrating pre-Columbian culture. 
      Giving today's diversity the culture of previous civilisations seems like cultural misapproptiation to me.

Though the show is in English, lots of Spanish words are thrown in the mix. 
      But surely if you wanted to include another language in your show, you'd include a language native to the area that the show is based? 
      You'd pick a language from the culture you're representing, not the language of the conquerors that decimated indigenous lives.

Chimi was raised by a monkey (called Monkey). 
      Now, Monkey looked like an Old World monkey. However, this show is based in the New World. So to erase America's monkeys for the monkeys of a different part of the world? Not okay.
      I suppose if black people came to America, Old World Monkeys could, too. (After all, that's how the ancestors of New World monkeys arrived in the first place.) But as this human migration is problematic, the monkey migration is as much as issue, making it a bad explanation for Monkey's presence.

Animation Fails

There are two massive felines: Maya's jaguar Chiapa and Zatz's puma Colmillo. 
      Despite being different species, their shape, height and length were identical. Whereas, in real life, puma-jaguar visual differences are very significant. Especially size and shape.
      Sure, there were design differences, but these weren't significant. Chiapa having big shoulders and Colmillo having sabreteeth? Minor details. 
      Chiapa's gold-rosetted black coat and Colmillo's beige countershading? More extreme colour variations can be found within a single population of a species. Thus Chiapa-Colmillo colour differences aren't a suitable method for species differentiation.
      These don't overturn how identical they are in all the areas used in real life to distinguish jaguars and pumas. What's the point of naming them different species when also making them fundamentally similar?

When Pichu shakes his hair side-to-side, the animation is awful. 
      The hair is a stable, solid mass, not flicking and barely even swaying. That's simply not realistic. 
      Considering the shot is zoomed in and focused on Pichu shaking his hair, the hair shaking is the point of that shot. An effort should've been made to make it good.

Bad Body Designs

The body proportions are really weird. 
      Most female characters are short and thin of waist, chest and limb; most male characters are tall with thick waists, chests and limbs. Yet they didn't look muscular but instead obese. 
      The heads of the males were proportional to the rest of their bodies, but the heads of the females? Massive. Absolutely massive. 
      The Grand Bruja had an unrealisitically sized, and shaped, nose. Thus realistic bodies were clearly out the window. But within that, good choices could still have been made so that the creative choices didn't create issues.

Three men are on the shorter, skinnier side. The only well-done one is Zatz, whose body is in proportion with itself. His limbs and torso aren't skinny, meaning his body isn't instantly (this show's version of) feminine.
      Then you have Rico. His body does conform to the scary-skinny sizes portrayed as feminine. Yet Rico's character is portrayed as greedy, deceptive and cowardly. These traits are stereotypes against women. So to have Rico's imagery reinforce these stereotypes was bad.
      The jungle king was another skinny male character with negative personality traits. However, his characteristics clearly fall in the male category (ego, self-entitlement, fearmongering). Still, the size and proportions of his character are still a problem.
      
Maya's proportions were the worst of all. Being the main character, they should have been better. 
      Her head is bigger than anything else. Her arms and waist are so thin they're basically nonexistant. Her thighs are thicc with a capital CC. 
      It was like her body parts came from different bodies. It was disturbing and very distracting. Sure, it made her stand-out, but other animators make protagonists stand out without resorting to impossible body shapes.

Bad Choices

The characters' choices, their decisions, often lack sense or logic. 
      
Consider the names of the weapons.   
      Those of Maya's and Zatz's swords are, frankly, bonkers. The names don't match the designs. 
      Zatz's Crimson Moon sword is green, not red. Maya's Eagle Claw is decorated with an eagle's beak, not a claw.

At the end, Maya fights the god of war who takes the shape of a giant snake, head at each end. Maya asks Micte and Zatz to distract the snake... only for Maya's battlecry to (intentionally) gain its attention. 
      Usually, you get someone to distract something so you can act without their knowledge. So Maya attracting the snake when she's asked for it to be distracted? Utter nonsense. 
      Yes, she uses this distraction time to have quite a lengthy chat with her parents which was appropriately timed. Yet, having done this, Maya should still have made use of a distracted snake.

The Jungle Queen directed the jungle animal god after he had his eyes plucked out. Then the queen tells the god to go towards the sun. 
      But he's blind, meaning he can't see the sun. So how could he know the sun's direction, let alone go towards it? 
      This took place at early dawn. Hence there's no way he could have felt the heat of the sun, meaning the warmth couldn't guide him, either. 

Animation Successes

Animation is vibrant and beautiful. 
      All the gold was fully shiny. The carvings and other artforms were intricate, all the way to the minute level. Even if the visuals had been of lower quality, I'd still praise them because it perfectly matches with the indigenous culture the show's based on. 
      The black people's hair didn't look animated. Rather, it looked textured in the same way as real life, being woolly or wirey depending on the individual.

Aside from cultural visuals, the looks of animals were also good.
      Chiapa is a panther with golden rosettes. Usually, jaguars are golden with black rosettes. This switch was creative (plus it matches the culture's aesthetic of adding gold to everything).
      Rico makes magical frogs and they have bum cheeks. Utterly unrealistic, but funny. Also, most people don't properly know the anatomy of frogs, so why would Rico? Not knowing frog anatomy means true frog anatomy can't be replicated.

Good Decisions

There were positives in other departments. They deserve recognition.
      Maya goes down the throat of one double-headed snake; the other head follows her down the throat. This means that, when the second head breathes fire, it ends up hurting itself. This was very clever.
      This show had the right amount of fun, repetitiveness and simplicity, serving the intended audiences' age bracket.
      The show starts with an eagle holding a snake, being a reference to the image on the Mexican flag. The lands of now-Mexico are the location of this programme.

Maya's companions were all social outcasts, but they all belonged together. That's lovely messaging.
      Rico is an outcast because he's a peasant. Chimi is one because she's a jungle-dwelling albino individual, considered cursed by her people. 
      Pichu, on the other hand, itsn't cast out by others but by his self-imposed isolation. So this was a nice twist to the outcast theme of the Three.

Questions

The characters spoke in various Latino accents. 
      Do indigenous Americans speaking English even have a Latino accent? If they do have Latino accents in real life then this would be appropriate. 
      But if indigenous people don't have Latino accents in real life? Then this decision is just eroding indigenous people's identity.

The characters are indigenous to Central America. 
      Maya, the main character, is demonym for one of most influential cultures in Central America. So her name is a bit on the nose. 
      Picchu's name is reminiscent of Machu Picchu, a sight in Peru, South America. But this show is based on civilisations in Central America. So were the creators aiming for a Pan-American identity, or were they confusing cultures?

Conclusion

To be honest, I wish I hadn't watched this show. The negatives were overwhelming, blotting out the impact of the positives. The disregard of indigenous culture, eroding it to make room for Spanish influence, was disrespectful and thoughtless.

Love you no matter what

Good Intentions

When someone comes out as gay, positive responses tend to be along the lines of 'we love you no matter what' or 'we still love you'. 

It's intended to be comforting and reassuring: their sexuality doesn't change how the loved ones feel. That who they love romantically doesn't stop them from being loved by friends and family.

Bad Optics

However, these expressions are a double-edged sword.
      Adding either 'no matter what' or 'still' always makes something negative. They are never used for anything positive.
      Essentially, they're reassurances. Reaasurances are given when things won't change (/won't have negative consequences) despite there being a reason why they should. 
      In this instance, the 'thing that won't change' is love and the 'reason why' is being gay. Which means the speaker thinks being gay is a legitimate reason to be unloved.
      A loved one could just say, "I love you." There's no need to include 'still' or 'no matter what': adding one of these negative phrases in unnecessary. All it does is provide legitimacy to the negative perceptions.

Imagine it. 
      You come out. Your loved ones say one of these phrases to let you know who you are as a person is bad and is an okay reason to be denied love. That's not comforting.
      Sure, these loved ones are specifically saying that it doesn't matter. But that could change at any moment. Especially when they so easily understood and accepted that being gay is a justifiable reason to disown gay people. 
      When you're gay, you see this happening to friends, how heartwrenching is it, how destructive it can be. So to see your loved ones accept that as not only okay but also as a moral choice must be soul destroying. 

So no. Being told 'we love you no matter what' or 'we still love you' is not comforting in the slightest.

Positive Alternatives

There are alternatives without negative connotations. 
      "Thank you for trusting me. I love you and I'm proud of you." 
      "Love whoever you want as long as they make you happy, just like I love you and you make me happy."

Academic doctors are proper doctors

People often say academic doctors (doctors of philosophy, PhD) aren't 'real' doctors because they aren't medical doctors (M.D.). 
      But the fact that the latter are specified as 'medical' doctors means that there have to be other kinds of doctors. These others have to be 'real doctors', otherwise they wouldn't count!
      So it's erroneous to think only M.D.s are true doctors. Especially when looking at what 'doctor' means.

Doctors of Philosophy

The term doctor originates from the Latin 'doctor', meaning 'to teach'. It was a title granted to learned teachers of the Bible.
      Later, the Roman Catholic Pope would bestow a licentia docendi (the license to teach) upon those who met stringent criteria, such as passing a test. This developed into academic courses which, eventually, could be awarded by universities rather than the pope.
      With this, 'doctor' became a title awarded to someone who had completed a postgraduate degree called a doctorate (aka a PhD). Only three subjects were originally available at this level, being Theology, Medicine and Law.
      So, doctor was a term associated with education which wasn't unique to medical knowledge. Hence doctors of philosophy are valid doctors. 
      Yes, it's been expanded to include more topics, but so has medicine (as well as medical techniques). Thus change doesn't exclude changes from its proper definitions

Doctors of Medicine

Medical practitioners, from physicians to quacks, were commonly called doctors. It was a courtesy that could be granted to those with neither qualifications nor training.
      This usage was recorded as early as the works of Shakespeare. Then, in 1838, it was adopted by the Royal College of Physicians. 
      Following this was the Medical Act 1858, making it illegal to falsely call oneself a doctor of medicine. (Both training and qualifications now required.)
      Medical doctors receive their title after their undergraduate degree in Medicine. So M.D.s have a lower level of education than academic doctors. 
      Hence many people were against this: why should anyone who hasn't done a doctorate be called a doctor? So from their perspective, it was medical doctors who weren't the real doctors!

Medicine Degrees and Beyond

A medicine degree is a lot of hard work, both in terms of completing the degree and in being accepted for it in the first place. 
      Plus they have to keep up to date with research their entire career. Training and exams are on-going. To specialise takes even longer. 
      So yes, studying undergraduate Medicine doesn't take as long as the doctoral pathway (which requires an undergraduate then masters degrees). Yet Medicine degrees are tough, with rigorous learning and assessments ongoing throughout their life. (Through this lifelong learning, the spirit of the degree continues).
      To equate this amount of work with doctor of philosophy makes sense.

Why Choose?

This restriction of terminology is problematic. There's no reason why it should be limited to either academic or medical doctors.

So choosing between academic and medical doctors as the 'true doctors' is reductive and unneccessary. It ignores everything about the title.

Jenrik and Judge Impartiality

 Jenrik complained that judges are no longer impartial. 
      His plan to fix this? Make the Justice Secretary appoint them. 
      But do you know who definitely isn't impartial? Politicians. 
      So how non-impartial politicians are the solution for making judges impartial, I don't know. 
      (*The opposite of 'impartial' nominally is 'partial'. But 'partial' is only ever said in a context like 'He's partial to a cup of tea/piece of cake.' So, in everyday use, 'partial' is not the antonym of 'impartial'. Hence my use of 'non-impartial'.)

A politician belongs to a party with a certain ideology. 
      They'd select judges that match this ideology. (Or, at the very least, they would never select a judge with the opposite ideology.) 
      Ergo, some judges would have less insentive to be impartial because it wouldn't get them anywhere. Of course, many would remain impartial like now because it's the right thing to do. 
      But for those judges who want to rule according to their viewpoints? They're the ones that lose the incentive to be impartial. When they're the ones that require, for the public's benefit, an impartial justice system the most.

We can see this happening in the USA. 
      Judges are selected by a political process (either appointed by politician or elected by constituency). In both instances, they're chosen for their ideology and make judgements based on this ideology. 
      Due to this, law in America is subjective. (Even though the whole point of the law is to be objective!)
      These judges won't get elected again or nominated for higher office if their ruling record doesn't match expectations. So judges chosen via political processes in the USA are certainly not impartial. 
      
Like I said earlier, I think most British judges would remain impartial. 
      But over a long period of time, with non-impartial politicians controlling judicial appointments? Any sentiment to be impartial would gradually disappear. 
      After all, if the UK followed a political process in judicial appointments, why would its results be any different from countries with similar systems? 

So Jenrik's idea, that a non-impartial Justice Secretary would bring back impartiality to judges, is nonsense.

Proud of your disabilities?

I'm proud of what I achieve in spite of my disabilities. I am proud of who I am as a person (which of course includes my health problems). But none of this means I'm proud of the disabilities themselves. 
      
Being proud of who you are includes everything, from disabilities to height and eye colour.
      No-one's self-worth should be reduced over these kinds of features. The kind of features that aren't achievements, the kind of things that just are. 
      Equally, it doesn't make sense to be proud of them, for our self-worth to be enhanced by them. I don't see how that's a viable option.
      Likewise, disabilities should neither reduce nor enhance self-worth. They're a fact of reality: nothing more.

Pride should come from achieving something, when you've done something. 
      But in most cases, people don't do anything to get disabilities. Being proud of something you didn't do seems bizarre.
      (If your actions have resulted in a disability, chances are it wasn't a sensible action: that's not something you should be proud about.)
      Being disabled isn't the achievement. Instead, the accomplishment is rising to the challenges it presents. The accomplishment is learning to love your self. To improve your self-worth if being disabled otherwise created a sense of worthlessness.

The same thing, I suppose, could be said about pride in being gay. That too isn't an accomplishment. 
      Pride events never feel like people being proud about being gay. Rather, the pride comes from being confident and brave enough to be out and open. (This is consistent with phrase 'out and proud' because the pride is literally about being out, not with the gayness itself.)
      So the gayness itself isn't what makes people proud: it's everything around it. I suppose 'proud of being gay' is a shortcut for this?
     
Maybe, then, the same thing could be said about being proud of your disabilities. Maybe it's just a shortcut for saying you're proud of all the things you manage despite the disabilities.