Ok, this has been bothering me for a while and I really like your meta so I was wondering what your thoughts on this might be. Sorry if this ends up being super long.

First off, I want to point out that I’m not a Loki apologist insofar as I think that his actions can be justified or excused, but I do think that they can be understood in their context.

Ok, so the people who excoriate Loki for his behavior specifically relating to the Frost Giants and his invasion of New York really irk me, and it took me a long time to be able to pinpoint why. And I think it’s this- they’re judging Loki by human standards. And that makes no sense because he is many things, but human is not one of them.

I’ll start with the Frost Giants, and I’ll preface this with the fact that genocide is horrific (and that’s an understatement). And while it does not come close to justifying his actions, it is important to remember that the Aesir stopped the attempted Jotun genocide of multiple realms and peoples including Asgard/the Aesir and Midgard/humanity. (Obviously the Jotuns had more success on Midgard than Asgard itself.) And I do mean genocide here rather than just conquering because terraforming various realms into frozen wastelands (as they were trying to do with the Casket of Ancient Winters) would kill both humanity (who are incapable of travelling to a different realm) and the Aesir (unless they, in turn, conquer another realm and even then that would suppose that the Jotuns stopped their terraforming with Midgard and Asgard). The resulting lack of agriculture and the collapse of every ecosystem would wipe basically everything out. This establishes the Jotuns as genocidally minded themselves.

Again, this doesn’t justify Loki’s behavior, but it does explain why the Aesir are raised to hate or at least look very suspiciously upon the Frost Giants.

Now consider that the Jotuns have indicated that, given the opportunity, they are ready and willing to reignite conflict. They not only try to steal the casket, but Laufey attempts to murder Odin when he’s in such a position that he cannot possibly defend himself. (The fight between the Jotuns and Thor, Loki, and the Warriors Three is a different situation altogether. That’s more of a bar brawl than anything else.)

Yes, Loki provided those opportunities to the Jotuns. You cannot overlook his involvement in this; however, the Jotuns clearly indicated that they are not past their desire to use the casket to regain political and military power and neither are they above taking revenge on the Aesir for stopping their own genocidal campaign.

Consider the ramifications of both stealing the casket and murdering Odin; had they been successful the Jotuns would have thrown both Asgard itself and the political/military situation of Asgard and the realms it ruled or protected into chaos. The Jotuns are not innocent victims in this situation either historically or *even at the time Thor takes place*. In fact, they are enemy combatants at the time of Thor’s coronation and thereafter.

Once more for the people in the back- this does not justify Loki’s attempt to literally destroy Jotunheim and the entirety of the Jotun population.

It does raise a serious question, though. Loki is not stupid or one to really be controlled by his emotions (influenced by, yes; controlled, no). So why with his extensive training in both politics and military affairs would he think that attempted genocide would be acceptable and even celebrated?

Odin did not, as far as we know, commit genocide himself at any point. I suspect that Odin did not destroy Jotunheim and the Frost Giants because they were clearly defeated and with the casket confiscated they presented no substantial threat. Wiping them out would be a serious breach of ethics and violate the warrior code of Asgard. Where is the honor in destroying a weak, already defeated enemy?

This is why it was important for Loki to goad the Jotuns into reigniting the war. It restores honor to the fighting because to the rest of Asgard it appears as though they have been attacked and it was unprovoked. This reopens the acceptability of open conflict between the two realms and peoples.

Now, this is where things get sticky.

Genocide is acceptable under certain circumstances within the MCU’s Aesir culture.

This is established in The Dark World. Bor did not completely wipe out the Dark Elves, but he thought he had. This destruction is lauded in Asgard. Bor, hailed as a great king, stopped the Dark Elves from destroying creation and in so doing ostensibly wiped them out completely. Not “left the non-combatants alive on Alfheim”- the attack on Asgard after the Aether reappears is the first indication the Aesir have that there are any Dark Elves left. This indicates that there are times when genocide carried out against military enemies is acceptable to these people.

Which means there is cultural and military precedent for Loki’s behavior.

Now, again, consider that the Jotuns have in the past behaved genocidally and have indicated that they are willing to head down that path again by trying to steal the casket and murder Odin. They have aggressed against the Aesir reopening the war. Admittedly it had not progressed far, but conflict was reestablished.

Again, this doesn’t justify Loki’s attempt at genocide. Genocide should not be acceptable under any circumstances as far as humanity is concerned (I won’t get into the politics of whether or not it actually is because I don’t have time to write a dissertation, but I will say that people’s “outrage” about the Khmer Rouge, Mao’s revolution, Stalin’s starvation of the Ukrainians, the continued situation in South Sudan, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Ottomans/Turkey and the Armenians, and recent resurgence of white supremacy in the US indicate that people, broadly, don’t actually care a whole hell of a lot about genocide in practice and reality).

But it does show that Loki’s behavior *was not out of the norm* within Asgardian society and there was *established precedent* for him doing it.

Now, as far as the invasion of New York goes, let me first say that as a human myself, I don’t like it. He killed hundreds, if not thousands of people that day and doomed thousands more to die of illnesses related to the attack in the following years.

But, again, putting his actions into context indicates that his invasion with the Chitauri is not problematic in as much as it targeted humanity. Midgardians are less than in Aesir society. This is clear in Loki’s commentary at the beginning of The Dark World. Hell, he blatantly says he thinks he’s better than us in Avengers. And it’s clear in Odin’s commentary about Jane being equivalent to a goat that he holds no love of humanity. It’s even clear in Thor’s protection of the realm; that in itself is patronizing. Midgard isn’t capable of sufficiently protecting itself, so he swears that he will step up and do it. It’s not that Thor is ill intentioned in doing so, but that he feels the need to do it fairly clearly indicates that the Aesir as a whole consider Midgardians to be lesser beings.

So it’s not that Loki’s attack on New York was a problem because it killed people. After all, as Loki says to Thor, ‘the humans slaughter themselves in droves, while you idly fret.’ Humans are murdering each other all the time and Thor makes no move to stop it. It’s not the human deaths that are a problem.

The issue here is that Loki’s behavior violates two things: the honor code of not attacking a weak/defeated enemy incapable of sufficiently defending itself (see above commentary on the defeated Frost Giants and Odin and Thor’s drive to protect humanity where it cannot protect itself) and the precedent established by both Odin and Thor to protect Midgard.

Allow me to digress for a moment here and expand on an issue with Odin before I get to my ultimate point.

Loki’s attempt at genocide and his invasion of New York are why he gets punished. But it’s not because he tried to kill the Jotuns and it’s not because he killed people. Loki (in Norse mythology) is a master as putting the other gods in their place and reminding them they are not infallible. And, beautifully, he is in the MCU, too. And *that’s* why Odin punishes him.

Loki showed Odin that he was wrong to believe that Thor was ready for the throne. Loki showed Odin that he was wrong to believe that the Frost Giants were no longer a tangible threat. Loki showed Odin *and* Thor they were wrong to believe humanity needed their protection (after all, it was the Council that ultimately actually stopped the invasion by sending the nuke that Tony steered to destroy the Chitauri mother ship).

And so despite the precedent in their culture that says genocide is ok sometimes and despite the fact that Odin also thinks that humans are weak and inferior to the Aesir, Loki had to be punished. But Odin couldn’t say that he was punishing Loki for embarrassing him, which is the only thing he really did wrong as far as the society in which he was raised is concerned.

Now, as far as people judging Loki by human standards go, it’s pretty clear that the reason that they look down on Loki’s behavior is that it violates our own social codes. If you look at sci-fi and fantasy it’s clear that as a species we really believe in human exceptionalism. We’re conceited and think of ourselves as the center of the universe. Again, it was the Council and Tony Stark using a human invention that stopped a massive invasion of technologically superior aliens from conquering Earth. Even in Dr. Strange, it’s a human that outwits an ancient, hugely powerful alien in order in order to control the fate of the planet. Even Peter Quill is half human as he gallivants and ultimately works to save the galaxy. It all centers on Earth and on humans.

As such, we take offense to people thinking of us as inferior.

But I wonder why people don’t often consider the fact that we behave the same way towards other life even here on the planet as the Aesir do with us. With the exception of some vegetarians, vegans, and a few religious and philosophical sects (like Jainism and some Buddhists) we have no qualms about killing animals- that we view as *less than* humans- when it suits our needs. We do it for food, we do it for supplies (like we did/do for whale oil and leather) and we do it for convenience (like when we kill mice or chipmunks or raccoons who get in the trash). We even do it and say it’s for their benefit like when we “thin the herd for its health”.  For the most part, we as a species have no problems disregarding the will and lives of those beings we perceive as being less than us. Why would beings more powerful, intelligent, and technologically advanced than us feel differently?

I suspect that the problem these people have with Loki’s behavior re: the Invasion of New York and the resulting carnage is that it ultimately violates their perception (that is reinforced by society) that humans and humanity are the best. He transgressed by challenging that human maxim.

And I feel that the problem that people have with his attempted genocide, while well founded, is hypocritical. They will hold up his *fictional* attempt at genocide that stems from a place where that genocide would be culturally and militarily acceptable (if distasteful) as horrific while turning a blind eye to *real* and *actual* genocides that have happened and some that are ongoing in and around cultures and societies where it is *not* supposed to be acceptable. They hold his behavior to their theoretical standard of behavior (and not the standard that’s actually allowed in practice).

And none of this takes into consideration the emotional, mental, and physical trauma that Loki experiences across these films which colors his behavior and adds deeper nuance to what he’s doing. Even without that, though, the way he behaves is totally within the realm of acceptable behavior for the society in which he was raised with the exception of challenging and embarrassing Odin, which is what he’s ultimately punished for (and is why his punishment is so very personal).

And that’s the story of how I wrote 2000+ words about the Loki’s behavior in the MCU and fan reaction rather than working on my thesis.

I want to SINCERELY APOLOGIZE for never answering this, because for the past year my life has been very much in transition, but tonight I’m trying to empty my inbox and I found this profoundly elaborate, thoughtful meta in my submissions. 

I haven’t read it fully yet, but when I do I will try to offer comments and feedback. It sounds like you and I have a great number of theories about this character in common already, but I want to read closely for nuance.

For now I am posting it so that people can see the integrity of your work publicized! <3333