 |
Surtur straddles the ruins of Asgard as Thor and Hela face off |
"Asgard is not a place. Asgard is a people."
But is it?
Would Israel still be Israel if it were not in the holy land?
Would Hogwarts still be Hogwarts if it were rehoused in a steel and glass structure in London?
For context “Asgard is not a place. It’s a people” is from the Marvel movie Thor: Ragnarok!
Thor (the most powerful hero in the universe) has used the demon Surtur to destroy his hometown Asgard. This will also destroy Hela (Thor’s evil sister) who derives her power from Asgard.
Thor and his superhero friends rescue the people of Asgard from the collapsing city. They load them up into a spacecraft and ferry them off to a new life on a new planet.
This collateral damage is worth it because as the all-father Odin explains to Thor “Asgard is not a place. It’s a people.”
The all-father presents his argument as if it is obvious, as if it is self-evident that Asgard is its people. Hollywood clearly assumes that the trade-off is obvious, and Hollywood’s assumptions are a pretty good barometer of the zeitgeist.
But stepping outside the Marvel-verse, is it really that obvious? Is it even sort of true at all?
There are plenty of real-life situations that parallel that of Asgard.
Consider the Maldives. The entire country is just about one meter above sea level. Most estimates are that the islands will be submerged by 2100. The people (about 500,000 people) could be relocated. But is it obvious to those people that the Maldives are not a place, but a people?
Or Tehri - the ancient town on the banks of the sacred Baghirathi river - which was submerged under the Tehri dam? People were relocated. They lived. Were they OK?
Or Chernobyl. Its evacuee population was relocated to the purpose-built Soviet city of Slavutych (now in the Ukraine). Maybe these people were OK. Maybe Chernobyl was sort of soulless anyway.
Professor Stephen Landsberg, the Armchair Economist, asked this question sharply and provocatively after hurricane Katrina. Back in 2005 the American government was planning to spend over $200 billion on New Orleans. The pre-Katrina population of the New Orleans metro region was, say, 1 million. That is $200,000 per individual, $800,000 for a family of four. Would people rather take the lump sum of $800,000 and relocate to an American city of their choice? Or have the government spend $200 billion on their behalf rebuilding New Orleans?
Landsberg’s point was the most people would rather take the $800,000 and move. It’s a good point, as long as the thing being destroyed is not sacred, as long as “Asgard is not a place. It’s a people.”
I guess it hinges on whether the place in question is sacred.
I guess mighty Odin the all-father is well qualified to take that decision.
 |
| Ari Ben Cannan in The Promised Land of Israel From the movie Exodus Starring Paul Newman |
