That's the issue with the situation in the end. If you give back all of the property to the people that got blipped or you leave it as is, millions of people are displaced. Unilaterally disenfranchising that many folks causes problems and there's got to be a better solution that they can work on. Sam's speech is pretty much that. He's not saying that it needs to stay like it is now nor does he have a perfect answer but we should at least try to help everyone instead of ignoring them.
But there isn't. Not one person has come up with an alternative during the whole show (and by consequence since the 'unsnap). And there are people who will be unhappy with whatever ultimatum is laid down. There's a level of altruism that need to come from the people to work for the greater good. This is not something that can be fixed by being led. It is a process of leading by following which needs to be instigated by the people. Where are the people sying 'actually yeah, these guys are right - I'll return their lives to them', or where are the guys saying 'You have a point, come on we'll set up new land like those in the frontier and start a new life'.
But just like now, we have plenty of 'problem announcers' but when it comes to action with no direct benefit this idealism falls off a ledge very quickly and people only have their own interests at heart. It's why Karli was contextually a 'good villain' - her interests were not self motivated. The medicine was a metaphor for all resources. Karli taking that medicine meant someone else had to do without - ultimately. It's nice to imagine that the medicine was for some wealthy family attached to the powerful GRC but in reality it might just be insulin for an unsnapped kid who is close to death. Who should get that medicine? Make that choice. Let Sam make that choice. He has one shot of insulin and two people who need it - what's that Sam? It's a tough problem, yeah it is and people have to make those decisions especially when those who like to announce problems shirk those repsonsibilities.
I do want to pick up on the unilateral part of the post though because it poses a few important questions, and actually connects a few scenes/events in the show. Let's take the Avengers first - were they right to unsnap? Wasn't that a unilateral decision made a group of people with shared and vested interests? Was any consideration given to what the consequence would be of bringing back a population density and spread from five years ago? Did they consider anything beyond Earth as their basis? What about all the oppressed and endangered lifeforms that were now flourishing? What about the planets and civilisations that were now five years into resource stabilisation programmes and healing? How far back should they put things to right? WWI......etc.
Ultimately, did the Avengers save anyone, did they make things better or did they just reverse the scoreboard? Thanos was dead, the world was quieter, healing after a great loss but it was moving on (as it does after all major catastrophes). People were remarrying, making new families, having new babies, restructuring the world to work again (maybe even in better and fairer ways). Unilateral decisions made by shared interested groups are at odds, whether they are by pragmatic, unempathetic politicians or rooted in ideals like Avengers or Flagsmashers. There are always knock on effects and I think the show demonstrates this and the relationships of how they integrate.
The reason the speech doesn't work for me at all is a number of reasons. Sam is a military man, how many times has he faced orders he disagreed with or knew would cost lives/risk lives even. He actually makes a conscious choice to abandon a gutshot Sharon to carry Karli out in the street. Whether Sharon is still on the run or not is immaterial here, he has wings and a jetpack. He can just fly her ass to Madripoor and make sure she is ok. Even in his fight with Karli, he is beaten. Because he places idealism (redemption) over pragmatism (apprehension/termination) - which again is a metaphor for the whole mess the world is in. I don't know how many times the lesson needs to be learned? Even Lara Croft (2013) had more growth here ("You can't save everyone Lara" -Roth). Without Sharon, Sam was about to be shot - putting aside the need for the show to leave it as an unanswered question for 'ambiguity'.
Regarding the above highlighted part of the quote, this
is the current best solution - the issue with borders was escalated because of the bomb attack. Provide a better solution within the constraints and pressures that are there. There's a very real problem. There is nowhere to put all these people. They are refusing to leave. They are in the streets, no money, poor, dying, probably diseased. There is nothing here but stubborness and lack of reasonability causing this issue by people. And there is only a certain amount of time that can pass before those pressures become unmanageable and need intervention. If people were to leave (whichever side for arguments sake), production and infrastructure could be up and running - medicine production, food production etc. just not in 'home, sweet home'.
Flying in at the end carrying Karli (the leader of a well loved, idealistic, terrorist group) as though she was just unpinned from a cross, while giving a speech full of rhetoric and idealism is not going to make things better. Sure it gives the new Captain America a 'scene', but what he says, the way he says it with no alternative is actually more likely to create more "Karli's" because the entire thing is rooted in idealism again. But he made that clear in his talk with Bucky and sympathy for Karli's cause. I think his speech was naive, idealistic and reckless - traits I would also identify with Karli's characteristics. It's tantamount to pulling a firefighter over during 9/11 and saying 'why is this so bad, why are people still dying. why aren't the fires out?'. I think at the moment everyone is caught up in this real world 'hate police, hate government' stuff on social media and they're trying to piggback these opinions onto shows which have even more layers of nuance than GRC = bad, huh-duh-huh. If people want to over simplify the nuance I guess that's up to them, but then they wonder why they don't get shows with challenging themes etc.
The conversation that needs to take place first and give them show room to breathe, is 'what is the workable solution'? Show it. Evidence it beyond 'There has to be something we can do', or 'The choice is vindictive for the sake of being vindictive'.
I don't know where this is headed, maybe the writers do and maybe ultimately this is going to be Sam's arc/journey. This isn't like a rehab group where people share things, unload and feel better. You don't get to neatly cut the loop at the end of the day and unwind. Everything you do at this level is going to make people unhappy in one camp or another, every decision is likely to have winner and losers. He says that doesn't matter with regards to wearing the shield and people accepting him. He needs to have the same attitude to the actual problems the world is facing.
bitbydeath
You should know this above everyone else because the character in your avatar is in the same boat. He is a leader of the seven, a fighter, and peacekeeper, but he is not the leader of the corporation who has power over him and calls the shots, and nor is he trying to be that leader. He would rather be praised as an icon than sit through what he considers boring meetings about how to run the world.
