Hi Florian. First of all, the writer is non-binary, so they use they/them pronouns and would be referred to just generally as a "Black person" instead of a "Black man."

Here's what you originally commented: "If you‘re trying to satisfy your bias – fine, you succeeded. But it still does not match reality."

I am honoring that English is not your first language but language does have power and you have now thought about this and have chosen to stand by what you wrote, so I want to try to help you understand why what you wrote is off-base.

You said to me that you were not telling Black people what their realities are, and you reaffirm that sentiment below. But then you also literally say that the writer's media interpretation of the movie "does not match reality," which literally undermines exactly what you just said you were not doing.

You are a white man in Germany, which obviously does not mean you are not entitled to opinions about anything; but it does mean that you do not have the up-close and personal lens of what it means and what it looks or feels like to be a Black person in America. I know that because of United States/Hollywood media hegemony, you do watch many of our movies in Germany. But that doesn't mean that you comprehend the full context of what it's like to consume that and other media in the United States in the context of lived experiences of racism.

Racism doesn't just exist in people's minds, it also exists in every facet of culture, including media. And it's not always overt--that's what people are referring to when they call something "insidious" -- that even though it doesn't have a noose or say the "n" word, it still functions as reaffirming white supremacy in the collective consciousness.

Take for example one of the points that Lennox brought up in their article. In Black American culture, barbershops are often sacred spaces for community. It's a place to be vulnerable, foster community, and look and feel good in a country that's constantly telling you you're ugly or not good enough (both overtly and subtly--the former you can look in any comment section about even Black celebrities on Instagram to reaffirm, and the latter you can see in the fact that the vast majority of romcoms ever since the don of romcoms feature a thin, white, blonde lead as the beacon of perfection and beauty. Also, see Barbie).

For a white woman to involuntarily occupy a Black man's body in this sacred space and only in this moment to lend him "credibility" or "humility" or "likeability" that he's never had before is an affront. The insinuation is that he is better off because the personality and behavior of the white woman occupying his body were morally and socially superior to how he had been on his own. And that reinforces a lot of problematic mythology about white supremacy--including the idea that white people make Black people "better" (this traces back to sentiments in the slave trade that Black people were "savages" and would be made better under the ownership of white masters who could "civilize" them).

It's not the author's worldview; it's a reality for Black people in America. The movie was originally written and directed by white people, and they brought in Black co-directors and "consulted" the Black "community" in order to reaffirm how they depicted the Black character. But as you mention, no Black person (or handful of Black people) speak for the entirety of the Black community, and the blessings of a few Black people who already struggle to find consistent work in an industry that is almost unanimously white and male don't make the content inherently sensitive or "politically correct."

Sure, it's by some measure a "good thing" that they bothered to even consult people to see if they were being offensive, but ultimately this is a character that could've been any race, and probably shouldn't have been Black (or at least they shouldn't have had a white woman involuntarily occupy his body) because it justifies far too many people denying any accusations of racism in the movie because "the occupier was blue!" But in reality, like any animation, the audience will always perceive the character as having the personality and even the racial identity of the person voicing it--particularly if they have the voice or accent of a popular actor or typical racial or ethnic composition. You don't get to be "color-blind" to racism just because a character was painted blue. It does not negate the very real and continued racism Black people experience in America.

And just the fact that white people are so eager and desperate to claim that because the characters are blue that the movie is absolved of addressing racism is a testament to how white supremacy functions and is upheld in American culture; white people in particular are so uncomfortable with addressing racism that they will do literally anything or believe literally anything to justify or pretend that it doesn't exist, or even just diminish it so it doesn't feel "as bad" as any Black person might be claiming. It's a direct function and consequence of white guilt and the inability for white people to address white supremacy.

Media must be held accountable and considered thoughtfully because it both reflects and informs how people behave in society, as well as what they believe. There are only two Disney/Pixar films (after almost a century of creating films, although to be fair Disney was a known Nazi sympathizer so racism in Disney is utterly unsurprising) that feature prominent Black characters and storylines (this one and "Princess and the Frog"), and both of them have the main characters as poor people who are turned into either frogs or blobs for most of the movie, because it is insufferable for white people to simply see meaningful stories about Black people being Black people-- and not being saved by white people (as also happens in both movies). The only Black actress still to have ever won a Best Actress Oscar is Halle Berry, for her portrayal of a slave who fell in love with her slave master. This is the nature of American media.

It's absolutely fine for you to disagree with the author about whether or not the movie was "good" or "fun." But for you to say without the context of living in and fully consuming and understanding American media in America (and all the racism that historically fits into that) is absolutely ignorant and wrong. And for the record, it is entirely possible to love and appreciate media content that is problematic or imperfect. Pretty much all or most of it is in some form or another--a reality of living in a world that is classist, sexist, racist etc. American values, for better and for worse (mostly for worse) will always be reflected in American media content, and globalization and Western colonialism assure that this content gets shipped around the world, further poisoning people with these "virtues" and disguising it as flashy, fun entertainment.

Like I said, it's wonderful that you enjoyed the film. But you don't get to come on here and blindly say that the author is "projecting their bias" because they are writing from their experience--an experience that you merely don't understand and don't seem to have even made a paltry effort to understand.

Would you tell a Jew that their experience of Nazi propaganda wasn't antisemitic? I presume not because the vast majority of Germans I know are very sensitive to the subject and understand how and why denying antisemitism is harmful. Well, I'm a Jewish person and I can confirm to you that America has slaughtered and tortured Black people in a similar capacity, albeit over a much longer course of time. It is harmful to make comments like what you have made. I hope this makes more sense to you.