William Hicks, Heatstreet, May 17, 2016
Angry Birds tells the story of a race of birds living isolated on an island. The angriest bird, Red, can’t fit in because he’s too darn angry. But then a race of pigs land on the island crushing Red’s house and seduce the rest of the birds with parties and food. Only Red is suspicious of these newcomers. His fears are eventually realized when the pigs make off with the town’s eggs and Red must save the day by slingshotting himself at the pigs’ castle. It really only makes sense if you’ve played the game.
But is Red the island’s Donald Trump or Geronimo? Xenophobe or freedom fighter?
Forbes calls Angry Birds “a pretty obvious parable for European colonialism and the horrors which it brought to indigenous peoples.”
But the Guardian had different ideas.
[Red] is the only one who thinks the arrival of pigs to his native island is anything other than a multicultural delight. Technically, this suggests Red is an instinctive racist, but my guess is that his suspicions will be vindicated. (Of course, that will make the moral of the story that it’s right to fear and mistrust strangers. Sounds problematic. Someone consult Twitter.)
But the people who found the film most enjoyable were actually racists.
“I’m sorry but am I the only one who thinks this whole thing is taking shots at the migrant “pigs” who are flooding into Europe, stealing our women and trying to kill off our race?” said a user on Stormfront, the web’s premiere white power forum.
[Editors Note: VDARE has published an article on Angry Birds called “Take Your Children to See Angry Birds.”]