I’ll take this moment to complain about how Tangled (a Disney Rapunzel film, basically) just assumes that pillaging native lands is the moral thing to do.

An old woman is using a magical flower out in the wilderness to retain her youth and health. It’s quite literally the only thing keeping her alive. When the Queen of the kingdom falls ill, soldiers of the kingdom go out and just rip up the flower. The old woman, deprived of her only means to stay alive, rushes to the castle, only to find that the flower’s properties are now stuck inside the Queen’s baby. Reasonably assuming that the selfish-ass King and Queen who just gave her a death sentence were obviously never going to let her use those powers, she takes the baby and raises it in a loving (if very sheltered) environment, using her hair to live instead, again, this is the only way the woman can stay alive.

Somehow, the woman is the bad guy, and the King and Queen who raided the native lands for their own selfish-ass purposes are the good guys. It was perfectly moral to take the flower because old woman didn’t enclose her land or have a fucking deed to say “THIS FLOWER BELONGS TO ME”. The old woman’s native knowledge of the land meant it could keep her (and who knows how many others) alive and healthy on an indefinite basis, while the monarchy just grab it, destroy it, and get a one-time use out of it because the lives of the royal family are more important than everyone else’s!!! Babysnatching isn’t moral, but what choice did the woman have?

Yeah I may be overthinking a kid’s fairy tale in movie form. But FUCK EM. I genuinely think it teaches children that there’s no need to respect the environment or other cultures’ understanding of ownership, nor the concept of public sharing.