>>43137
It defends Columbus and doesn't take a universalist stance toward morality, making him see it as an example of Columbus apologism. The protagonists ask Columbus why he did what he did, and Columbus tells them that the New World wasn't black-and-white, that Europe even considers its own past immoral, and that he understands that the future may consider what he did immoral, but he was only a man of his time who wanted to explore and achieve his dream of being an adventurer. Columbus says that bad things happen in Europe, but some of the natives were committing human sacrifice and cannibalism, to which Saber gets upset and starts writing a fanfiction about the kids hearing the cries of slaves in the ship, even though the kids are meeting Columbus in 1492, not 1495 (when he shipped the Taino as an example for Spain, though he only enslaved as a punishment of prisoners of war and those he deemed to have committed crimes against nature).
Columbus was a massive moralist. He hated the quality of the men Spain sent with him and took many missionaries to keep them Christian while spreading the faith to the Indians so they would have a good example. He also took harsh, sometimes overly so, measures to punish both natives and sailors. Saber takes a quote from Columbus, when Columbus talked about how peaceful the natives were and said he and a handful of men could subjugate them, as Columbus being evil instead of fascinated and worried about what would happen to them had he, a devout Christian, not found them. Toward the end of his life, Columbus would LARP as a Franciscan monk, and he wrote books and letters explaining that his mission was meant to be pent-messianic, laying the foundations of the return of Christ through his exploits in the New World.
On the subject of slavery, Saber tries to use the "but the Hebrews" example, but the both testaments are never against slavery as a system, just against the slavery of God's people, who were living beneath heathens and given a messianic mission directly from God and transmitted through a mensch raised as a goy. Both testaments lay out solid laws and rules for the rights and wrongs of slavery, like kidnapping, and there are clear accounts of slaves obeying their masters being a good thing. However, the modern definition of slavery is impossible to separate from kidnapping, and, also by modern prescription, the only right thing a slave can do in such a situation is to rebel. Neither of these follow Christian tenets unless viewed from after the Enlightenment.
Saber does say he understands differences in social norms, but he, though he has trouble saying this as he has trouble saying everything, dislikes that something existing within modern social norms is not portraying these prior social norms as unjustifiably bad because it's a "disservice to history as a whole" to not present figures in agreement with contemporary social norms because of "lies through omission". He gives a personal example about his belief of Custer as a hero when he was a child and how he later learned that Custer was bad for what he did against a socially protected group, Indians, and how he broke the law. He ends it by saying he's glad Custer was "spanked by the Indians". He doesn't make any references to what Custer was fighting against or what the Indians did to Americans or any of the other historical context, despite "loving history." His argument from this is that his opinion on Custer changed to fit the norm because the norm is what's true and that's what should happen to Columbus since history and civilization exist on a single upward trend of social progress granted and governed by the state versus reaction that individuals promote. He plays at making this part of his structural analysis of the cartoon, which begins immediately after he almost nonsensically picks apart episodes that violate his political and moral allegiances, in the
writing section, but he uses it as just another justification to continue his rant, as usual.
He uses Washington as a sort of anti-Custer and model of how we Americans should treat themselves in the world because he had "shame" with his pride, an example of Saber misunderstanding the concept of humbleness because the concept of humbleness would have to come from belief in oneself as being able to overlook things for a greater good or ignore benefits for oneself because they believe them to be harmful or are simply unwanted. Washington refused to be king, making him good, but he also owned slaves, which is bad, and not mentioning it in every conversation about Washington would be the kind of historical erasure that Saber thinks Leo and Layla, and by extension PragerU, try to fight because glory is somehow not an antithesis to sin.
He uses his tried and true example of the VeggieTales as a model example of a cartoon with a message and acts like, to him, the worst quality of Leo and Layla is that it's not entertaining or well animated, as if the racism he believed the Columbus episode promotes and dedicated the plurality of his video to isn't why he made the video in the first place. To add insult to injury, he says that the cartoon will be forgotten and has no staying power because it can't work in the current landscape since kids don't watch cartoons anymore and implicitly says the cartoon has no value at all and should have its funds dedicated to these other cartoons and indie animators because they suffer from the same hurdles but, in his eyes, are more deserving because they have a greater chance at leaving an impact. By leaving an impact, he obviously means being enjoyed by him and not racist. He doesn't recognize that the Leo and Layla videos are general short and simple to attract kids the same way baby sensory cartoons are and that they are meant to be spread because of and via what he says is a source for transiency in cartoons, children begin given access to the internet at a young age as a replacement for parenting.
>TL;DR
Saber thinks Leo and Layla is racist mostly because of the Christopher Columbus episode as PragerU tries to show the history it alleges is being erased through progressive critical theory, something he disagrees with because he implicitly thinks history and social norms are a linear, unbroken, march of progress toward a universal acceptance. He doesn't understand things like humbleness or adventure or budgeting or really anything about animation other than quality aspects equaling quality work. He thinks that every discussion, no matter the age of those involved, should always include how evil institutional figures are because they did things that were normal then but unacceptable now, even if they are the basis of a nation or an idea or a people, because anything less than attempting to create a documentary is dishonest and should be shunned. In the case of Columbus, and incidentally most figures whose presences have become mythology, not doing this promotes structural racism by depicting technologically advanced, powerful whites as more good than bad, something that real studies of history don't do because that would create a bias, even if said real histories are always critical. To show these figures as more good than bad, or even completely good, would cause the perpetuation of structural racism via the old adage that those who don't learn from history will repeat it, even if history is whatever assembly of cycles that modern institutions agree upon.
>STL;DR
Saberspark is retarded and hates himself. Watching the Columbus episode, and to a lesser extent the Reagan episode, on stream made him so upset because it challenged his view of social norms and history that he had to make a faux-review of the cartoon, something he regularly does as an outlet for his intellectual and creative impotency because he would troon out otherwise.