Avatar: An Extension of White Supremacy

In Which We Teach James Cameron a Thing or Two

I haven't seen the movie but found this link on Racialicious. I think there's spoilers.

They can but that doesn't mean they do.

Yes, but there was no sexism in Avatar that I've seen demonstrated anyway, and I've been reading a lot of critiques. The case that was mentioned in the feministing article was caused by the writer not understanding basic metaphors. There's a scene where Sigourney Weaver's character is dying, they're trying to revive her and so she's lying in a fetal position. The reviewer at feministing didn't get that the fetal position is meant to symbolize birth/death/vulnerability (I thought this was obvious...), and so she argued Weaver was placed in that manner to show off her curves.

There is better treatment but he can't afford it. More expensive chairs would probably be expensive to transport all the way to Alpha Centauri.

As for a caregiver? This wasn't a socialist future. Cameron's future is a plausible one where we stay the course, remain capitalist, aristocratic, destroy our planet and spread our imperialism and exploitation to neighbouring star systems. Writing about the apocalypse is not equivalent to endorsing the apocalypse.

For someone who has a master's degree in literature you know very little about science fiction. Cameron didn't invent the term Unobtainium, it's used satirically in a variety of places.

As for the second part, there's a lot of things Cameron didn't cover. It's a 2 hour movie in a completely new universe. Discussion of the social appetite on Earth that demands the mineral would have been a distraction. You can't answer every question. No original story ever has.

How was Wall-E complex?

I thought Avatar had a sophisticated moment when Augustine is explaining how the trees talk to one another, and the project manager starts laughing saying, condescendingly, "people, these are trees". That's exactly how conservatives often undermine environmental messages, or messages in other domains. We have this ad campaign here promoting high fructose corn syrup, a smiling, laughing, attractive woman tells us it's just sugar.

I don't think he was motivated by the new legs at all. When he's offered them halfway through the movie he agrees, but the impression I had is that he didn't want to contradict his supervisor... was he not mumbling when he agreed?

That's exactly what some friends argued this weekend, that the movie perpetuated the myth (in their opinion) that native Americans were good to the environment.

The Na'Vi are not native Americans though. And we don't know that they're noble.

People who write these kind of semi-trollish commentaries to comment on racism have ulterior motives on their mind. One is trotting out white supremacy in a wholly inappropriate matter to gain attention for their posts. Another is to combine with neo-cons to tear down a film for no other purpose but to demonstrate their ultra-left bona fides. Neither helps people who are actually fighting the fights depicted in Avatar. 

Avatar as a cultural phenomenon is perhaps the biggest blockbuster to carry an explicit anti-imperial, anti-colonial message. While the film carries various time-worn tropes, it also breaks new ground in unflinchingly putting forward a storyline where the obviously American mercenaries are defeated. No other film really has come close to such an uplifting victory for the underdogs.

In China, the message is that of an unambiguous call to arms for community activists fighting against the seizure of their land by corrupt contractors and politicians. 

For Latin America, Avatar is an direct allegory for the fight against mines and development projects that are victimizing indigenous people.

Add to that that CCH Pounder, Wes Studi, Zoe Saldana, Laz Alonso play the Na'vi. While the ex-marine Jake Sully leads the charge, it is this transformation that is absolutely necessary for those living in the imperial centres to change course. So I say this strategic choice, while jarring, is the main point -- It's not about assuaging white guilt, but an active call to join the resistance against imperialism.

Read this: Anti-imperialism in 3-D
Ok, I get it that you would like to unplug from Hollywood or Bollywood or Tollywood or Nollywood for that matter, dis it as wholly and irredeemably racist, but change in the world does not depend on a few people who want to hide out  and sneer at all the popular cultural forces in the world, for good or ill. That itself is a a supremely elitist and counterproductive proposition. People are also responding to this film the world over, not just in the US.
And it is not those who enjoyed Avatar who are bringing up these tired discussions over and over again. It is this singular focus on Avatar by its detractors, mostly on the right, but also amongst the snarky holier than thou crowd whose academic high mindedness have driven their work into a bunker of stale avoidance of anything even smacking of popular forms of expression.
And utopian stories where underdog triumps are appreciated and NEEDED from time to time, lest our hearts rot in the dystopic visions that drive movements to nihilism and activists to self-loathing and recrimination. If it awakens even a smidgen of concern and outrage over what is happening in this world, then the film will have been a larger success in the social realm than all the Iraq documentaries combined.
Also as non-white person, I do think there is a place for "saving white people." For heaven's sake, they have to be saved just because they sit on top of the rest of the world. Try proposing any other solution.

See this post on Racialicious. Please read the comments by people who saw Avatar, enjoyed it, and have anti-racist and anti-imperial critiques of it too.

That's an excellent point, we don't.

*not mentioning racial issues as promised*

I've read dozens of reviews at this stage and none have mentioned the ethics of using animals in war.

But there's also another issue that is not mentioned in the film: was any attempt made by the humans to buy or trade for unobtanium?

It raises an age old ethical question, particularly in that it's mentioned in the movie that the earth is dying and the resource is the only thing that can save it (?). If that were the case, and the owners of that resource refused to share/sell it - and given that self-preservation is a noble cause - would we be justified in trying to save our species through taking it by force?

I read all the comments there wasn't much there. are you sure you linked to the right piece? Nobody in this thread or the previous is saying we shouldn't analyze the film and just enjoy it except for Catchfire.

I think a lot of the criticisms of the movie are coming from people who are white, and not disabled for that matter. A lot of the comments left me with a strong distaste.

Anyhow, thanks for the review from Socialist Worker. It's one of the strongest reviews I've read on the film. I think the following is a strong paragraph:

Thanks for the response,

I don't think it's the real future, I merely think it's a plausible future. I hope we change somehow. I do think that the future depicted by Cameron is the path we're on right now, unless we meet a much stronger species which is also possible but is a story that has been already covered, in James Cameron's Aliens for example.

It may not have taken Jake, should not have taken Jake, to unite the Na'Vi, or to speak to the tree and get the animals to join side. However it did take Jake to sow disunity on the human side, to make them less effective. It also took Jake to tell them they were being attacked soon.

Indigineous people are still around yes, very few of them. I think in Australia 99% of them have been exterminated. They've lost more than they've kept. It's not realistic to expect bows and arrows to defeat guns, let alone floating tanks. They cannot. Similarly today, the Palestinians on their own cannot defeat Israel on their own imo. Here on babble where most support Palestinian emancipation, we do not often discuss the merits of their battle tactics. We clamor for the internatonal community to crack down on Israel. We understand it's the only hope.

Lastly, it was a video game at first to Jake, but I don't think he ever wanted to go back to his human body. I agree the story's not very original, it's a futuristic retelling of Pocahontas with additional critiques such as environmentalism and human terrain systems. That said few stories are original. I think it was said there are only 7 original stories in all of literature. There are sequels in the works so maybe Cameron's vision will become more unique.

ETA: I think the biological way by which Jake Sully goes native is more interesting than that of Pocahontas as it's more fundamental. Avatars are part of the zeitgeist right now, as seen with shows like Dollhouse, movies like Surrogate and the vampire craze. There's a cultural vibe of people wanting to be in different bodies, and including this adds a layer of complexdity not present in Dances with Wolves. When studying Pablo Neruda's Ritual of my Legs in Cegep, I was told that poets will often focus on bodyparts when they want to communicate a separation between body and soul. I think this is what's happening here.

It's very important for the plot that Jake can step in and out of his avatar body and can switch. Notice that the place where the bodies were kept was not gret and metallic like you might expect, actually it was white and full of bright lights where his "real" self was kept. That's the notion of Heaven, contrasted with Pandora's Earth. Jake prefers Earth over Heaven, as indeed it's not heaven. I think that's quite neat.

Jake has the choice. That's what I'm saying.

I don't think I will throw any fuel on that fire. Too many threads already.

ETA:

I didn't bring up the tree before but... I think that this is a great example of the point that I am making. Jake asks the Na'Vi divinity to "be on their side". His exotic girlfriend then explains that that is not how their worldview or diety works, only to be proved wrong in a climatic fight scene. Thus we see the American fantasy that God is on the "side of good". Thanks, Jake us silly old Na'Vi had never thought of asking the tree that before.

I'm pretty sure that jas is being sarcastic. There have been a lot of threads on who gets to call what science and he is referencing some of the more hardcore Eurocentric positions on babble.

The problem is that the term popular culture is misnomer it suggests that a cultural product is somehow organically generated or requested ignoring the reality that the popularity is something that results from the manipulation of desire and the manufacture of demand. It would be more accurate if we referred to these products as they are Corporate mass culture to differentiate them from something that is truly created from the bottom up as in terms of folk culture. It is convenient to conflate corporate culture with popular culture because then it is possible to declare critics of corporate culture as being elitist. It is ironic that one is called elitist for pointing out that "popular culture" is being produced and deciminated by the economic elite. Is it elitist to point out that fast food is toxic crap? Then why is it elitist to point out that hollywood blockbusters are also toxic crap.The author of the Socialist worker piece can project revolutionary fantasies onto Cameron's work but he himself denies any deeper political meaning to his work. Perhaps this is the sign of a truly successful product of mass corporate culture that so many people can project their fantasies or values onto the product going to the extent that they become deeply emotionally attached to the product and alienated from a genuine expression of their values. I do not think that we should depend on or expect a system of mass corporate culture to tell our stories or to offer up alternatives. "The revolution will not be televised" This is not a matter of being "holier than though". I am not criticiing people for sometimes engaging in corporate mass culture but I am definitely challenging the belief that products of corporate mass culture are socially, culturally or politically valuable.

You seem to be saying that the only option we have is to accept or engage with corporate mass culture resistance is futile we must except the narratives that are constructed for us. OF course this hides the realitiy that there are counter narratives, folk culture, alternate cosmologies and it is actually possible to find these alternative and celebrate them rather than depending on second hand fantasies produced by a multimillionaire embedded in the depth of corporate mass culture. I don't really need utopian fantasies of underdog truimps when there is at this moment in reality stories of triumph against neo-liberal corporate monoculture. In Venezuela there is a leader of african and indigenous background who has done just that. This story is not just about one man either it is about a movement on deep level in existence in communities that are expressing their voices, resisting and presenting an alternatives to what has been fed to them for so long.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144#

Interesting too that this movie(The revolution will not be televised.) was made by white people too but they didn't feel the need to cast themselves in roles of heroes or saviours. This is the central point being made about Avatar that its champions continue to deny why is it necessary for the white person in the film to be the saviour the rescuer of the culture. This is not solidarity it is another expression of the need to control and conquer. It is insulting that the white person in a short period of time becomes to understand and master anothers culture, custorms and cosmological system to the extent that he is able to outperform that other culture. This sort of behaviour is common dynamic between white people and other cultures in reality, the conception of those who wish to be allies but only on the condition that they have leadership roles or their needs are seen as central above and beyond the community that they are trying to help. It happens often with white anti-oppression, social workers or liberals rather than standing in solidarity, being an ally the need is to rescue and control

In terms of "saving white people" this is the problem as in the film the only way white people can concieve of themselves of being saved is by becoming the saviour for the "other". However in reality salvation occurs in the opposite way in actually being able to not be compelled by the continued construction of the white ego and its collective expression and an ability to not have to be in position of control power and privlege. But that (as they said in hammy hamster) is another story..

When socialists start making 3D action films I will watch them. Until that day, I'm going to keep going back and imbibing the poisoned chalice of non-revolutionary corporate hyper-evil entertainment.

Documentary video making is a bit different from a fictional/fantasy genre. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is definitely one of the greatest documentaries with enough powerful scenes. There was no real chance to insert the Irish filmmakers into the thick of things. 

Also, the "white saviour" is one dude. In one possible plot, Jake could have been used for his intel and then kept safe away from the battle as opposed to getting the dragon in a perfunctory and abbreviated scene to lead the resistance. But Cameron made his choice to be as blunt and unsubtle as possible. 

In fact, going back to the Karate Kid (or even any political film dealing with non-Western cultures or countries), I have grown accustom to this film trope, to the point it no longer surprises or even irritates me. I remember having heated discussions about this 20 years ago, but I really don't care anymore about Hollywood's exigencies. I did think Last Samurai was a good film, despite Tom Cruise. While there is obvious "othering" going along, I have gone beyond looking at that cliche, to the meat of the film which I believe is the overall politics found in the characterization of protagonists and antagonists. 

Indeed, identity politics have become so degrade that they converge with right-wing politics by carving up and suppressing points of possible resistance. That is why you have right-wing commentators gleefully picking up this trope and "new age" religious overtones to attack the film.

Regardless, the plot of Avatar is a surprise, and wholly due to Cameron's vision and ability to untangle himself from direct US Defense Department relations that colour most action films through the use of CGI. In fact the original script would have made a far more nuanced film, but would have led to a four-hour movie.

Just wanted to back track to a post, made by whom i do not remember in the last thread, about him wanting new legs, and how some perceived that that was ablest thinking. Which I take it to mean that those that can use their legs think others who can't, should want to be able to and that this is wrong ablist thinking.

Would like to suggest it isn't ablist thinking at all.

They both stole them from Starcraft, which stole them from Mechwarrior, which stole them from Robotech, which stole it from Getter Robo, which stole it from silver age marvel comics villains and heroes like iron man, whose name and idea was stolen from the story cycle of iron man, which stole it from earlier works, and so on. ;)

District 9 racist?

It did the exact opposite of what people are calling Avatar racist for. Instead of a white man becoming leader, he becomes a helper, and then is forgotten. He doesn't enjoy the fruits of leadership, he suffers the crap his new people suffer due to the system he helped implement.

He's not being rewarded by the aliens as a group. He's just another prawn at the end. He was only rewarded by one alien.

These are the first intelligent aliens we've seen who are not just imitations of human beings. They're fundamentally different in psychology, something never done before by Hollywood.

When armchair critics who didn't even watch the movie in a state of consciousness and faux progressives who need to demonstrate their bonafides throw these terms around too much, it damages the overall left. It makes us look ridiculous.

I'm further pissed off now,

This original 4 hour movie answers virtually every single criticism Babblers have been able to come up with. What is now a good movie, would have been one of the greatest movies of all time.

I really liked the movie. I was very surprised the "US" lost in the end. The way the economy is going I bet we see more black water type paramilitary security groups (mercs) in the future.
That's how it was explained in the movie too though wasn't it? It wasn't the US persay but ex soldiers just looking to collect a buck. I was still surprised.

I wonder what wold have happened if the "hero" was african american?
Would this be viewed as a good thing? Or would people complain why does the african american have to be in a wheel chair? Why can't he be a hero in his own right why does he need to embrace someone elses culture to win?

I didn't find district 9 racist. If anything I see how the humans treated the squid people as the same way races treat each other on earth. I found it rather eye opening. It's going to take something like that to make humans realise how dumb we are.

Good point... but can you blame us humans for having a human-centric view of the universe at this time? While, through science, we know we are not at the center of the universe we also know that as of now we are the only space fairing spices around.

Also would this discussion be different if the main human character/characters were Black?

They kinda try to address that in Enterprise.  Apparently the univeral translator is quite univeral.

There is no such thing as a "human-centric perspective". There are many human perspecives and to say that James Cameron's Avatar is a representation of one, united "human-centric" perspective ignores the essense of anti-colonial analysis.

Well, all cultural products are in some way "human-centric" in that they are simply manifestations and expressions of "what it means to be human." In the case of Avatar, this means that questions of enviro-politics, disability, colonialism, imperialism arise because they are pertinent to the anxieties and concerns of the Western world at the moment. This is to say that the myths perpetuated by the film are the same myths perpetuated in the dominant cultural politics of our time. This is also nothing new.

We should also be careful to distinguish between Cameron's intentions for the film and the story it ends up telling. Just because Cameron wanted to make this a film about "respecting others' differences" doesn't mean that's what he ended up doing. More interesting is to ask why this film with these themes performed in this way has hit so many cultural hotspots so as to attract such a massive audience. Also, what does it mean to dress up old colonialist tropes with eye-boggling special effects?

There is a tendency to view Sci-Fi as some sort of prediction copy for the future. Since the beginning of science fiction at the beginning of the seventeenth century, I know of no Sci-Fi writer who succeeded in this, with the possible exception of Jules Verne, and even then, only marginally. Consider al'qa-Bong's comment about Kirk's English. Is this really about possible worlds, or about our own? I like to think of Science Fiction as always about the here-and-now, only moreso.  So when I say this film is about Al Gore and Richard Dawkins, both cultural touchstones of our current historical moment, I mean the dynamics and inherent contradictions of their politics are being dramatized in Cameron's film on an amplified level.

So, while the environmentalism of Gore and atheism of Dawkins et al. are powerful, progressive messages (both of which doubtless present in the film) their inextricable association with neo-liberal policies and the attendant imperialist and colonialist narratives are also undeniably present. We might ask how the film negotiates these contradictions: like why the evolutionary prowess of the Nav'i is presented as quasi-spiritualism, or why the benevolent scientists who value the Nav'i on a personal level need a grunt-style marine to really bridge the gap. These are not questions we necessarily want to answer outright ("Cameron needed a marine because it made the movie more action-packed") but rather their asking makes the historical dynamic of the film more apparent to us.

Actually, I have read Neuromancer, and I think there are few better novels that prove that exact point I was making. Gibson is not predicting technology--what did he predict that didn't already exist at the time he wrote? Gibson is writing about the effects and dynamics of late capitalism on a global, even cosmic, scale. Didn't he simply give a name to what was already happening around us?

It's very typical of lit snobs to condescend towards sci fi. It's a fundamental part of their stereotype. I think you can do better.

In the oscars for example, not a single science fiction movie has ever won best picture. Not Star Wars, not Dark Knight, not Wall-E. This year that District 9 was produced and is very deserving, they might give the award to Avatar which is undeserving, so as to pretend they're not snobs. Sci-Fi is also snobbed by the people who make awards for novels.

Check out what the condescending Guardian said about Battlestar Galactica:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/jan/12/50-best-tv-dramas-buf...

To call it the greatest modern sci-fi series would be to damn it with faint praise – it's so much more.

Here are some things predicted by science fiction:

Satellites

Computers

Learning computers

Cellular phones

Instant video conferencing

Cures for infertility

Also the politics and sociology in Brave New World - they're spot on.

The liberal sexual politics in Robert Heinlein novels... a couple decades ahead of a society which was debating whether Playboy should be banned.

The human brain is very good at finding differences.

There's no human perspective because we're experts at figuring out how we're different from one another, and we have no clue what's universal and what's not.

It should become self-evident to us once we encounter ET for real.

Humanoid mechs have been around for a while. I think it's from Japanese anime cartoons.

They're not there to defend freedom, they're there to dominate the planet. The general stands comfortably, drinking coffee, while others are doing the work of shooting, and at the bottom the Na'Vi lifestyle is being decimated.

I think the ethical question still stands - and during the movie where it is made clear that our earth is "dying" and there is "no green" left here, any sympathy with the earthlings is pre-emptively crushed by the dastardly corporate guy who tells us what Unobtainium is worth on the open market. This is a serious plot hole - is the mission to save the Earth, or to get a valuable mineral? And if the earth is truly dying, why are we wasting our time looking for shiny metals? (although I understand Unobtainium is a superconductor, but how is that going to restore our environment?)

On another note, I was disappointed that the movie makers chose to depict the Bad Guy with disfigurations/deformities (i.e. scars), perpetuating the age-old idea that evil characters and physical deformities go hand in hand. I had thought we had evolved from that.

That article has some good points, especially how the reaction is pretty knee-jerk, where liberalism becomes a lazy epithet for leftists who would cut their nose to spite their face.

Yeah, the funny thing about the white guilt talk is that is making people feel guilty for liking the film, hence Mara's conflicted review. Not surprisingly, it's now become preemptive strike against the progressive possibilities of the film, combining deconstructionist liberal critique with conservative politics to derail a potential anti-imperialist message.

I would rather refer to Ben Powless' review which draws out Avatar's themes in the real world, which echo Evo Morales' praise for the film.

Also in a particularly unsophisticated world where policies are being made at the tip of predator drones, a nuanced blockbuster hollywood film is not in the cards, but one that pulls in all the threads -- technology, action, and yes, traditional tropes -- to propel a pretty strong message has been a pleasant surprise.

For a more detailed reading of the ideology of the film, check out Avatar: An Activist Survival Guide, which is written from the perspective of an underground Pandora sympathizer on Earth. I was flipping through it, and be warned it is as unsubtle as the film, but goes deeper into the anti-corporate, deep ecological philosophy at the core of the film.

What about T-2:Judgement Day(James Cameron)? Miles Dyson is a black hero in the movie. He shows them how to break into Cyberdyne and steal the futuristic microprocessor that will eventually enable Skynet to become self-aware and destroy mankind as a result. And Aliens with Sigourney Weaver? All of the strongest characters in the story are female, from Newt the little girl who survives the alien takeover of the colony to the queen alien. The bad guy in that one was a corporationy guy, Paul Riser, who okay'd the human colonization of a planet he knew was infested by hideous killer aliens.

What if someday mankind become like Na'vi and are colonized by a species thousands or even millions of years more technically advanced than us?

Nobody watches those movies so their influence is doubtful.

Tens of millions of people have gone to see Avatar.

I hope they explore Earth more in a sequel.

BTW, a room temperature superconductor would be extremely useful. It would reduce the global need for electricity/power by perhaps 30%. A lot of energy lost transmitting from distant power plants to residential areas.

I agree about the scars.

Maybe they've colonized us already! Hear that? That's the sound of your mind blowing.

Too late! It was blown some time ago.

"...I've been asked about UFOs and I've said publicly I thought they were somebody else, some other civilization."

-Commander Eugene Cernan, Commanded the Apollo 17 Mission- Los Angeles Times, 1973

I think ceti just blew all our minds with that post.

Colonialism, at least on earth, virtually always depends to a large degree on indigineous elites collaborating with the colonialists. This is glaringly clear today in Canada as First Nations' political and economic elites generally collaborate.  I saw Avatar today with my 11 year old son and we noticed that there appeared to be no Na'vi collaborators, yet there also did not appear to be any awareness on the part of either the humans or the Na'vi that this fact alone was a major weakness for the humans.

How about resist, or at least not collaborate?

BTW Fidel, I have enjoyed reading stuff by Greg Palast, the "progressive investigative journalist", but was not aware he made a film about colonialism in Africa.  I could not find it on his web site either.  Are you suggesting he sympathizes with collaborators, or that we should?

Did he spend that much on the script? Cameron seems to have obtained much of the AVATAR material at a great discount: 

See parallels to Russian Sci Fi World of Noon series

http://scifiwire.com/2010/01/was-avatar-ripped-off-fro.php

And the real estate. Roger Dean wants his floating islands back:

http://www.sfae.com/index.php?action=gallery&status=show_artist&ID=4

Actually, in film and television it`s common practice to search for ``analogous products`` before beginning production.

Jonathan Swift had a flying Island.

I apologize for the major thread drift but in pursuing the Soviet science fiction angle - and I found some books in English to download if anyone is interested - I came upon this RussiaToday wolfcam. It's interesting, if you like wolves! 

Ok, as you were...

Why would you say this? And it wasn't a video but rather a podcast with Randi Rhodes. Google Palast and "Bush's vultures", Fifth Avenue, "Michael Francis Sheehan", "Goldfinger", "Congo" etc It's a few years old by now. All I could findd were a bunch of dead hyperlinks to the original podcast.

..avatar is definitely a white supremacy flick that tried to make a distinction between the good vs bad american. there is a film called "rustling of the leaves" by nettie wild where she travelled with philippine rebels for a time in 1988. they executed a person they found to be a traitor. the blamed him for causing deaths of innocent people and if they let him go the believed there would be more deaths. the rebels voted and even the priest voted for death. 
..i was also reminded of naomi's "shock doctrine". it was when in crisis that the human took over. his heroism was framed in war.

..ceti were your remarks directed at me? you weren't clear and just left things hanging.

Don't take it personally, ceti. Some babblers just can't tone down their cultural snobbery grounded in insecurity when it comes to pretty much anything that's popular.

I entirely agree with you Ceti. The psychological need of some "progressives" to prove themselves and demonstrate their bona fides by means of any criticism is a habit that severely undermines the left. Podhoretz and Brooksare excellent examples. Both assholes imo and I'd prefer if it were Catchfire-types who had their influence, but as much as I hate them I have to admit that they are effective. They don't bother trying to prove themselves. They get right to business. They say what they need to say, usually in multiple layers. There's a reason their side is winning, many reasons, and one of those is that they have more confidence in what they say.

epaulo, I'm sorry if you found my comment unnerving. The snobbery and the knee jerk condescension of many ideological people are a pet peeve of mine.

I think the white supremacist commentary is basically correct. What I find vile, however, is that after some excellent points were made about that such as in the article I first posted that started these Avatar threads, many people got excited and tried to think of unique ways they could criticize the movie. It's heteronormative, it's imperialist, it's ableist, I even saw an article saying it describes the immature state of the American man-child. These people do nothing but make the left look ridiculous.

It's also one-sided to point out a negative and point nothing else out, when there's a complex environmental message, a warning about where we're going, and a statement about the power of choice. Nothing complex is ever perfect. I'm satisfied with good substantially outweighing the bad.

I'm sorry you see it that way. I'll try and explain. I'm genuinely annoyed at those who like to tear things down as an end in itself, without being careful to know their subject matter.

Miscellaneous example. I was watching the Star Trek remake with some annoying people the other day, who talked the entire way through about how stupid it was, then laughed, then bragged about how they're better than the movie they're watching. I find that kind of behavior obnoxious. In the end of the movie, one person complained the movie didn't make sense because there was a black hole in the solar system. There was no black hole in the solar system, which they would have known had they not been busy pouncing.

I'm of the opinion that criticism should not be an end in itself, or a means to demonstrate intellectual bona fides, but rather it should be based over concern of an actual, legitimate problem. I think pseudo-criticism undermines those who have actual concerns. Another example, many people in the previous thread came to the conclusion that Avatar is ableist, because Jake Sully is happy when he gets working legs. I thought this was ridiculous but I worried I might just be missing something. I repeated the argument to some friends and asked them what they thought. Response: "Was it actually paraplegic people saying that, or was it perfectly able people trying to look progressive?"

I started the Avatar threads on babble due to a phenomenal article written by Analee Newitz of io9.com. Read it below.

http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar

I was approaching it from a meta-issue, this was more than just an Avatar is white supremacist criticism, it was viewing Avatar as part of a pattern stretching back decades, much longer than Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas. I think it would be more interesting to point out where it's different, than where it's the same. Instead what happened is that people got excited about the criticism, wanted to join the fun, and we got "Avatar is ableist", "I'll match your ableist and top it with heteronormative!". Lame and anti-intellectual. To make it worst this wasn't just babble, it was the general case across the blogosphere, a hundred people cited Analee Newitz, and then wanted to top her by pointing out other problems.

I disagree. The backdrop context of the movie is that the humans are exploiting the Na'Vi. Seeing as how this is a warning and a credible prediction of humanity's future, there needs to be humans imo.

Why the racist thread title?   And why the racist thread title for the previous thread?  It turns me right off.

By the way, human cultures do have a habit of taking in outsiders and making them leaders.  In Ireland, de valera (spanish), lemass (french),  The English military leaders  Wellington and Kitchener were both born in Ireland, and having that millstone round their neck did not stop them.

In south america you had a Japaneese leader of peru and  first generation syrian as pm of Argentina .

And, who wrote the patronising stuff below?  Who is going to tell Evo Morales that he is compelled to accept false notions of his standing in life? And all because he got taken in by a certain movie.

Will he wake up from a dream and quit his day job?  

Not to divert too much but...

I'd be careful on that. It was revealed years later that Philippine guerrilla movement was infiltrated by agents who moved into leadership positions and then accused hundreds of their members of being DPAs (deep penetration agents - i.e. pot calls kettle black). This resulted in hundreds of summary executions carried out by the rebels against their own. 

..why does it offend me? because the main story is not about the na'vi. because they have taken a work of art and turned it into a war movie. because they want me to believe that this is what i/we like.
..what occurs in the movie is not revoulution. it's the old rotten apple theory. it's the bad military people and the bad corporations we need to get rid of. when it's the system that is corrupt throughout. these people aren't differen't. what would be different would be if the sequal was not framed in war. what would be different is if the story was centered on the day to day lives of the na'vi and their relationship with nature. what would be different is if there was a revolution on earth and an accord based on mutual respect ensued.  

..am i off the wall 500_Apples?

Long thread.