Avatar: An Extension of White Supremacy

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
500_Apples

Le T wrote:

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.

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.

500_Apples

PraetorianFour wrote:
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?

You're a funny guy.

500_Apples

PraetorianFour wrote:
500_Apples wrote:

The exoskeletons look cool because they would be designed to look cool. Look at the F22 Raptor. Submarines also look sleek. However, in the movie they are made to be evil rather than sexy. They are tools of exploitation and not tools of defending freedom.

I found this interesting do you mind if I expand on this 500 apples? I found the exoskeletons looked cool too. I found it a little weird at just how huanoid they were. They have very human like movements. Flexing, stretching even when they fought at one point the colonel pulled out a giant sized fighting knife or bayonet and basically used it like a human using a knife. Traditionally stuff like this in the sci-fi world is much more robotic like in nature. I found the combat walkers were just like avatars themselves. What about them did you find evil opposed to sexy? How do tools of exploitation differ looks wise from tools to defend freedom? I tried to link some pictures but I fail at internets. I kept coming up with pictures of some cartoon.

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.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Farmpunk wrote:
Hmmm.  Not sure I agree totally, though I grasp your point better now.

Gibson, like many good sci-fi writers, takes the day's latest tech and predicts how it will affect our lives in the near future.  I believe he did that quite well with Neuromancer.  Predicting tomorrow's technology seems a little less important than how it will affect the lives of humans, how people will use technology.  He's not predicting technology in that novel, he's predicting a future that technology will help humans create.

Maybe part of our disagreement stems from the fact that I don't believe that technology changes the world--this is a determinist view of technology that has been fairly soundly debunked. Technology is only an expression of what society is already prepared for. To use a simple example, the technology for the internet was around for at least a generation before society decided it was a good way to spend its time. Did Al Gore really "invent" the internet and then changed everything? I don't think so. Of course, its impact then has effects, but like I said in another thread, technology simply allows us to change the world that is changing us.

So what Sci Fi is talking about is not chips and wires and link-ups and neurons (has a sci-fi novel ever told us how to build the techs it envisions?) Of course not.) but rather the sociality of technology--which is basically what you said, farmpunk. How it is conceived in the popular imagination and so forth. What stories our technologies tell us about ourselves.

 

Viking77

500_Apples wrote:

Viking77 wrote:
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 think it's implied the humans did try and trade for unobtainium, but the Na'Vi didn't want anything the humans have to offer. Not medicine, not whatever.

As for taking it by force, I don't think it was justified. They'd have to explore Earth's sociology better which they might do in sequels. The so-called white supremacy of Avatar is actually the future we are currently headed for minus the happy ending. We still have a choice. To change. Humanity still seems to have some industrial capacity as they can build interstellar cruisers and war machines.

 

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.

NDPP

Refuting the White Savior:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Refuting-The-White-Savior-by-Rabbi-Arth...

"some knee-jerk leftists have criticized the heroism of Jake Sully as merely another racist case of a 'white Male Marine' becoming savior of the exploited community. Indeed some conservatives have stolen the rhetoric to discredit a widely celebrated film that clearly threatens to undermine the corporate-military-NeoCon alliance..."

my goodness!

ceti ceti's picture

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.

CMOT Dibbler

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.

Ok, but haven't there been better movies made with Similar plots? What about the Mission or Thunderheart?

Fidel

500_Apples wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:
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?

You're a funny guy.

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?

500_Apples

Fidel wrote:
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.

And they had a paraplegic in Avatar.

Fidel wrote:
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?

A species a million years more advanced than us that wants to colonize us would have already done so.

500_Apples

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

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.

Ok, but haven't there been better movies made with Similar plots? What about the Mission or Thunderheart?

Nobody watches those movies so their influence is doubtful.

Tens of millions of people have gone to see Avatar.

500_Apples

Catchfire wrote:
Maybe part of our disagreement stems from the fact that I don't believe that technology changes the world--this is a determinist view of technology that has been fairly soundly debunked. Technology is only an expression of what society is already prepared for. To use a simple example, the technology for the internet was around for at least a generation before society decided it was a good way to spend its time. Did Al Gore really "invent" the internet and then changed everything? I don't think so. Of course, its impact then has effects, but like I said in another thread, technology simply allows us to change the world that is changing us.

So what Sci Fi is talking about is not chips and wires and link-ups and neurons (has a sci-fi novel ever told us how to build the techs it envisions?) Of course not.) but rather the sociality of technology--which is basically what you said, farmpunk. How it is conceived in the popular imagination and so forth. What stories our technologies tell us about ourselves.

Nature isn't a black box that will give you anything you want. I think what you're saying is more of a consequence of the corporate fetish for "applied science". Dollars are spent researching ends that are more appealing. You should keep in mind that which ends are available to research are a function of what "basic science" has found as templates, which is entirely dependent on the underlying truth of nature, independent of social norms. Additionally, there are lots of investments that lead to nothing of tangible value, or to less intangible values. People have also researched flying saucers. They've researched pion radiation therapy to fight cancer. Superconductors have been researched. Those didn't lead to success.

A good example is the laser. In the 1950s it was regarded as a toy for physicists. They liked their toy that had no obvious applications to capitalism. 50 years later, the laser is the basis of data storage technology, i.e. CDs, DVDs, Bluray. We can use the laser to repair eyes. Yes, society was prepared for these innovations, but they were also accessible.

The deterministic view that technology is ONLY a function of what society wants is as incorrect as the notion it's a random driver that controls all social evolution.

500_Apples

 

Viking77 wrote:
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.

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.

Fidel

500_Apples wrote:
Fidel wrote:
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?

A species a million years more advanced than us that wants to colonize us would have already done so.

Okay you're a hard case. What are the chances that a civilization that is millions of years more technically advanced would even need to colonize earth specifically? I'm thinking of Kardaschev's scale of increasingly advanced/evolved civilizations. They could colonize any of millions of planets that fit the bill for their needs.

But what if they are only ten thousand years more advanced and perhaps only a type II or III civilization and desperate for some real estate where CO2 levels are not quite high enough yet for them to live comfortably but somewhat promising just the same? Would our stooges sell us out? Have they done so already? 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!  Wink

Fidel

Catchfire wrote:
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

 

ceti ceti's picture

 

This is where our modern global capitalist system all begins -- ground zero -- Hispaniola -- Haiti.

See this speech attributed to Taino Chief Hatuey by Bartolome de Las Casas, a Spaniard who documented in detail the beginning of genocide and colonization in the Americas. The Taino were the first to meet Columbus and the first people to get wiped out.

Hatuey had escaped from Hispaniola to warn and rally the Cuban Taino to face what was to come:

"Here (pointing to a basket of gold and jewels) is the God the Spaniards worship. For these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea... They tell us, these tyrants, that they adore a God of peace and equality, and yet they usurp our land and make us their slaves. They speak to us of an immortal soul and of their eternal rewards and punishments, and yet they rob our belongings, seduce our women, violate our daughters. Incapable of matching us in valor, these cowards cover themselves with iron that our weapons cannot break."

Hatuey managed to wage guerrilla war against the Spanish in Cuba, until he was eventually captured (the Spaniards used a traitor) and burned at the stake in 1512. At his death, De Las Casas recalled this:

"[Hatuey], thinking a little, asked the religious man if Christians went to heaven. The religious man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people. This is the name and honor that God and our faith have earned."

After his execution, the Spaniards wiped out most of the entire village and enslaved the rest to work to death in the mines.

Hatuey has since become celebrated as Cuba's First National Hero.

Incidentally, one of the characters in Avatar -- the new leader of the clan and the guy who didn't like Jake very much -- is named Tsu'tey. Another similarity but also important divergence is that the Na'vi successfully rallied the other clans, which Hatuey couldn't do as the Cuban Taino could not believe what was happening on Hispaniola. And of course Jake turned traitor against the humans as opposed to Hatuey being betrayed by one of his own people.

Given the similarities of names, turning points, and even speeches, it seems probable the Cameron envisioned Avatar to be a mirror reversal of this early episode in the Columbian invasion. 

 

Fidel

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

NDPP

The Holocaust We Will Not See:

http://www.countercurrents.org/monbiot120110.htm

"Yet the greatest acts of genocide in history scarcely ruffle our collective conscience.

The final solutions pursued in the Americas were far more successful. Those who commissioned them or endorsed them remain national or religious heroes. Those who seek to prompt our memories are ignored or condemned..."

Joey Ramone

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.

Fidel

Joey Ramone wrote:

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.

What else can they do really? Everytime there is a Hatuey or a Patrice Lumumba arrive on the scene, colonials working on behalf of predatory capitalists intervene covertly or militarily to cut down any hopes for a united indigenous movement, or a united Africa etc. Africa is the scene of a crime as is Vietnam and Cambodia, South and Central Americas, Philippines and so on. In order to corrupt someone or install a colonial stooge into power, there are those who do the corrupting. Greg Palast did a mini-film on how African nations have been corrupted and kept under the thumb of international capital since the CIA and Belgian colonials captured and tortured Patrice Lumumba to death in the '60's. Indigenous people in North America have been brutalized and ripped off and thousands of years old cultures undergoing extermination even today.

Joey Ramone

Fidel wrote:
What else can they do really?

How about resist, or at least not collaborate?

Ghislaine

Catchfire wrote:

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

 

lol....or what if The Matrix was the one sci-fi that actually predicted the future?  

500_Apples

Joey Ramone wrote:

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.

Not bad, your 11 year old brought up a point not brought up in 250 babble posts.

Tigana Tigana's picture

abnormal wrote:

My thirteen year old summed up the movie perfectly.  "Why did he spend umpteen million making the movie but only ten dollars on the script?"

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

Joey Ramone

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?

500_Apples

Tigana wrote:

abnormal wrote:

My thirteen year old summed up the movie perfectly.  "Why did he spend umpteen million making the movie but only ten dollars on the script?"

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

...

It's becoming de rigeure for any successful franchise to be accused of plagiarism. I think they have people scouring the arts world to find anything remotely similar.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

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

500_Apples

Timebandit,

Can't speak for the russian novels,

But flying islands with exotic fauna are not new. I recall their presence in a Final Fantasy game that came out in the mid 1990s. I'm sure flying islands have been used in that manner a hundred times.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Jonathan Swift had a flying Island.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

500_Apples wrote:

Timebandit,

Can't speak for the russian novels,

But flying islands with exotic fauna are not new. I recall their presence in a Final Fantasy game that came out in the mid 1990s. I'm sure flying islands have been used in that manner a hundred times.

Sure.  I would imagine, though, that some research into analogous products (movies, books mostly) would have been done and any that were similar would be examined and the liklihood of lawsuit assessed by the lawyers and insurance company.  If you've done your due diligence, then usuallly the errors and omissions insurance will cover that eventuality.

ETA:  A claim against a film would have to be more specific than just "floating islands".  They'd have to show a more direct link or how it's based on their particular floating islands in greater detail.  You can't just have the concept of floating islands and expect no one to ever use floating islands ever again.

RosaL

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 [url=http://rt.com/On_Air/Live_Cams/rt-wolves.html]RussiaToday wolfcam[/url]. It's interesting, if you like wolves! 

Ok, as you were...

ceti ceti's picture
Fidel

Joey Ramone wrote:

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?

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.

 

500_Apples

Somehow, Avatar is now the highest grossing movie of all time.

It's not valid to argue it's only because of higher ticket prices. It's a hit even just counting the 2D showings, it's got plenty of money left to make over the coming months, and people have to actually be willing to pay $15 for an IMAX showing.

I hope the movie is a game changer, and pushes the science fiction genre forward,

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..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 ceti's picture

That article I cited really rips down the stupid and simplistic white savior trope. And don't get me started on the title of this thread which is emblematic of the knee-jerk dense mindedness which keeps a lot of the left stuck in its smug self-righteous bunker of ineffectuality -- this is why neo-cons like Podhoretz and Brooks are also busy pushing this line as a preemptive strike against this film having a more radicalizing sociocultural impact. They know how to push the right buttons to get this response, especially amongst their counterpart culture warriors on the left.

And it's all utterly ironic when we currently have Obama betraying his base, liquidating the left, while pushing corporatist and militaristic policies. Give me Jake Sully any day.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

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

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Don't take it personally, epaulo13. Some babblers just can't take their blinders off when it comes to their favourite movies and books

500_Apples

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.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i went to watch the movie. like i watched a 1,000 others before it. white supremacy was dripping all over it. i don't need a foot long analysis to know that..nor a 2 foot one to make me change my mind. i know my knee jerk reactions and this wasn't one of them.
..speaking of which what's with the name calling?  

500_Apples

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.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

 

500_Apples wrote:

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 didn't find your words unnerving i found them bratty. like you were poking at those you disagreed with, with a stick.
..i agree the movie has complexities. it may reflect a level of consciousness of where we are at that has taken us, who were suppose to know about these things, by surprise. this makes me suspicious. hollywood is the propaganda capital of the world and it has approved this to go. for now i'll take it at face value that it's a supremacist flick. there really was no need for any humans whatsoever in this film. maybe 1 or 2 for contast.

 

 

 

500_Apples

 

epaulo13 wrote:
..i didn't find your words unnerving i found them bratty. like you were poking at those you disagreed with, with a stick.

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.

epaulo13 wrote:
there really was no need for any humans whatsoever in this film. maybe 1 or 2 for contast.

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.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

500_Apples wrote:

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

epaulo13 wrote:
there really was no need for any humans whatsoever in this film. maybe 1 or 2 for contast.

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.

..i understand why you are frustrated.

..if i may. the backdrop is some bad humans are doing the exploiting and some good humans are saving the day. there is a meaningful difference and this is what offends me most. it was placed there for no good reason. i sugest that this was not needed and after reading the above article analee seems to say it as well.

Brian White

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?  

 

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Avatar: An Extension of White Supremacy

http://www.countercurrents.org/meade050110.htm

"The theme of Caucasian superiority has played itself out over an extended period of time throughout the history of the movie and television industry...Regrettably, movie goers often fail to recognize the incessant inane and divisive ideas promoted by such productions as Avatar and subsequently are subliminally compelled to accept false notions in regard to either the superiority or inferiority of various groups.."

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well, that's the cue to close this thread.

Polunatic2

Not to divert too much but...

Quote:
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'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. 

500_Apples

epaulo13 wrote:
..if i may. the backdrop is some bad humans are doing the exploiting and some good humans are saving the day. there is a meaningful difference and this is what offends me most.

Why?

Do all humans need to be the same?

Catchfire wrote:
Well, that's the cue to close this thread.

LaughingLaughing

You could not possibly be more transparent.

Pages

Topic locked