Avatar: An Extension of White Supremacy

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Fidel wrote:

What else can they do really?

How about resist, or at least not collaborate?

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.

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?

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 [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...

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.

..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.

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.

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.."

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.