Is the "Avatar" film racist?
I have heard this film condemned as Greenie propaganda but this is a bit of a surprise. But it is probably the mark of a good film that you can see lots of different things in it
"It appears I wasn’t the only one to pick up on Avatar’s racist subtext. Critics universally agree that the 3D blockbuster is an astounding spectacle, but there is now a storm raging over its hidden messages – as The Week and Yahoo Movies both point out. I’ve received dozens of emails and tweets on the subject, the latest one arguing bluntly that I’ve read too much into the film: “Isn’t Avatar simply about good guys vs. bad guys?”, my correspondent asks.
And the answer is: No, Avatar is not just a good vs. bad guys film. As Annalee Newitz observes on IO9.com, “it’s undeniable that the film – like alien apartheid flick District 9, released earlier this year – is emphatically a fantasy about race.” I agree, Avatar is plainly concerned with race. The Na’vi might be blue aliens – but they’re also blue aliens with Maasai-style necklaces, East African tribal jewellery, dreadlocked hair, bows, arrows and facepaint, acted by mostly black actors. They’re also rescued from destruction by a white character – played, of course, by a white actor – who becomes one of them (and later on their leader). It’s a classic scenario, says Newitz, which you’ll have seen before “in non-scifi epics from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of coluor and eventually becomes its most awesome member.”
It’s this fantasy – the white liberal man as the saviour of the so-called primitive “natives” – which I found so nauseatingly patronising.
Source
77 comments:
On the other hand, it is rather difficult to create jewellery, hairstyle etc for a film which won't resemble that of some human group somewhere.
F*cking Liberals can't even watch a good movie without reading race issues into it. Why can't we just watch a movie as an escape? Why can't we just watch a movie for simple joy and awe? Leave us the f*ck alone!
And has anyone on the Left even stopped to think that maybe patterning a noble, innocent, and spiritually advanced culture like the Na'vi after an East African culture might actually be an homage? Obviously, not, because this is simply another example of Liberals playing the race card where no race issue exists.
"It's a classic scenario, says Newitz, which you'll have seen before in non-scifi epics from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of coluor and eventually becomes its most awesome member."
Excuse me, but the phrase "People of color" typically refers to Blacks, so this statement is not even close to truth. 'Dances With Wolves' was about native Americans, not Blacks, and 'The Last Samurai' was about Asians, not Blacks. WTF?!?
The only "person" not a person of colour is the "Invisible Man".
I thought the movie was about the good environmentally friendly blue people against the evil military industrial empire who were too stupid to bomb from low orbit.
Someone else wrote:
the storyline was pretty much "Pocahontas" meets "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest",
What do I know?
These are the same people who find racism in the name of the "Dark Lord Sauron" from Lord of the Rings. Dark is a euphemism for black, right?
So white men aren't supposed to sympathize with the oppressed people of color. And if they do, God forbid they should have any special knowledge or ability to share with them which might make them stand out, and engender feelings of inadequacy in their oppressed new brethren.
All it needs now is for the muslims to say the movie is blasphemy (then I hope the movie theaters all over the world have good fire insurance!)
Anonymous said...
"The only "person" not a person of colour is the "Invisible Man".
LOL! Smartest statement i've seen all day! But here's the scary part. What does it say of a society that gets it's pantys in a knot over a cartoon? Yes, a cartoon! It's FAKE! It's purpose is to make the mindless idiots who see something "profound" in it even more mindless.
The U. S., a.k.a. FUBAR...
Dances With Smurfs flogged the Noble Savage myth so hard you would think it was a dead horse, yet some people complain about the "perfect" people in this movie being African Noble Savages? Just… Wow…
What made the "white man" the hero in this movie? It was that he discarded "the white man's ways" and literally became A Noble Savage.
These are the same people who find racism in the name of the "Dark Lord Sauron" from Lord of the Rings. Dark is a euphemism for black, right?
Darkness associated with evil and lightness associated with goodness seems to be pretty universal on Earth. Even the Muslims have something in their scripture talking about the faces of moral people turning white and the faces of the immoral turning black. (That suddenly spawns an idea - slip some silver nitrate, which turns dark when exposed to light, into the water the religious leaders use to wash themselves, then let nature take its course when they step outside into public view.)
I had to go back and read this again after reading the comments... I think most of you are misunderstanding the source auther. I think he/she is one of us and is trying to point out how racist the libs actually are. The last line is:
"It’s this fantasy – the white LIBERAL man as the saviour of the so-called primitive “natives” – which I found so nauseatingly patronising."
Malcolm: Yes but this is entirely African.
Anon 12:39 : You got it right but maybe a little backwards. The question is why can't the hollywood libs make a movie that just allows us to escape and enjoy without filling it with their lib B.S.
Anon 12:58 : Your right, it is about the loving caring environs against the corporate military brutes but it is minorities in this movie that are the loving caring environs and whites are evil villans.
You know, maybe I'm weird, but I found the whole thing to be an eminent domain allegory, with the large corporation not worrying about the local residents but only concerned about using the property for their own gain.
Or maybe I was the only one waiting for people from New London to call people to arms against the city council. FYI...Have gun will travel.
The one thing I don't see, which many people have, is that this is an allegory for the beginning of the US. But in that case, the colonists were looking to better utilize the land through ownership. At no time did anyone from the "Company" (Cameron really needs to start coming up with better names, he just seems lazy: UNOBTAINIUM) want to move there and make it a better place.
The movie can be anything to anyone. It's an interesting film because first you take side with the humans and wonder why the aliens are so dangerous, then you understand why and side with the aliens.
Here in the South some of us resent New Yorkers and other liberal yankees that buy homes here and then start telling us that we need more gun control, an income tax, social justice, environmental initiatives, etc.
I think the message of the movie is that you should leave foreign cultures alone. And I agree with the eminent domain idea, here in America the EPA can tell you what to do with your own land if they discover a weird rat or endangered bat or anything they want to save.
liberals, if you don't like it "turn the channel" lol... (how does your medicine taste?
I loved the movie but recognised clear 'racial' elements in it. As stated, there was a strong 'noble savage' element and I originally thought the Na'vi were native americans. The actors for the Na'vi were predominantly black.
For all that, however, I actually thought it praised native culture and values. It was certainly not in any way derogatory.
OTOHmit did take a white person to help them deal with the soldiers - but he was also the one who knew their strengths and weaknesses.
At the end, what this really amounts to is a complaint that the leading man was white, not black.
I think it is a stretch to say it is an allegory to U.S. history.
As far as being anything to anybody... come on, you could say that about literally anything. Why waste the ink to even type that?
This was clearly an evil white corporate machine backed up by the jug head military vs. all the poor virtuous minorities and how it takes an understanding, compassionate, caring white man (a.k.a. liberal) to save them. Oh and of course there is a touch of global warming/ environmental destruction crap tossed in as well.
I suppose it could be an allegory to certain perceived U.S. History, i.e. the Iraq invasion to steal all the oil from them.
I found the movie to be very predictable, the dialog was not particularly good, and even the story had holes in it. The only thing that saved this movie for me was seeing it in 3D at an iMax theatre, the effects were really good. Overall though, if this is the best he could come up with in 10 years he should give it up.
"The actors for the Na'vi were predominantly black."
---I did not know that when watching the movie, the Na'vi's were painted blue, if black actors were used is because there's a lot of tall black people (just watch a basketball game if you don't believe me).
True, to the liberals this movie will be about the military-industrial complex. But to a survivalist this movie could be about Waco and Ruby Ridge with the exception that the less powerful win.
As for the leading man being white, well, he was in a wheelchair, doesn't that count for something in the minds of white liberals? Don't they like disabled soldiers? Then again, he wanted to do his duty and not sue the government for his disability, go figure.
Yeah - so isn't this much a parallel to the much-discussed Bible on this site before - ie. you can read into this movie so much of what concerns or interests you, whether or not the makers had any of that in mind at all and probably DID'NT!
Hey Black folk CHARLES DARWIN was a RACSIST and EVOLUTION is RACSIST so you should start demanding the removal of all evolution from our places of education
Birdzilla - evolution is a biological process, and such a process can't be "racist" other than resulting in races. You seem to be proof of evolution going in a questionable direction!
Annon 4:18, evolution is a theory not a fact, belief in it requires blind faith. What else requires blind faith? Oh yeah, religion... I guess that means evolution is a religion huh.
"in it requires blind faith"
I am sorry, but Blind Faith broke up in 1969. They are not available to support your delusional comments.
“I am sorry, but Blind Faith broke up in 1969. They are not available to support your delusional comments.”
LOL… I love the way libs can not argue with facts and turn to name calling.
It is funny how anyone having faith in a religion are delusional but people having faith in evolution or global warming are not.
Anon501: No facts or experimental data to back up religion; plenty of facts and experimental data to back up evolution and climate change.
And orders of magnitude more facts proving that climate change is entirely natural, driven by the sun, and not man-made.
The point is that there are facts and experimental data that support climate change as well as refute it. The debate can be made in scientific terms, not some dusty old book.
You cannot say the same thing about religion.
There are no facts or experimental data to support evolution, only observation. I could take the very same observations and explain them with religion.
For that matter there are no facts or experimental data to support global warming either. If you recall they "deleted" the data to save room when they changed offices. There was zero peer review and thus zero data. Just the fact that you guys had to go from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" tells me you have no clue what’s going on or what’s causing it. Global warming is certainly faith based.
"No facts or experimental data to back up religion;"
:: Sigh… ::
There is a significant difference between refusing to acknowledge facts and evidence, and nonexistence of facts and evidence.
"The attempt to show that there is no philosophical knowledge by simply urging that there is always someone who can be relied on to remain unconvinced is a common fallacy made even by a distinguished philosopher like Bertrand Russell. I called it the But-there-is-always-someone-who-will-never-agree Diversion. Then there is the charge that in philosophy it is never possible to prove to someone that you are right and he or she is wrong. But the missing piece in this argument is the distinction between producing a proof and persuading a person. A person can be persuaded by an abominable argument and remain unconvinced by one that ought to be accepted."
—Antony Flew
I've pointed you in the direction of that evidence before, but you consistently refuse to even look at it. You can lead a horse (atheist) to water (evidence)…
You anti-science religious wackaloons make me laugh. Say hi to the tooth fairy for me.
I find Anon's last comment truly ironic. I debate Christianity vs. atheism A Lot. 99.99% of the time, I'm the one pointing to various scientific studies, theories, and well established facts, while the atheist doesn't point to science at all. Instead they throw out logical fallacies, especially the Ad Hominem fallacy; just as Anon did here. (The Genetic Fallacy is their other favorite.)
You wouldn't know a scientific fact if it bit you on the ass. Spew forth, you anti-science religious wackaloon. It is quite telling that someone who uses logic quite well believes in supernatural superstitions.
Your pal, anon.
ROTFL!!!
Thanks for proving my point with two more ad hominems!
"It is quite telling that someone who uses logic quite well believes in supernatural superstitions."
Good scientists follow the evidence to the most rational (or likely) conclusion, even if they don't like the conclusion or it seems improbable.
BTW, why do you continue to respond to my posts? The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
It all boils down to:
You believe in the supernatural.
I don't.
Have a nice life.
"BTW, why do you continue to respond to my posts?"
Because I have answers to your challenges, and those answers might help someone else reading these comments who is intellectually honest.
Why do you continue to post when you have nothing left but insults?
"Why do you continue to post when you have nothing left but insults?"
It's entertainment for me. I like to observe responses when I apply a stimulus. Simple as that.
You are quite predictable, you know.
Gotta go... off to a liberal blog now...
cya
There seems to be confusion with the terms "evolution" and the "theory of evolution". Even creationists have to concede there is evolution in nature and so have invented the limiting term "micro-evolution". As should be well understood - scientists use the term "theory" to describe a satisfactory explanation or model of the obseravtions or other data gathered. Those who refute the theory of evolution out of hand and call it "blind faith" or whatever, do so because it conflicts with their religion, which to them always trumps any scientific evidence that may be presented.
"We take the side of science IN SPITE OF the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, IN SPITE OF its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, IN SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRIOR COMMITMENT, A COMMITMENT TO MATERIALISM.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that WE ARE FORCED BY OUR A PRIORI ADHERENCE TO MATERIAL CAUSES to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, THAT MATERIALISM IS AN ABSOLUTE, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
— Richard Lewontin
Evolutionary Biologist
"Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, pg. 31, 9 January 1997
Please, tell me again which side is allowing their a priori conclusions to trump the evidence.
We are conscious of living in a material universe and science can only relate to that material universe (so far). Speculation about a spiritual dimension just remains speculation (so far), without any evidence but personal feelings about it or philosophical debate about it, which is not empirical proof or convincing to everybody, so is of limited value on a general level and certainly not a scientific level. However, particular religions go a lot further - pontificating to an incredibly specific degree about the non-material dimension they believe in, although sounding suspiciously anthropomorphic).
"We are conscious of living in a material universe and science can only relate to that material universe (so far)."
True.
"Speculation about a spiritual dimension just remains speculation (so far), without any evidence..."
False. If the supernatural world exists, and if it interacts with the natural world, then it will produce natural results which are measurable by science.
For instance, the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is a supernatural event which, if true, can be verified by science.
"For instance, the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is a supernatural event which, if true, can be verified by science."
Ok, so go verify it. I will expect a report by the end of the week.
Leviathon,
This guy thinks every serious historian has no idea how of how to study history. By his "standards", nothing at all can be known about historical events.
The resurrection is the single best attested event in the ancient world. In fact, there's more information on the resurrection than on Tiberius Ceasar, the leader of Rome at the time. This is probably why Anon has adopted the anti-historical standards which he has. After all, he has an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism to maintain.
I've tried to show him the evidence before. His response was to essentially stuff his fingers in his ears and should "Na, Na, Na, I can't hear you!" at the top of his lungs. You would be wasting your time on him.
Short answer: Go read The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus by Gary Habermas.
Long answer: Here are a couple facts that even the skeptics can agree on.
1. Jesus died by Crucifixion: This fact was recorded in the Gospels as well as by Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian as well as others. This fact is even affirmed by Jesus Seminar scholar John Dominic Crossan.
2. Jesus' Disciples believed that he rose from the dead: They proclaimed that he rose and were even willing to die because of it. Who would die for something they did not believe?
But besides this, do you agree that if supernatural events occur, they would be verifiable by science?
"But besides this, do you agree that if supernatural events occur, they would be verifiable by science?"
If the events are verifiable by science, they would not be supernatural.
Anon942, Anon415 and me are one in the same.
"If the events are verifiable by science, they would not be supernatural."
When I said that supernatural events could be verified by science, I meant that their effects could be verified.
As in the example I used before, Jesus' resurrection from the dead is an effect of a supernatural event. The event itself isn't measurable, but the effect it had is.
"Jesus' resurrection from the dead is an effect of a supernatural event. "
It could also be an effect of a natural event. There are many cases where someone who was "dead" woke up in a morgue.
"It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.” --Miracle Max, The Princess Bride
"It could also be an effect of a natural event. There are many cases where someone who was "dead" woke up in a morgue."
Technically, yes, though that's a different discussion. I was just making the point that the effects of a supernatural event can be verifiable by science. Do you dispute that?
Your "proof" is a quote from The Princess Bride?
That's a great movie, but, just, wow…
You need to read up a bit on crucifixion:
"…when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He conjectured that the condemned would have severe difficulty inhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs. The condemned would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, leading to exhaustion, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. Indeed, Roman executioners could be asked to hasten death by breaking the condemned's legs, after he had hung for some time. Once deprived of support and unable to lift himself, the condemned would die within a few minutes."
When pushing up is the only way to breath, passing out = death.
"Your "proof" is a quote from The Princess Bride?"
Not intended to be proof, numb nuts.
"I was just making the point that the effects of a supernatural event can be verifiable by science. Do you dispute that?"
My point is that if an event is verifiable by science, then it is not a supernatural event. It would have to be a natural event. Point me to some peer reviewed scientific papers that confirms what you say.
"My point is that if an event is verifiable by science, then it is not a supernatural event."
Do you understand the difference between "cause" and "effect"?
If you're sure you meant "effect", then you'll have to explain to me how it's reasonable to expect a natural effect, in and of itself, to automatically require a natural cause.
"Do you understand the difference between "cause" and "effect"?"
Of course. My point is that an effect can have multiple causes (events). Since an effect is natural, I think that the cause would also have to be natural or unknown.
This is akin to the question of what holds the galaxy together? It has been conjectured that it is dark matter and dark energy, which have not been detected yet. So, what are these, natural, supernatural or unknown or something else? Is the supernatural simply undiscovered natural phenomenon? More often than not, the unknown is generally said to be a god of some sort.
Back to your original question, "I was just making the point that the effects of a supernatural event can be verifiable by science. Do you dispute that?", my answer as this time is I don't know.
This is quite an interesting subtopic. I would like to understand this better. If you have any peer reviewed scientific papers or publications that offer explaination, please post them. Thanks.
"Of course. My point is that an effect can have multiple causes (events). Since an effect is natural, I think that the cause would also have to be natural or unknown."
Why?
Think of it like the scene of a death. You're standing over a dead guy who's death you're investigating.
You see a discarded gun nearby, as well as a bullet hole in the guy, evidence that this person was murdered (an unnatural cause with a verifiable, material result) and didn't die of natural causes.
But your boss tells you that you can't implicate a white guy. Obviously this is ridiculous, a white guy could very well have done it.
So, you can either cut out a possible cause, or follow the evidence to wherever it leads.
People like Luke talk about historical standards of evidence and 'a priori' reasoning, but it's his emotional investment in a religion that is depending on an interpretion of ancient history with very weak evidence by any standards that compels him to accept very low standards of evidence that involve a lot of supposition. Other historical figures from 2000+ years ago may also have weak evidence attached to what we may think we know about them, but they do not have world religions depending on the evidence. It seems very foolish to build your whole world view on such a flimsy foundation. I know Luke will use any kind of argumentation to justify his religious beliefs, but as he himself admits, evidence should lead to conclusions not the other way round.
"...ancient history with very weak evidence by any standards..."
Weak evidence that nearly all historians, skeptics and those with "emotional investments" alike, can agree on?
So tell me, is the evidence weak because you don't like the conclusion, or because you've taken the time to examine it and come to this conclusion?
But back to the original point, do you agree that a non-material cause can have a material effect?
Even murder is an example of this. The death is a result of a material effect (the act of murder), but the act of murder is the result of a non-material cause (a decision by the person to commit murder).
So Levi you agree the evidence is weak. I have no vested interest in the conclusions made, but those making the conclusions should not be simply trying to validate their own religions by a biased interpretion of such evidence as there might be while ignoring or refuting alternative interpretation.
"So Levi you agree the evidence is weak."
No, sorry, I should have put that in quotes to make it more clear that I was referring to your characterization of the evidence.
I don't think it's weak at all, I think it's incredibly strong. Which is why I was asking if you've taken a look at it at all.
But back to the original point, do you agree that a non-material cause can have a material effect?
You seem to be dodging this question. Why is that?
The evidence for the Jesus character is entirely indirect. Despite being thought to be a charismatic figure who caused a high-profile disturbance in Jerusalem itself involving the Roman administration, there are no known contemporaneous reports of that, or of him, at all, by anyone at all. I repeat none at all! The four gospels recording the alleged life, sayings and acts of Jesus, were written decades after the supposed life of Jesus and were not written as eye-witness accounts. Three of these four gospels rely on the record of the other one which is written by more than one author and in turn clearly relys on yet another unknown record called "Q" by scholars. It is thus very uncertain whether such second-hand or multiple-hand information can accurately reflect the actual sayings and doings of the supposed character Jesus, much less give credibility to alleged "miracles" and even less to a resurrection from the dead, and still less that he was God incarnate. Can people even living today be believed when they say they have spoken to their dead relatives through a seance or whatever or that they have been abducted by aliens? - and they are living "eye-witnesses". The first non-christian accounts were merely comments about what the christians of the time believed, and even those accounts are now known to have been interferred with by later christians. Believe if you like in whatever you like, but don't claim it has much factual backing!
Sorry Levi, I am not the same one dealing with your question about material effects. But in your reference to thoughts about murder, are you taking into consideration the neuro-chemistry of the brain which is entirely material?
"Sorry Levi, I am not the same one dealing with your question about material effects."
Prove it!
"But in your reference to thoughts about murder, are you taking into consideration the neuro-chemistry of the brain which is entirely material?"
It's true that the brain functions on neuro-chemicals being fired in the brain, but these don't correspond to specific thoughts.
Thoughts are not material things.
Thoughts are not material things.
Prove it.
I hate to say it Leviathan, but I told you so. Anon's "standard" of historical analysis have been rejected by every serious historian (both amateur and professional) because it doesn't allow anyone to know anything at all about history.
Alexander the Great was called that because he had a really good publicist. The Roman Empire was lead by a cabal of warlords who called themselves "Senators" and put a token leader in charge who may, or may not, have been called "Ceasar". Plato was just a figment of Aristotle's mind that he used as a character in his writings.
…or at least that's what Anon would have knowledge of the past devolve to.
"Prove it."
Nice try. But instead of dodging, how about you give me an honest answer to the main topic before we move on to something else?
Leviathan,
You expect an honest debate with someone who is hiding behind "Anonymous" so they can be intentionally deceptive about what they did and did not claim?
I've told you I'm not the one dealing with your other topic. As for "hiding", any name used here is meaningless and virtually "hiding" - just refer to clock refs if you need to refer to a person rather than the content of the topic. As it happens I can't make a further contribution to this thread as I'm going overseas in a few hours but I doubt it could go anywhere when we have comments like the last one from 4:54. Have fun with someone else or the one you were arguing with before. bye.
Luke is just proving the point that Jesus can be a bogus character in history!
"I've told you I'm not the one dealing with your other topic."
How do you expect me to accept that? That's the whole point of using a handle! So that people will recognize your posts and be able to address you accurately.
As it is, the only thing I have to go off of is the attitude of your responses, and they seem the same.
Regardless, have a safe trip.
Typical troll, more dishonest argument by twisting my words into something else.
I'm demonstrating the results of YOUR broken "standards", and why historians not only don't use them, they pointedly reject them.
No wonder you don't understand history. You can't even understand someone you're interacting with who can immediately correct your misunderstandings!
"That's the whole point of using a handle! So that people will recognize your posts and be able to address you accurately."
Thus, the purpose of my handle.
I have just realized that everything that I have said before is wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Nice try. But instead of dodging, how about you give me an honest answer to the main topic before we move on to something else?
Why? You dodged Mr. Clean 7:15. What makes you so special?
So instead of debating honestly and above board by creating and using your own handle, you decide to just pretend that you're me. Obviously, you're trying to make a point, but your overwhelming dishonesty prevents you from being able to see mine.
You deceitful cretin! You have crossed the line.
**Sigh**
Stimulus / response. You fell for it again.
"Why? You dodged Mr. Clean 7:15. What makes you so special?"
How have I? I've been debating the exact same topic that he was in his post.
Figure it out with your superior brain.
I remembered this post after finding an entry on Failblog where someone took the plot of Disney's Pocahontas, and by crossing out certain words and names and replacing them with other words and names, pretty much converts it into the plot of Avatar.
The Failblog photo
Post a Comment