Some see racist theme in alien adventure 'Avatar'

[Gnszr]

some people see a racist theme in everything. mostly racists.

lol XD and yes, this movie is so overrated, do people think that james cameron was thinking about a really GOOD movie script? ... i mean, c´mon, his movies are nice, but definitely no rocket science at all

 

[jun3machina]

coming from being born native american, i walked out of this film very upset. mainly because they took a well known historical event in history as significant as the holocaust, if not more, and rather than do a film about native americans, they candy coated it in infantile-eyed characters with fancy CG effects. hollywood would have never made a film about the genocide of native americans because for one, no one would approve a budget large in size like they would for a cameron film. also because there's so many people in denial about it, it's an extremely touchy subject matter from it being historically smoothed over in summary in history books to the sterotypes of casino band indians, reservation people, and the feathered head-dress image that are still furthered by media and miscommunication.

I wrote a long piece about this in depth and it upsets me that people can say 'oh avatar is just a film'....whn they 'borrowed' so much from the cultures aesthetics, to their beliefs and actual 'war tactics' (Iroquois nations, the four directions legends, etc) to the physical dress and hairstyles of native american people. it's like one big joke and hollywood is laughing to the bank

 

[retailqueen]

there are just as many people who NEVER see racism and never want to admit to it, then those who cry racism *falsly*.
The argument is lazy and dismissive

 

[sojou]

^ I utterly agree with the previous two posts...upon reading this thread that's exactly what I thought. Whilst the film was not overtly racist, the underlying premises, one can argue, are...it's not ridiculous or crying wolf. I personally find subtle racism more offensive and scary than overt racism because it's so damn wiley and hard to prove...just my opinion

And seriously, someone said something about 'political correctness gone mad'...well that's akin to saying 'I'm not racist but...' or 'I've got black friends' i.e. the classic things that people say when justifying racism/prejudice


.

 

[Cinthia]

its another white savior film. the white man saves the day, is better at being a naa'vi than the naa'vi themselves ,get the chief's daughter and becomes their chief. the film was beautiful but the plot was boring and unoriginal.

 

[SyphaBelnades]

I think people are reading way too much into Avatar.

First of all, I did not get caught up in the "race" thing because there was no race thing. To me it was a movie about love and about nature, and above all about spirituality. About your soul and about your relationship with your body and your environment. And about virtual life.

People didn't tap into the fact that we use avatars everyday in our lives. In forums, on msn, whatever, the movie also touched the subject of the virtual life, whatever that is, and when does it stop being virtual and starts being real.

I saw a lot of topics and layers to the film and I can't simply dismiss it as Pocahontas on space.

Having said that, I can see why some people might see it as a "white man saves the day" type of film, and so what?? it's called A CULTURAL REFERENCE POINT.

I can't think of any black people army or civilization conquering another country or rescuing anyone, and that's not racism, it's just the way things have played out in history, since way before slavery, with the greeks and the romans.

And nowadays, the main cultural and economic influence in the world is the United States, wich is largely wait, and it all comes back to the Roman Empire and the subsequent civilizations that it spawned, the britons, the french, the germans, etc.

It's like the whole Cleopatra thing, a lot of black people feel that historians claiming Cleopatra was white is just another conspiracy to rob them of their heritage when in fact, although Cleopatra was probably not 100% white, she was most certainly not black, in fact ANCIENT EGYPTIANS as a civilization were NOT black, specially in a city as cosmopolitan and varied as Alexandria, Cleopatra's birthplace.

So what about forgetting about political correctness and just see history for what it is??

I hope my post doesn't get deleted, I mean I feel so constricted on this board, I can't get a break. I don't feel what I've said above is off topic but I get deleted every single time.

 

[saann]

I can't think of any black people army or civilization conquering another country or rescuing anyone, and that's not racism, it's just the way things have played out in history, since way before slavery, with the greeks and the romans.

you have to keep in mind that the winners write history, what you learn in school is mostly western philosophies since they're the hegemonic ones.
it's a white (mans) world and the history we learn will reflect and be written by them.
just because you haven't been exposed to any black people army conquerings doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

and the issue with this movie is that it's just like any other movie portraying racial differences. Hollywood can't keep they're hands of the white savior tale. ofcourse you haven't heard of any "black conquers" when all you get to see and hear about is white ones.

And nowadays, the main cultural and economic influence in the world is the United States, wich is largely wait, and it all comes back to the Roman Empire and the subsequent civilizations that it spawned, the britons, the french, the germans, etc.

I'm assuming that you mean white and while it is a majority in the U.S, The way it is portrayed in social life (politics, entertainment etc) is incorrect.

and about it being the main cultural and economic influence in the world, well that's debatable and depends on where you live and what point of view you have.




now back to Avatar, the main racial problems it has is that while supposably creating a new culture and species it seemed to rely way too much on existing minorities. like Jun3machina said, the look, the fighting techniques, the beliefs etc and even the story is very similar to the ones of the native americans. and instead of showing them making it on their own they still had to rely on some white man saving them.


again I do not think this was intentional, hence why I'm not calling it racist, but it is something most people can't escape from since these sort of stories are so natural to them that they don't question them. and I agree with soujo that in a way this is much scarier since it seems so natural to most people.
it's only when you come from a different point of view that you really start questioning these sort of issues.

 

[pejcharat]

jun3machina, retailqueen, sojou, cinthia, and saan.

Thank you for sharing another point of view. As someone who deals with issues of multiculturalism and social justice, I see issues like this get swept under the rug. With the delusion that we live in a post racial world.

I live in an area where native american are a relatively large minority and continue to see the effects of white colonization and racism to this day. Yes, it's more subtle (sometimes!) but that doesn't make it any less hurtful. In many ways, racism is so institutionalized it goes unseen.

Discussions allow for critical examination of assumptions and presumptions. yes, on one level it is a love story. On another it is the white saviour ethos. Which is point right there when did the Jesus Christ (a Jew) get light brown hair and blue eyes? That is such an example of how the victor creates history. If not for the Bible, all we would have is these midieval pictures created in the image of the predominant race.

And saan totally correct. There were black conquerors (and Asian Genghis Khan anyone?) as well as other races, but what gets talked about is the predominant culture's heros which are White.

Why was a White man chosen to play Sully. Why couldn't he have been Black or Asian or Native American or Latino or a woman (ethnicity of your choice). Would that have resonated with the predominant culture and sold tickets? I think not, because we are led to believe in and embrace the White male ideal (preferrably between 18-45.)

 

[StoneSkipper]

People see hair in a box of eggs. PLEASE. God, what does a race means right now? What is the diffderence between black, white, native? If we all had the same skin color there wouldn't be a problem. God, people these days, criticizing a movie because of the color of the skin of a character! Gosh.

 

[tigerrouge]

I can't think of any black people army or civilization conquering another country or rescuing anyone, and that's not racism, it's just the way things have played out in history, since way before slavery, with the greeks and the romans.

I cannot stress enough the sense of discovery you get when you find out about civilisations that have mostly gone unmentioned. It's like a whole new world, a whole new way of seeing things. The sense of awe, the new awareness of historical events, the rise and fall of rulers and cultures that you didn't even imagine existed - it'll far outweigh any CGI movie in your local cinema.

History, for me, is a series of changes in my own perception, where I think I 'know' the storyline, and then something else is revealed to me, by new research or the discovery of old documents, or even what you can trace in your own language, the words you take for granted every day. History never stands still, the final chapter is always being re-written, and finding out about Africa's civilisations was the biggest revelation I've ever had on the subject. It was contrary to everything I was ever taught about the world.

 

[Spiral1532]

It's like the whole Cleopatra thing, a lot of black people feel that historians claiming Cleopatra was white is just another conspiracy to rob them of their heritage when in fact, although Cleopatra was probably not 100% white, she was most certainly not black, in fact ANCIENT EGYPTIANS as a civilization were NOT black, specially in a city as cosmopolitan and varied as Alexandria, Cleopatra's birthplace.

I got into it with a couple of people on Youtube over this very topic, with me stating that Cleopatra's heritage was Greek, and them insisting that the pharaohs of ancient Egypt were black (along with some other ancient civilizations ).

But anyway, it's amazing how some people want to bring race into a topic of discussion, seeing "racism" in things when it really isn't there.

 

[Harumi]

they took a well known historical event in history as significant as the holocaust, if not more, and rather than do a film about native americans, they candy coated it in infantile-eyed characters with fancy CG effects.

Your whole post seems to be based on the idea that Avatar was meant to be an historical drama, which makes hard for me to take any of your point seriously.

hollywood would have never made a film about the genocide of native americans because for one, no one would approve a budget large in size like they would for a cameron film. also because there's so many people in denial about it.

I am quite baffled. Hollywood has made plenty of movies about the native-american genocide, the best of which is, imo, The Mission. And the few negationsists (I say few because I honestly don't know anyone who would argue that that the European settlers did not exterminate the natives) are bigots and should be treated with contempt, pure and simple.

it upsets me that people can say 'oh avatar is just a film'....whn they 'borrowed' so much from the cultures aesthetics, to their beliefs and actual 'war tactics' (Iroquois nations, the four directions legends, etc) to the physical dress and hairstyles of native american people.

So? I don't understand your problem with the fact that Cameron borrowed heavily from the native-american cultural lore, especially since it's presented in such positive light.
Should the Chinese and Japanese be offended with the Cohen brother for using so much of their culture to make the Matrix?
Are Native-American cultures copirighted?

And seriously, someone said something about 'political correctness gone mad'...well that's akin to saying 'I'm not racist but...' or 'I've got black friends' i.e. the classic things that people say when justifying racism/prejudice.

Just because the expression 'PC gone mad' has become a tool used by bigot doesn't mean that it's not a valid observation to make in many cases (I think it's valid here). PC has undeniably infiltrated the public space to the point where having an honest conversation about anything has become hard. It also has influenced some public policies in absurd ways.
To insinuate that everyone who use that expression is a racist in disguise is, too paraphrase retailqueen 'lazy and dismissive'.

Why was a White man chosen to play Sully.

And why not? Cameron decided he was right the right actor for the role, who cares? Where you offended too that Neo was played by a White man in the Matrix?

Again, it's not a White savior story.
The White main character does not save the Na'vi. In the screenplay, it wasn't even him who exploded the villain's ship, it was Trudy (the Latino pilot).
And again, the story did not required the main character to be White (the way Last Samurai or Dance with Wolves did). How could Cameron have made a movie about White guilt/White savior when the way the movie was written doesn't make it necessary for any of the characters to be a specific race?

 

[Harumi]

I'm sorry for making a double post.

you have to keep in mind that the winners write history, what you learn in school is mostly western philosophies since they're the hegemonic ones.
it's a white (mans) world and the history we learn will reflect and be written by them.

That's exactly the point SyphaBelnades was making, when he was talking about cultural reference point.

the issue with this movie is that it's just like any other movie portraying racial differences.

Except it's not a movie about racial differences. The humans in the movie are racially diverse, only the Na'vi have any racial cohesion.

Now, I am familiar with the concept of metaphor, but here I think the message is about how we, as a human race, are being a destructive force.
The story and characters are USA-centric because Cameron is an American director, but the message is universal.
Colonialism, aggressive industrialism and complex of superiority are not a White man's prerogative. Just look at contemporary China.

now back to Avatar, the main racial problems it has is that while supposably creating a new culture and species it seemed to rely way too much on existing minorities. like Jun3machina said, the look, the fighting techniques, the beliefs etc and even the story is very similar to the ones of the native americans. and instead of showing them making it on their own they still had to rely on some white man saving them.

I think you are focusing so much on race that you completely missed the actual reason why the Na'vi could not win (at first).
I had nothing to do with culture or race, and everything to do with the fact that the human were technologically more advanced.
When two cultures/people clash, the one with the more advanced war technology will always win. The Na'vi were fighting 20th century weaponry with bows and arrows, how exactly were they supposed to make it on their own?
The Na'vi can only win when they make up the technological gap, which they do at the end of the movie (when the considerable power of Eywa is unleashed). Jake's whiteness is utterly irrelevant to the eventual victory.

 

[pejcharat]

Your whole post seems to be based on the idea that Avatar was meant to be an historical drama, which makes hard for me to take any of your point seriously.I am quite baffled. Hollywood has made plenty of movies about the native-american genocide, the best of which is, imo, The Mission. And the few negationsists (I say few because I honestly don't know anyone who would argue that that the European settlers did not exterminate the natives) are bigots and should be treated with contempt, pure and simple.So? I don't understand your problem with the fact that Cameron borrowed heavily from the native-american cultural lore, especially since it's presented in such positive light.
Should the Chinese and Japanese be offended with the Cohen brother for using so much of their culture to make the Matrix?

I wasn't offended (can't speak for other Chinese), but does it glorify and dilute an Ancient practice? Maybe. Just because something is presented in postive light, does not make it right. Asians are supposed to be great at math. One would say that stereotype paints Asians in a positive light. I suck at math. Does that make me a bad Asian? Or not Asian at all, because I Asian are good at math and I'm not therefore I must not be Asian or not Asian enough...Just because something/someone is portrayed in a postive light does not mean it can't mess with your head.

Are Native-American cultures copirighted?Just because the expression 'PC gone mad' has become a tool used by bigot doesn't mean that it's not a valid observation to make in many cases (I think it's valid here). PC has undeniably infiltrated the public space to the point where having an honest conversation about anything has become hard. It also has influenced some public policies in absurd ways.

No cultureas are not copyrighted, but usage without understanding can minimize/desensitize to the sacredness of a belief for a group of people. That's a concern right now with one of the Native American tribes her and their usage of cultural religious symbol.

To insinuate that everyone who use that expression is a racist in disguise is, too paraphrase retailqueen 'lazy and dismissive'.And why not? Cameron decided he was right the right actor for the role, who cares? Where you offended too that Neo was played by a White man in the Matrix?

QUOTE] To outright dismiss an idea as silly is dismissive too.

I wasn't offended that Neo was played by a White man, but it does illustrate what is palatable to an audience and seen as as acceptable within the White dominant culture. Just because I can point out something as being represenative as issue doesn't mean I don't see it as being an example of a behavior. I'm not that facile in my thinking. I think Sam Worthington is a charasmatic actor and easy on the eyes, doesn't mean I can't also see it as a perpetuation of particular belief system. Same goes for Neo. Love Keanu Reeves, even though many say he can't act. Doesn't mean it isn't a perpetuation. Since he's all martial arts, why not have Jet Li in the role. That would have been cool!

 

[dajrekshn]

you have to keep in mind that the winners write history, what you learn in school is mostly western philosophies since they're the hegemonic ones.
it's a white (mans) world and the history we learn will reflect and be written by them.
just because you haven't been exposed to any black people army conquerings doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

and the issue with this movie is that it's just like any other movie portraying racial differences. Hollywood can't keep they're hands of the white savior tale. ofcourse you haven't heard of any "black conquers" when all you get to see and hear about is white ones.



I'm assuming that you mean white and while it is a majority in the U.S, The way it is portrayed in social life (politics, entertainment etc) is incorrect.

and about it being the main cultural and economic influence in the world, well that's debatable and depends on where you live and what point of view you have.




now back to Avatar, the main racial problems it has is that while supposably creating a new culture and species it seemed to rely way too much on existing minorities. like Jun3machina said, the look, the fighting techniques, the beliefs etc and even the story is very similar to the ones of the native americans. and instead of showing them making it on their own they still had to rely on some white man saving them.


again I do not think this was intentional, hence why I'm not calling it racist, but it is something most people can't escape from since these sort of stories are so natural to them that they don't question them. and I agree with soujo that in a way this is much scarier since it seems so natural to most people.
it's only when you come from a different point of view that you really start questioning these sort of issues.

i went through this thread before i saw this movie, and yeah, it put a whole other light on the movie to me.

 

[Harumi]

It's OT but I've just noticed I wrote that the Cohen brothers directed the Matrix. How embarassing, I meant the Wachowski brothers of course. I was in the process of watching A Serious Man, that's my excuse.

 

[tigerrouge]

That's just made me start imagining alternative realities - what if Woody Allen had directed Star Wars? What if Sofia Coppola reworked The Godfather? What if Bollywood made Oliver Stone an offer he couldn't resist?

 

[SyphaBelnades]

I got into it with a couple of people on Youtube over this very topic, with me stating that Cleopatra's heritage was Greek, and them insisting that the pharaohs of ancient Egypt were black (along with some other ancient civilizations ).

But anyway, it's amazing how some people want to bring race into a topic of discussion, seeing "racism" in things when it really isn't there.

the whole cleopatra thing is really pathetic, people get obsessed with it, some black people, like really angry and they have like no idea of what the ancient world, or the ancient egyptians were really like.

 

[SyphaBelnades]

I'm sorry for making a double post.That's exactly the point SyphaBelnades was making, when he was talking about cultural reference point. Except it's not a movie about racial differences. The humans in the movie are racially diverse, only the Na'vi have any racial cohesion.

Now, I am familiar with the concept of metaphor, but here I think the message is about how we, as a human race, are being a destructive force.
The story and characters are USA-centric because Cameron is an American director, but the message is universal.
Colonialism, aggressive industrialism and complex of superiority are not a White man's prerogative. Just look at contemporary China.I think you are focusing so much on race that you completely missed the actual reason why the Na'vi could not win (at first).
I had nothing to do with culture or race, and everything to do with the fact that the human were technologically more advanced.
When two cultures/people clash, the one with the more advanced war technology will always win. The Na'vi were fighting 20th century weaponry with bows and arrows, how exactly were they supposed to make it on their own?
The Na'vi can only win when they make up the technological gap, which they do at the end of the movie (when the considerable power of Eywa is unleashed). Jake's whiteness is utterly irrelevant to the eventual victory.

and he wins at the end of the movie as a Na'vi not as a white man, so people seeing it as a white man saves movie are kinda off.

 

[uberwench]

Harumi I couldn't agree more with everything you've said. I think people who see racist themes in Avatar either haven't seen it, haven't understood it or are desperate to read racial themes into anything...

*possible spoilers*

The basic theme of Avatar is about people (defined widely, as conscious beings) being able to move from body to body whilst remaining themselves. I.e. Sully is still Sully whether his skin is white or blue. The central romance is an inter-special one. If you think this is racism, you've never been a victim of it.

The only person who brings up race is the arch-uber-villan, and even he defines 'race' as humans v aliens. Again, the only person who thinks in racist terms, who uses racially discriminating language, is the UBER-VILLAN.

I think it's sad that people can't watch a man who happens to be white contributing to salvation of a society without seeing a WHITE MAN as SAVIOUR. Why can't he just be a man? Is any film which doesn't have a perfectly multiracial cast, or a mixed race hero, racist?

There's a fabulous South Park episode where there's a debate as to whether or not the South Park flag, depicting a white man hanging a black man is offensive. The kids argue that it's not, because depictions of violence aren't offensive. The idea being, that they didn't even realise it was racist, that it was a black man and a white man, because they didn't think it mattered what colour the man was. I don't know why people can't apply this thinking to a fluffy piece of cinema like Avatar and think, actually, isn't the best world one where we don't care if Sully's black or white, or even notice, we just think, wow he's really hot...

I know people are apt to see parallels between the film and history -but that's because it's a simple, epic theme which builds on familiar themes. Settlers v natives is a classic theme of history, fiction and science fiction. I don't understand why jun3machina thought it was based specifically on the Native American genocide -the wide theme of colonisation and the destruction of indigenous peoples touches so many other civilisations -why did you immediately think it was about the Native Americans and not about the indigenous aboriginals, for example? Yes the way the Na'vi were dressed was vaguely tribal, but feathers and body paint aren't specific to any particular culture. There are asian, native australian, native south and north american and native african tribes who all have similar modes of decoration, and the celts used body paint too. If you're a tribal hunting people who live in the forest, like the Na'vi, it probably makes sense that you dress like that. Again, I can't see this racism anywhere.

If anything, the ridiculous compulsion to turn anything into a question of race, and to see any film through racial goggles trivialises racism. Read some of the posts on a white supremacist website (I did this for research once), they will chill your blood and make you see what racism actually looks like. It looks like cold, hard hatred. It's terrifying and sickening and dangerous. It is not James Cameron borrowing a little bit of tribal paint for his big blue people.