Is Avatar Racist???

*should read --not SAVE black people from their impending doom-- (it's a sarcastic point.) Obviously, the parallels between Avatar and the civil rights movement or even the colonization of America are weak and a stretch.

This movie had striking resemblance to the matrix. And I thought that movie was racist. The white rabbit. and a black guy who gets shot-up.

only me wrote:

You make a claim you can't prove, and I'm the one who's wrong?

Where did I say you were wrong? You're trying to "score points." I'm trying to explain myself, to have a conversation.

deleuze wrote:

You make a claim you can't prove, and I'm the one who's wrong?

I think it's a reasonable claim. There are lots of reasonable claims that can't be proved. And just because I haven't "proved" my claim to your satisfaction doesn't mean it's not true or that my argument fails.

We all rest our arguments on weak and assumed premises. I've put mine out there as a way of showing what my argument rests on. You have not DISPROVED my premise or shown it to be faulty in any way. Since you are the one throwing insults and flinging venom, you might show me the dignity of taking up some of the burden of argumentation.

deleuze wrote:

Where did I say you were wrong? You're trying to "score points." I'm trying to explain myself, to have a conversation.

Ahem:

What the hell is wrong with you?

Your ideas are not wrong. Your argumentative style is hostile. I think you can see that. There is something wrong with "you"--you're angry and insulting, even though your ideas are reasonable and intelligent.

deleuze wrote:

deleuze wrote:

You make a claim you can't prove, and I'm the one who's wrong?

I think it's a reasonable claim. There are lots of reasonable claims that can't be proved. And just because I haven't "proved" my claim to your satisfaction doesn't mean it's not true or that my argument fails.

We all rest our arguments on weak and assumed premises. I've put mine out there as a way of showing what my argument rests on. You have not DISPROVED my premise or shown it to be faulty in any way. Since you are the one throwing insults and flinging venom, you might show me the dignity of taking up some of the burden of argumentation.

Here's the problem - you claimed that the premise of Avatar was an "historical fact", this is not a claim that is fuzzy, or open to interpretation, it either is or it isn't. If it is, then you can demonstrate it, if it isn't then you can't. Thus far you have failed to demonstrate your argument.

I agree that I haven't disproved anything, but then again I haven't claimed anything, except that you have failed to provide any proof of your claim. Do that and it is discussion over.

The "the SNCC student coordinators that helped Angela Davis" - lets have some detail, this is just fluff. Names, dates, places - if you can't "show me the dignity" (?!?) of actual historical facts, then I don't see why I should show you "the dignity" (?? - do you mean "respect") of accepting any of the burden of argumentation.

Is it any wonder that I'm being slightly curt - I've been asking for historical facts for 3 pages now, yet all I get is you prevaricating, blathering, and crying about my posting style. Prove what you claim, then the discussion is over.

See, I know how to be snide and disrespectful, too.

You try, but in reality you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Let's take the first result in your Google:

http://www.ibiblio.org/sncc/people.html

Who is Sully's counterpart here? Which of those six people is the person who has crossed the border from white to black culture? Those six were the leaders of the SNCC, so the Sully counterpart must be amongst them. After all: "it is important to acknowledge that in times of cultural conflict, it's the people who cross the borders between cultures that are forced into leadership roles, people who use the power of the dominant culture to alter or change it" because it's "an historic fact".

If you want me to "give you the dignity" (?!?) then answer the simple question - which one is Sully?

Regardless of who's "right" in this little spat, I think it's clear to everyone who's been conducting themselves with the most class.

If white men never settled North America do you think that the Indians would have progressed at all? Would there be Space Shuttles(that look like giant Teepees) launching from the Florida everglades? I think not. They would still be running around half naked in the woods.

All cultures, as with people, are not created equal. Some cultures celebrate the genital mutilation of women, others discover quantum mechanics. Some cultures don't prosecute rapists, others have cured polio, landed on the moon and invented the phonograph, telephone, etc...

It's simply amazing to see the all of the self-hating white people who post here. Their minds have been polluted by a left-wing propaganda blitz that masquerades as education.

There's a reason we dominate the world. It's because we're BETTER.

It could be that "we're better", or it could be that we walked in here and took over the country by force and theft, wiping out the native population while doing so.

it could also be that "we're better" because we used slaves in our fields and we import the very best minds from around the world to help up become the best.

So who are "we"? Is that an all inclusive white we?

Article's point: Avatar's racist because it involves the white guilt fantasy of freeing non whites from oppression without the ability of the white savior, able to switch races at any time and therefore not having lost white privilege, to experience racism from within.

Maybe that is not the right way to think about this. Maybe it is racist in all of these cases because there is the idea that only a white person has the wherewithal, the intellectual resources, the gumption, etc. to lead the native peoples to freedom (think Matrix or Avator or Dune or Dances with Wolves).

jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

Article's point: Avatar's racist because it involves the white guilt fantasy of freeing non whites from oppression without the ability of the white savior, able to switch races at any time and therefore not having lost white privilege, to experience racism from within.

Which ignores the fact that the main character is not privileged. He's disabled, and most importantly, his disability is technologically curable, but only for the wealthy.

jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

Maybe that is not the right way to think about this. Maybe it is racist in all of these cases because there is the idea that only a white person has the wherewithal, the intellectual resources, the gumption, etc. to lead the native peoples to freedom (think Matrix or Avator or Dune or Dances with Wolves).

But history seems to show that the natives actually ARE screwed, at least in the long run. (Obviously it depends on how broadly you want to define natives.) The problem isn't that the natives should be OK on their own; the problem is that they're screwed with or without a white messiah. It's not racist to suggest that native peoples were essentially helpless against superior military technology, disease, etc. The white messiah is an expression of post-genocide guilt--an "I wish I could have done something" story. The wish doesn't have to be realistic to be a valid expression of an emotion that many of us share.

What I find interesting in these stories is that the savior often doesn't have to pay a price. So often, the savior is actually better off after switching sides, which just seems too easy. I'd find the fantasy more palatable if the savior actually had to die.

Did anyone note this?

on the first point, the privilege is race privilege, on the second, you raise a good issue, that the films often show the fight as doomed, regardless.

The native warrior got the worst in the movie for sure:

- He gets wiped by the white guy a couple of times

- The white guy takes his chick

- The white guy ask for his help to get his chick back

- He dies and Jake Sully doesn not

You gotta feel bad for the brother

anyone that actually knows what racism means will know that this film is not racist, people are so quick to call the racism card these days and draw all these crazy overthough conclusions, i doubt that many people could actually define racism correctly.

get over it, enjoy the fact that it is a revolutionary movie and a damn good one

only me: according to what definition or meaning of "claim" does a claim have to be proven? A claim is precisely that: a claim, no proof.

deleuze: since you are making a claim, why do you allow yourself to be provoked into showing your "nastiness"? Because deep down you are and really trying to keep it in check?

As handles-avatars yourselves, with all this analysis prowess you should really think about collaborating rather than capriciously one-up each other for a bit of anonymous and temporary online fame. Really: with such argumentative aptitudes, you-try-to-tit-4-tat-shaft-each-other-instead (imagine me saying this really quickly like a grade school rhyme.)

I haven't seen the movie. And this thread is contributing to my interest in it. So i will. I did not read the article either and i will later. In general i prefer to read the threads first, then the links.

I just thought it was remarkable that your exchange style, probably brought out the worst of you: intolerance and a threatening attitude.

Two key ingredients leading to disrespect. If there were no disrespect, there would be no racism. With or without a capital R.

only me: according to what definition or meaning of "claim" does a claim have to be proven? A claim is precisely that: a claim, no proof.

There were two claims: first, that people who cross cultural boundaries and assume leadership roles in their adopted culture, is a "historic fact", and second, that it is a "necessary truth" that such people assume these roles.

I would have thought it fairly simple to demonstrate the historic fact - surely if you make a claim like that you have an example in mind? I would, if I were to base my argument on such a statement.

The second is just me demonstrating that deleuze hasn't a clue, and clearly doesn't know what a necessary truth (1+1=2; all batchelors are unmarried men, etc.) is.

I would have thought that the next step in my argument is obvious - if the premise that people who cross cultural boundaries and assume leadership roles in their adopted culture is NEITHER a historic fact NOR a necessary truth, then the perpetuation of this myth through such films as Dances With Wolves, Avatar, etc. is racism (which is not the same as claiming that Avatar is a racist movie).

What would be the point of "collaborating"? If one of you is clearly fabricating his analysis, there really isn't any discussion to be had.