Is Avatar Racist???

I thought about this thread--and the movie--some more over the weekend. Some last points, and then I'm done!

1. "the point could be" got it right on the previous page. Yes, "only me" did make me angry. I'm not sure why I allowed myself to get angry at an anonymous stranger on the internet. And yes, the irony of two avatars fighting over a petty misunderstanding did strike me.

2. I stand by my claim that it takes people moving from a dominant culture into leadership roles in the oppressed culture to make change. (Note that this claim is not inconsistent with the fact that it also takes spontaneous and autonomous leadership from within the oppressed culture to fight this oppression.) Where Avatar becomes clumsy in its treatment of this in ways that can be reasonably called "racist" is in the over-the-top depiction of this leadership role. Certainly it is not necessary--and I doubt that it has ever historically happened--that this leadership take the form that it takes in the movie. That Jake becomes a sort of God in the movie is totally over-the-top and yes it is an unrealistic and fantastical portrait of social change. Those who are calling the movie racist are right to point out that this moment in the movie can really only be explained by something other than historical (or metaphysical) necessity. White fantasy is a plausible explanation.

3. My point--which I'm sure most folks are tired of hearing but which I am motivated to point out mainly because WOW the thread got linked to the main page!--is that the film is an allegorical and certainly overblown depiction of a cultural crossing. Is the story a racist fantasy about the fact that the oppressed NEED a white guy to help them out? Certainly Cameron deploys simplistic racial imagery and even racial fantasies in the telling of the story. But as I've argued in this thread, I think it's silly to reduce the interpretation of the film to this point.

In sum, the claims I've been trying to defend (certainly not prove) are threefold:

a) Using overly simplistic racial images and fantasies in the telling of a story is not necessarily racist.

b) The movie has got more going on in it than a racial narrative.

c)(This is the most important point, but this got lost in the back-and-forth.) It seems to me that a work of art is only racist if it has actual racist effects--that is, it produces or encourages racism in its viewers or perpetuates racist social structures.

Whether or not Avatar actually does have racist effects is an empirical question. I think that the only claim that Analee's article can reasonable make is that the movie MIGHT have racist effects. But, again, the fact that the movie is generating so much discussion about race seems to me to be be evidence that the actual effect of the movie in actuality is to draw attention to the ways in which race is deployed in common blockbusters for entertainment value. This seems to me to be an anti-racist effect, as the movie itself presents in a straightforward way the fact that colonization and exploitation are funded by racial mythologies.

No, they aren't. Since you seem to enjoy rewriting history so much, let me refresh your memory:

1/5/2010 8:40AM

This is a flat out lie.

1/7/2010 7:53AM

And so is this, but at least we have this:

1/11/2010 7:41AM

But you fail to explain why you made these claims in the first place? If I hadn't called you on it, your lies would have gone unchallenged.

You have no reason to be getting angry, you lied, and you got caught - you should be embarassed instead.

Against my better judgment, I will try one more time.

The sticking point in our disagreement is that you misunderstand (or I poorly explained) what I meant by these two statements.

1. deleuze wrote:

I think 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. This is a necessary truth.

I think that we have a different understanding of what counts as a leadership role. Surely it is not necessary that the people who cross these borders become The Leader of the culture. It seems obvious to me that cultural change doesn't happen from the top down through the leadership of a god-like individual. The leadership I'm talking about is the ordinary kind. People are forced into these roles because they have knowledge of the dominant culture that gives them power. Not God-like power, but ordinary let's get a job done the best way we can while still making some mistakes power.

2. deleuze wrote:

The fact is that when cultures collide, people will be forced to experimentally abandon and transform their racial identities. That's not the myth of white guilt. That's an historic fact.

I've given about a dozen historical examples of this. I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge any of them. I think it's because you think that the example has to show a white person becoming a God in the non-white culture in order for it to be valid for you. But I never made that claim. I just claimed what I said: when cultures collide, people will be forced to experimentally abandon and transform their racial identities. There are a million different examples of this in history.

We may have different definitions of leadership, but in the context of the discussion of the film Avatar, then the definition of leadership is not mine or yours, but Cameron's, as embodied by Sully, who does become The Leader of the culture. You claimed that Sully's role is historic fact and a necessary truth, when it clearly isn't - if you were making a general point with a different definition of leadership, then you should have made that clear - which you didn't. And if you were just making a general point, what relevance does it have to the discussion of the film?

I don't think I've refused to acknowledge any of them - you gave us a list, and I asked which one was Sully - you've refused to answer. You brought up the SNCC, and I asked which of the leaders (when quite clearly all six are African-Americans) was Sully, and you've refused to answer.

Quite clearly, all you have to do is identify a historically factual Sully, then this discussion is over. Given that the thread is a discussion of the film Avatar, it would be nice if you used Cameron's definition of leadership, instead of the one you've just made up to try and wriggle out of the jam you've gotten yourself into. Simple, no?

The movie is not real. It's science fiction. The whole history of the genre is to exaggerate leadership roles, etc. I mean, it's a movie about aliens and life on another planet, etc., etc. Of course it's not realistic.

I never claimed that Sully's role is historic fact and necessary truth! That would be ridiculous! Now I understand why you were so upset.

I was arguing that the necessity of cultural and racial experimentation in the face of cultural conflict was the theme of the movie and it is represented by multiple characters, not just Sully. Surely Sully represents this in an exaggerated, simplistic and unrealistic way, but I took that to be obvious and a consequence the genre of overblown, epic sci-fi.

Now, stop saying I am trying to weasel out of a crazy claim. No one in their right mind would believe that the role of Sully is a common historical occurrence--I mean, the dude jumps on the back of a flying pterodactyl. Are you kidding me?

Yes, you did:

You were directly addressing the situation in the movie, no suggestion that you were only making a general point.

I'll agree that they are crazy claims, but you made them - and now you are trying to weasel out.

This "flying pterodactyl" bit is just immature - you are trying to create a strawman, and I'm not going to fall for it, so grow up.

I made some crazy claims and now want to weasel out of them. Thank you for enlightening me. You are right.

Tolerance people! The movie is about tolerance, not racism. People may be different and not want to conform to a way of living that someone else does. So we(americans in general) force them to. It just shows that one person can be tolerant towards a group of people and help them overcome the unknown.

i dont think so