Comments on: Avatar and Whiteness

By: Nancy Vedder-Shults

Nancy Vedder-Shults — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:01:18 +0000

I’ve posted a (long) response to these comments and the original blog on the Tikkun Daily site at http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2010/01/18/avatar-its-not-just-about-whiteness/. It’s entitled “Avatar — It’s Not Just About Whiteness.” I’d love to hear what you have to say about it.

By: Ross

Ross — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:07:15 +0000

Oh, furthermore, the color of our president matters little to the, now highly technocratic racial structure prevalent in American society. The fact is that statistically speaking President Obama is an anomaly, as most of the wealth (and accordingly the power) still belongs in the hands of people with a lighter skin tone. The problem with racism, in America, today is that it is not based on individual prejudices, as it was in times past. But rather racism of today is a kind of meta-racism, which is to say, that racism is woven into, not only are institutions and social structures but our very cultural psychology, thus its become a rather invisible, unconscious phenomena.

I would recommend two books on the subject: White Theology: Outing Supremacy in Modernity and White Racism: A Psychohistory.

By: Ross

Ross — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:58:02 +0000

I’ve not seen the film but nonetheless feel I can respond to these comments. From what I’ve gathered the film accurately and progressively portrays humanity as bend on, in the films world, galaxic domination, with all its horrifying consequences: militarism, environmental destruction, xenophobia, colonialism, exploitation ect, ect. What I’ve also been hearing is that many people don’t find this film racist insofar as the main (white character) becomes an ally, and indeed, ends up fighting, nay, leading the colonized natives against their colonizers. This “race trading” of the main character, I am reading, absolves the film from any racist fantasies.

If I’ve read the arguments right, I would disagree. The racial superiority still exist in the narrative of the white man, even though fighting against the interests of his own race, nonetheless, having the wherewithal to lead the natives in the battle for their liberation. The white man as savor is still implicit, even if his motives are more benevolent. We should not allow benevolent motives continue to veil innocence over the implicit racial power structure inferred in the narrative.

By: Elliot Benjamin

Elliot Benjamin — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:45:22 +0000

From my perspective, the film skillfullly demonstrated the evils of unchecked military government power unleashed without restraint and without concern for who gets killed in the process of obtaining its goals. I did not see this as a racial theme, as for me I pictured Obama in his present capacity as an African American who is president of our country, recently deciding to expand our wars and bombing of innocent civilians as opposed to “talking and negotiating” where possible. In one way it seems preposterous to see Obama in this role, as he certainly does not look or sound like the part of the horrible military person in charge of invading the Avatars in the movie. But the reality of Obama’s war expansion decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are what they are, and the effects of his decisions I believe will be devastating and a continuation of what I view as the Bush/Obama use of military force to achieve goals that appear to be causing far more havoc than they are solving. Thus I did not see the movie in racial terms, but in terms of cultural mindsets, and I believe we now have a very similar cultural mindset regarding our practice of war, with a black person as president to what we had for 8 years with a white person as president. A bomb dropped on a child does the same amount of damage regardless of the sophistication and intelligence and charm of the president who orders the bomb to be dropped.

By: Shayn McCallum

Shayn McCallum — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:02:20 +0000

This is an interesting, perhaps, for me, even a surprising debate. Frankly, I never would have thought of it as a ‘white film’ but I admit that, living in a less racially mixed society than the U.S. (I live in Turkey though I was born and raised in Australia), I lack the sensitivities about race that a lot of Americans have (and, being a white, judeo-celtic hybrid I am never forced to really confront the issue either). Being of Australian origin however, does leave me familiar with the bitter aftermath of the genocide, exploitation and de-valuing of indigenous peoples! I wouldn’t say I feel ‘white guilt’ towards the aborigines but I certainly feel the need to take responsibility for ‘tikkun’, to repair and try to heal the deep wounds my culture has inflicted (and still inflicts) on Australia’s first peoples. I do not romanticise aboriginals, or try to become one, or pretend I have any real idea of what they’ve been through but I owe them justice and they have a right to expect me to contribute when asked to and to butt out when not invited in their struggle to obtain what is theirs by right. Avatar is, I feel, not without a fair appreciation of these themes.
To be fair, I do see the point of some of the criticisms of Avatar. Certainly there are echoes of ‘dances with wolves’ and post-imperialist guilt mixed in in spades. Moreover, the technology-age inspired idea of a ‘networked planet’ felt a bit too clumsy a device for my liking. I felt it both detracted from the credibilty of the story and blended a typically hokey Western view of ‘exotic aboriginal spirituality’ with the somewhat demystificatory ‘rationalist’ approach of explaining it all away as a de facto computer network- a kind of ‘Gaia as network server’ idea. Having said that however, despite these kinds of less satisfying devices the film uses to put across its message,I was ultimately deeply moved and inspired by this film.
I hadn’t expected a lot from it I admit and perhaps being so pleasantly surprised moved me to rate it higher than it deserved but I came out feeling I’d seen, at heart, a ‘Zapatista film’, a timely reminder to look beyond the relexive platitudes of ‘civilisation’ and the pervasive ideology of conquest that has marked the rise of all post hunter-gatherer humanity, regardless of race. The white, European race may have been the most successful and brutal imperialist power the planet has ever seen (for reasons most convincingly argued by Jared Diamond in ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’) but we’re hardly the first ‘civilisation’ to indulge in conquest, exploitation, slavery and genocide. The Zulus, Mandinka, Maori, Han Chinese, Mongols and a host of other races have all participated in conquering, enslaving and ,massacring ‘lesser’ peoples at various points in history. The message therefore, is less one of race per se and more a depiction of a life and death struggle between two fundamentally opposed world views: that of the conquistador, the arrogant ‘civiliser’ who bulldozes through the earth destroying its true treasures in obsessive struggles for utilitarian, self-aggrandizing riches and the life-affirming, respectful, nurturing, ‘caretaker’ outlook of those at home in creation and who appreciate the self-sustaining system and balance set in place by powers higher than the human ego and its desires.
The apparent lack of hierarchy, violence or acquistiveness is an appealing aspect of the Na’vi culture and reminds us of humanity’s ‘Edenic nature’, what Muslims call ‘fitrah’ or the inborn tendency in all of us to lean towards submission to God and what is good, loving and nurturing rather than our learned tendencies towards fear, hatred and violence. The film calls us back to this, to embrace what is right, true and just rather than seeing ourselves as condemned to a life-or-death struggle with nature that can only possibly end with our own destruction. This is a deep film, a true cautionary tale despite its science-fiction extravagances.
I think this film is likely to resonate deeply with a lot of people and, hopefully, create deep echoes of our buried longing for justice and spirituality. I really felt it speaks to the heart of the broken-hearted, cynical modern who really needs to be ‘called back’ to what’s real and meaningful and valuable. The message, in the end is life-affirming and deeply hopeful (almost unbelievably so! The cynical side of me couldn’t help seeing the ultimate outcome of the Na’vi resistance to their impending genocide with the same inability to ‘suspend disbelief’ I felt when the Ewok’s defeated the Empire in Star Wars!). In strict terms, the ending of the film may not be totally credible but the importance of it lies in wanting to believe and being inspired by the hope that resistance is not futile and another world is possible.This is a Zapatista film, a film for spiritual progressives!

By: jiuquan han

jiuquan han — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:08:10 +0000

Yes，what Dave said is true.
“Yes, historically, white people from Europe often took what they wanted, when they wanted by any means they wanted from many other peoples around the globe, and are still doing it and benefiting from it. But to tie that to their whiteness, their ethnicity, rather than to their being human beings in particular geographic and historical circumstances with particular philosophies of life and culture, is very dangerous. It’s dangerous because it would seem to suggest to nonwhite people that they would not do the same kinds of things in the same circumstances. Being oppressed does not in itself equip a people with the tools to avoid oppressing others if circumstances flow their way and they find themselves with the power to do so.”
Color has no necessary connection with evils.

By: Dave Belden

Dave Belden — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:48:00 +0000

So after thinking about all this for a couple of weeks and hearing how many people of color whom I respect immediately found the movie racist, because the white guy (though he becomes blue) becomes the leader of the blues so quickly, I have been wondering how the story could have been redone to avoid these issues. I still think it is, or is intended to be, a movie about the clash of cultures, as Peter Marmorek writes. So I wonder if making the hero black and the human corporate and mercenary people multiracial (as they should have been, whatever color the hero was–why would the future corporate mercenary worlds be MORE white than they are today?) would have made that point adequately? Then the story simply becomes about the role that individuals from a ruthless, technologically dominant culture can play when they convert to the wiser, more cooperative and biophilic oppressed culture. Race is still involved (actually it’s different species that are involved, but we read it inevitably as race) but the focus is now on culture.

So what can the convert from the dominant culture do that doesn’t portray them as naturally superior? I have to say that I didn’t think the story was saying that Jake was naturally superior simply because he managed to do something the Na’vi thought heroic (ride a “dragon” only five Na’vi had ridden before): I thought that it was essentially like what many women say about how they have to do twice as well as men in formerly male work roles in order to get respect. Jake was desperate, he was a warrior, he took a ludicrous last ditch risk and it worked: a classic hero tale. It’s not something I or any other member of the human race would think they could do just because they were human (or American, or corporate) and therefore “naturally” superior: far from it. It was a one-off. Still, whether intended to or not, Jake’s role as hero can feed the collective human/American/white ego if taken as doing so, or it can make nonAmerican/nonwhite people feel that it is doing so.

So how could that part of the story have been redone? It would be natural for a warrior from a dominant army to be the person who can tell the underdogs how to exploit the weak points in that army: how to use its own weapons against it for example, as Jake does in Avatar. But he could have just given that information to the Na’vi warriors, and found another way to gain their trust: by his humility perhaps, rather than his bravery. What if the young woman Neytiri had found reason to trust him and had led the charge, using information and weapons Jake had given her?

The way we write these stories, and the ways we retell them next time, is hugely important. Talking about how the story could have been rewritten to make its main points come out (which I am convinced were NOT about any kind of white or American superiority, but were about the natural superiority of the Na’vi culture) seems more helpful to me than simply labeling the movie racist.

By: Peter Marmorek

Peter Marmorek — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:41:38 +0000

After some time away, I’m back in “civilization” and immediately went to see Avatar. I side with Dave in in the quite wonderful discussion above, that I don’t think the movie is racist. What I do think it is is “culturalist” in that there is an explicit statement that we are superior to them. Jake is reborn into a new body, and after three months training he is able to ride the Toruk, which only 5 Na’vi in history have been able to do. He is able to coordinate all the Na’vi, and to guide them to defeat the humans. He is the über-Na’vi, after three months in a foreign body on a foreign world.

This strikes me so much because of having just listened to Wade Davis’ 2009 Massey lectures ( free to hear on CBC radio, btw The Wayfinders which celebrates the wonder of genius and spirit as brought into being by culture, and explicitly disavows the implication that one culture is more advanced than another. Cultures are skilled in different ways, to Davis; to Cameron, our culture is wrong in the ways we all agree the film posits, but if we could only choose to be Na’vi, we’d be better at it than they are.

Dave touches on sexual politics; I notice that in the Na’vi the chief is always male, the Shaman is always female (we’re told this) and they are expected to marry. I have more problems with this than with the race aspect… but that’s a different post.

By: messy

messy — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:49:46 +0000

a brief look at history has shown that when given the chance, people of color will be just as bad as whites, if not worse. Avatar is a about an inferiority complex on the part of the filmmakers. It’s the racist myth of the noble savage, except with plugs.

By: Lauren Reichelt

Lauren Reichelt — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:28:08 +0000

I also have not seen the movie although I find the comments about it fascinating. Dave is right that militarism and imperialism transcend race. I believe Fred Hampton blamed racism on capitalism. He said that slavery came into being because it was lucrative. There were many non-white cruel militarized empires prior to the rise of Europe. In the 12th century, the Mongols overran the world. China was an indomitable force while Europeans were still convinced that the earth is flat and bathing caused the plague.

Militarism is indeed embedded in our very human fear of not having enough. There are many books and movies that were inherently racist, but that helped white people to empathize with people of color in their day. Uncle Tom’s Cabin comes to mind. Our racist fantasies about a non-racist world are sometimes a first step in the dialogue with ourselves.