Dances with Discrimination: On “Avatar,” Racism, Misogyny, and Disabled Prejudice
Ashley Michelle Papon | Dec 22, 2009 | Comments 89
White Man, Blue Man: Jake Sully in his avatar-form
James Cameron’s “Avatar” is quickly shaping up to be this season’s smash hit. In it’s opening weekend, the cinematic, 3-D experience and so-called environmental parable has already raked in $77 million at the box office, and like the human forces determined to terrorize the planet Pandora, it’s showing no signs of stopping.
(Warning, Spoilers Ahead )
But “Avatar” is more than a humans-in-outer-space epic. It’s a vividly rehashed conflict between colonial humans versus the noble Na’vi, an amalgamation of Africans, Indians and pagans, resting on the very incapable shoulders of one paralyzed Marine who effortlessly betrays both sides during the course of the film. And while sci-fi fans and Cameronphiles alike have praised the cinematic power and special effects wizardry, more pointed critical interpretations are reflecting on the social implications of what “Avatar” says to the general public.
To begin with, Cameron might as well be paying Kevin Costner royalties, because this movie strides in the path previously carved by “Dances with Wolves 2.” As a brief reminder: a white military man, isolated in the wilderness, decides to infiltrate the native collective in order to gather all the intelligence for the benefit of his commanding officers. In the process, Jake Sully (played by Sam Worthington) becomes a better Na’vi than the Na’vi, illustrated by one spectacular ride on a what is akin to a pterodactyl and landing the affections of the chief’s daughter (Zoe Saldana) while trying to understand that vast wilderness of Pandora.
It is, at the basic level, a re-imagining of the great genocide against people of color on America’s original colonial backdrop. And the ethereal, blue-skinned Na’vi, with their painted faces and feathered arrows, are the ideal representations of the systematic oppression that has been lobbed at various incantations of the “savage” that came before. But unlike “Dances with Wolves,” which ultimately asserts the superiority of the way of the native, “Avatar” doesn’t even attempt to hide it’s double-standard. Jake makes his last stand as the Great White Hope with the assistance of a wild bird and a sub-machine gun, effectively turning the narrative of the native into the narrative of the white savior.
Annalee Newitz of io9.com correctly identifies this sentiment as “the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare,” the white protagonist’s hope of not only being absolved of their race’s crimes, but to lead the individuals of color from inside. It isn’t that a white human can’t make a productive member of the Na’vi society, it’s the audacity of a white human becoming a better Na’vi than the Na’vi. More frustratingly, despite the reality he’ll never fully be one of the Na’vi (unlike the actual Na’vi, Jake has the option of switching out of his avatar body at any time, meaning he ultimately never loses his white privilege). It means that Jake gets to co-opt the narrative of the Na’vi while at the same time serving as the most relatable character for the color of his skin alone.
There’s also the wanton sexism hidden inside “Avatar.” Cameron, renowned for writing strong female characters (think Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor from “The Terminator” flicks) and bringing back “Alien” alum Sigourney Weaver seemed to seal the deal. But the execution of the Na’vi, perhaps in another bid to illustrate that the natives are in need of a little civilization, is flawed from a Feminist perspective.
Here, too, is a problem that piggybacks on the complex racial issues previously discussed. As preferred as the Na’vi culture obviously is, they still need the help of Jake to decide on allowing their women to have any say in marital arrangements. And, given that Neytiri is precise in addressing the final step of a warrior is to choose “his woman,” it becomes abundantly clear the film is likewise heterosexist. Cameron bragging about slapping prosthetic breasts on non-mammal females doesn’t help, either.
Another disappointing element of “Avatar” is the prejudice against disabilities. Jake’s motivation for integrating himself into the culture of the Na’vi so completely is two-fold for over half the film. First, as a self-described “jarhead,” Jake never completely comes to terms with his disability, and neither do the other characters. This discomfort is externalized when, within the first 20 minutes of meeting the freshly awakened Jake, his wheelchair quickly becomes the punch line of several jokes and several monologues of wishing he’d been eliminated in whatever brutal conflict paralyzed him in the first place. Oh, and had real legs.
As a result, Jake spends more time in his avatar form not in appreciation of the Na’vi culture, but because it gives him the permission to inhabit a body that can walk, run and mate–the things that he no longer can in his human form. It’s this second motivation that allows Jake to strike a deal with the mad Colonel Quaritch (played by Stephen Lang) who promises to restore his ability to walk in exchange for intel on the Na’vi, to which Jake quickly agrees. The film’s not-so-veiled assertion suggests that betraying an entire race is worth the ability to walk. Not surprisingly, the John-the-Baptist healing trick is a not a new one for sci-fi flicks.
As his legs visibly atrophy, one can almost see the weakening of his ethics. The film communicates a prejudice against disabilities in other aspects with profoundly ableist language. When Jake requests time to find a diplomatic solution after Quaritch discloses he’s made arrangements for Jake to walk again, the Colonel is visibly disgusted–not that a fellow Marine wants peace instead of bloodshed, but because Jake is willing to stay in his intolerable condition longer than what he believes is necessary. Despite betraying the Na’vi, Jake is still granted the ability to walk at the end of the film, delivered as the ultimate reward for his turncoat actions against humankind.
There are, however, some compelling arguments against the supposed underlying identity politics. Primarily that Neytiri is given the choice of accept Jake as her mate and Jake’s selfish desire to have functional legs again is discarded in the interest of saving the Na’vi. Also, Jake becomes so assimilated into the Na’vi, he is willing to lay his life down beside them in battle–not as a human, but as a fellow warrior. Also, a good argument to consider; would we still be talking about racism against people of color if Spike Lee had made the film?
There are some who would argue that “Avatar” is simply a film, and should not be viewed in a broader concept. However, that wasn’t Cameron’s intention, and who better to determine the lens through which we view a movie than the movie’s creative lead? Especially since the film’s anti-corporate, anti-environmental destruction message is being helmed by corporate underwriting of companies that aren’t likely to be eco-friendly, either (sponsorship has to come from somewhere). The chances are pretty high that most viewers, so bedazzled by the swirling lights of Cameron’s cinematic skill, will likely not consider all of the social implications supporting such a movie encourages.
But they should. For all of Cameron’s proselytizing, it’s important to realize the support of the environment should not come at the expense of other, already-marginalized groups, if such a thing is actually taking place. This is one Pandora’s box that should remain closed.
WEIGH IN: Do you think that “Avatar” crosses social boundaries?
Filed Under: The Soap Box
About the Author: A recent transplant to the Bay Area of California from her lifelong home of Kansas, Ashley-Michelle has been working for various progressive publications since 1999. An ardent Feminist and unapologetic liberal, Ashley-Michelle uses her writing to tirelessly advocate for a myriad of causes, particularly anti-rape activism.
i, for one, disagree with this article. you guys are just twisting the movie into your own sick view. the only way you could see something racist is if you’re OBSESSED with racism.
sci-fi means science – FICTION
that means it has nothing to do with the real world
that means it is not meant to be ovensive
james cameron just had a good idea for a movie, and then he created it. it was made to entertain us and give him a paycheck. there is nothing wrong with that
Well, at the end, all comes to do the right thing leaving behind the bad habits, and all the bias that lead us to do the wrong things.
Remember something, and keep that in mind, life takes turns, and in the future we can find us in situations that we never imagine before, so let´s open our minds and never forget that fact , respet it.
Take care.
For those offended by the author’s ideas, don’t worry… they aren’t even really hers: http://hoydenabouttown.com/20091230.7102/avatar-indignation-thread/
Because I think the broad discussion has been lost in the shuffle of people asserting their respective ideas, let me respond to specific (and inaccurate) allegations:
-Nobleese, I actually do know several individuals in wheelchairs. These experiences have helped to encourage my awareness of just how ableist our society is–we take the privilege of walking for such granted and we often gloss over disability completely. There are several blogs, written by individuals who are physically disabled, that hammered home similar points. You knowing individuals in wheelchairs who might not likewise agree with my analysis of the movie does not make my points any less valid; they simply illustrate my biggest complaint with the ableism of the film: that there is no universal, collective narrative for individuals with disability.
-macgirl, perhaps if you had actually read my post in its entirety, you would have noticed that of the four links included in the forum post you site, I actually used four of them in the post above for additional credibility. I was deliberate in my viewing of “Avatar” not to read any reviews beforehand so as to ensure my writing would be one hundred percent authentic and uninfluenced by outside opinions. I came away with these impressions and ideas, and as I do with every post, typed up a draft and then looked for other blog inputs to back up my arguments (not an uncommon tactic in journalism and debate). Imagine my surprise when I discovered I wasn’t the only person to think that the movie had serious issues with racism, sexism, and ableism.
This is not fiction. If it was, the Na’vi would not be offensive stereotypes of native cultures exploited by our own planet’s historical imperialism. The Na’vi are 10ft blue cat-like bipeds living in the distant future on a very faaaaaaar away planet. Why should they be automatically African or Native American? To not see this glaring beacon of insanity, means we haven’t been able to disconnect these races from our concept of a ‘ non-technologically advanced native’ even beyond all time and space! That, is gag-worthy and offensive beyond all time and space.
It doesn’t mean I didn’t see the positive messages, or see it’s intention to be entertaining, but it means that people expect a movie that apparently incorporates anti-racism as it’s moral, to be consistent and responsible, and incorporate anti-racism in it’s premise.
1. I “understand the logic” of the arguments in this article.
2. I do agree that the fact that J.Cameron wanted us to think about us “humans”, and our “behavior” is a valid reason for every one (with different political ideologies, religions, cultures, etc) to write/have an opinion, to see racism, sexism, ableism and any other things (good or bad). Thought I think it doesnt matters if J.Cameron says something or not… in general, every HUMAN production always will have opinions/detractors/supporters, etc…thas our human nature.
3. I want to say that as the beauty of a painting remains in our brains and in how it gets our attention, mixed with our experience in life, our culture, education, etc…… All the good, bad, rare, etc, etc, things and the critics (bad or good) are also in our brains… So its a very subjective issue…
4. Just talking about the “white” guy that is the heroe…. I suppose that its because it is an american film and despite tha fact that there are a lot of people from different countries living there, correct me if i am wrong, most of the population is white currently or not?… if the film is from asia the hero will be a chinese or japanese, or if the film is from south america it will be a mexican or peruvian, etc….But we have to admit that USA is the winner if we talk about movies, blockbusters, mega productions, etc… and almost all the typical hollywood films are always in kinf of the same plot, dont expect alternative type films from hollywood… In general there is and stereotype of the American Film, and Avatar (besides the beautiful message that it wants to bring to us) is one more of the same….It will be always from the American perspective, the ultra mega bad guy, the ultra mega good guy, the happy ending, etc, etc…the same template, i dont remember exactly, but the marines from the movie were “a human representation”? o the American Army??….. I would like to add that as most of this kind of production are from hollywood… ALWAYS the aliens will land in NY or FL or any part within the USA, the aliens always learns quiclkly to learn english…. or surprisingly it knows how to speak english…, etc, etc…But come on! its because USA have the power, english is an international language, and all this productions comes from here… if the Film power were spanish or latinamerican… it will be the samething… aliens will speak spanish…. aliens will land in Mexico or Peru or Brasil…etc, etc… do you follow my idea?
So in conclusion all this issue is subjective and as humans we are each of us always will claim that says the absolute true or opinion about a subject….
thats the way we are
Saludos from Spain
from a Peruvian Guy
1. I “understand the logic” of the arguments in this article.
2. I do agree that the fact that J.Cameron wanted us to think about us “humans”, and our “behavior” is a valid reason for every one (with different political ideologies, religions, cultures, etc) to write/have an opinion, to see racism, sexism, ableism and any other things (good or bad). Thought I think it doesnt matters if J.Cameron says something or not… in general, every HUMAN production always will have opinions/detractors/supporters, etc…thas our human nature.
3. I want to say that as the beauty of a painting remains in our brains and in how it gets our attention, mixed with our experience in life, our culture, education, etc…… All the good, bad, rare, etc, etc, things and the critics (bad or good) are also in our brains… So its a very subjective issue…
4. Just talking about the “white” guy that is the heroe…. I suppose that its because it is an american film and despite tha fact that there are a lot of people from different countries living there, correct me if i am wrong, most of the population is white currently or not?… if the film is from asia the hero will be a chinese or japanese, or if the film is from south america it will be a mexican or peruvian, etc….But we have to admit that USA is the winner if we talk about movies, blockbusters, mega productions, etc… and almost all the typical hollywood films are always in kinf of the same plot, dont expect alternative type films from hollywood… In general there is and stereotype of the American Film, and Avatar (besides the beautiful message that it wants to bring to us) is one more of the same….It will be always from the American perspective, the ultra mega bad guy, the ultra mega good guy, the happy ending, etc, etc…the same template, i dont remember exactly, but the marines from the movie were “a human representation”? o the American Army??….. I would like to add that as most of this kind of production are from hollywood… ALWAYS the aliens will land in NY or FL or any part within the USA, the aliens always learns quiclkly to learn english…. or surprisingly it knows how to speak english…, etc, etc…But come on! its because USA have the power, english is an international language, and all this productions comes from here… if the Film power were spanish or latinamerican… it will be the samething… aliens will speak spanish…. aliens will land in Mexico or Peru or Brasil…etc, etc… do you follow my idea?
5. Its true that the influence of a megaproduction a blockbuster like this is very strong in the media and public opinion…and there is concern from a grup of people about a “wrong” message… but also the film is not using a gun against us in order to wash our brains…. We are smart enough to just see, have an opinion… and enjoy the 3D show but not to be influenced so easily… I am sure there might be people that can be influenced so easly…. and if that is true I guess it will be just a few among millions of humans…
So in conclusion all this issue is subjective and as humans we are each of us always will claim that says the absolute true or opinion about a subject….
thats the way we are
Saludos from Spain
from a Peruvian Guy
PD: you see? even me can communicate in english… a bit…
I have to say this is a pretty poor analysis of the film… I’ll break it down to rebuff the different points you made.
1) Avatar is racist because it depicts a white guy becoming the leader/best warrior of a non-white group:
All throughout the film, Sully is under the scrutiny of the Na’vi tribe/clan, the Omaticaya. He has to pass *their* tests and adopt *their* ways in order to survive and be accepted. It’s true that he can just “unplug” and go back to being human, but his human body is weak, frail, and crippled, and while I’ll discuss the issue of disability later on in more detail, he doesn’t feel that firstly, he’s in the right body, and secondly, he gradually realises that he doesn’t really have any allegiance to humanity in the first place, and comes to see his human life as the real dream.
Later in the film when he becomes “a better Na’vi than the Na’vi”, he hasn’t, really. He’s still passed a test according to Na’vi tradition, not human tradition, and while, granted, it’s a tradition that few Na’vi ever accomplish (Neytiri says five Na’vi in the whole of Na’vi history), the fact that he achieves it and is welcomed back into the Omaticaya for it isn’t about his race, it was about the fact that he was willing to risk himself to protect the Na’vi, and at this point he can’t just go back to being human, the Na’vi aren’t stupid, and they know that his return as Toruk Makto means he’s now irreconcilable with the humans, and therefore he’s proven his bravery on two fronts.
2) Avatar is sexist because men gain the right to “choose a woman” when they become a man:
Very simplistic analysis. As the film continually points out, the Na’vi bonding of Tsahaylu (the thing they do when they connect the nerve endings in their braids) is very spiritual, and it can only be made with one member of the opposite sex in their entire lives. Not to mention you’re attaching English semantics onto what they say, when in their culture everything clearly has a different meaning. Jake’s statement that she must choose him in return doesn’t imply that’s not normal for Na’vi, either, and as the plotline itself shows, Neytiri was originally betrothed to Tsu’tey and chose Jake instead, so females obviously have the right to decline a male.
Not to mention, female Na’vi have equal treatment in every other aspect of Na’vi society, in fact, the other females Neytiri references are seen as desirable for Jake because of what Western socities would traditionally be seen as masculine traits – the women she’s talking about are hunters and warriors.
3) Avatar is “ableist” because it depicts Sully’s disability as a negative trait. Jokes are made in reference to his wheelchair, and Jake never came to terms with his disability:
I don’t know what planet we’re living on today, but disability is clearly an undesirable trait. Granted, that obviously doesn’t mean that disabled people should be treated without the same dignity and respect as anyone else, but to try to imply that disability isn’t undesirable is ludicrous.
As for jokes being made about Sully’s disability, well, he’s just pulled down the ramp of a shuttle to a frontier colony planet teaming with hostile wildlife and swarming with marines and attack choppers just to keep the colony safe… In a wheelchair. Marines are marines, and they’re obviously going to think that’s a bit odd and even make jokes about it. Moreover, this film is *supposed* to depict the humans of the future, of the 22nd century, as just as prejudiced assholes as they are today, so I don’t see how humans making fun of Sully’s disabilities makes the film ableist in its themes, more the contrary.
For the record, when Quaritch offers to send him home on the shuttle to get his legs fixed and Jake says he has things to finish, and Quaritch shows disgust at his decision, it’s not on the grounds that Sully can tolerate being in his disabled body for any longer than necessary, it’s because Quaritch is a violent man, and he’s repulsed that Jake still sees a diplomatic solution as possible, or even desirable. That was the obvious intent of his disgust, and I’m amazed that anyone would even think that it was aimed at his disability.
It’s racist. I wish Cameron could have come up with an innovative story from an indigenous perspective to match his innovative technology.
Ben, I think your analysis is pretty poor. Ben, grow up and admit that our culture still privileges men over women.
Ashley ~
I agree that we cannot dismiss this as ‘just a movie’ when the creator has indicated that HE wants us to look at it as more than ‘just a movie.’ However, I believe that the movie world tends to reflect the realities of the world that we live in and Avatar does that, far better than Cameron probably intended.
Yes … all of the main human characters are Anglo … that is a recurring problem with most film and television produced in America … the Lord of the Rings series is a case in point, JRR Tolkien intentionally created people and species of all different colors in an effort to harmonize racial barriers, yet the movies do not show any humanoid characters of color, and worse, the Orks appear to be the only characters of color at all … Hollywood has a problem, in general, with allowing people of color to be the main character because of the fear that the Anglo audience will not be able to “relate” to them … that is an ongoing issue, but in and off itself, I do not believe it is racist, I believe it is ignorance
Yes … the Na’vi warriors chose their women, but then it seems that the women must also chose them … AND women are encouraged to be warriors and hunters as their talents dictate … AND the leaders of the clan are a matched pair male and female with apparently equal say in matters before the people … which raises the question — who will Tsuyeh chose now that Neytiri has chosen Jake?
which brings to mind another point … Tsuyeh is still the leader of the Omaticaya even though Jake is Turok Makto (sp?) … Jake actually defers to Tsuyeh and asks permission to speak to the people, so Jake is able to use his understanding of humans to help save Pandora, but he does not become their leader … Jake tells Eywa to look at Grace’s memories and understand what the Omaticaya and the other clans are really up against … Eywa, the MotherGod…the planet Pandora, actually defeats the humans, Jake’s plan fails miserably. [People keep overlooking this fact]
Yes … the movie protrays a person with a disability who is willing to do anything to get his legs back … generally speaking, most humans would assume that given the opportunity a person would do just about anything to remove/repair their disability.
so… two of the three issues that you raise about the movie are just magnifications of what goes on in the world today-racism and ableism … the sexism, however is turned on its head because, in general, women are not encouraged to go as far with their talents as they are able and, in general, women are not given equal voice in all things.
Finally, we have to look at who James Cameron is as person and realize that anything that he creates is going to be bound by his personal experience: destroying the planet that you live on is insanity, aboriginal people are more in tune with nature and their environment, women are equal to men in all things, people of color only have a marginal influence in his [Cameron's] day to day life … that’s where he is coming from.
I think the movie is very powerful because of the technology used and the vision of a world in harmony with itself and all of its lifeforms. If we, as a people, can ’see’ the issues that are being illustrated, then we might be able to start reconciling them.
By the by, in the ‘The Toy’ Richard Pryor very directly confronts the issue of being ‘bought’ by a little white boy. His character is appropriately outraged and displays that outrage. My, Black, family loved that movie precisely because it illustrated how some people are forced into positions that they would prefer not to be in because of economic necesity. Yes, “Gone With the Wind” was racist, and again, it reflected the views of the majority of society at the time that it was written. I can’t speak to the other two movies because I haven’t seen the one [and have not been raped] and I’m not from a First Nation … but it is interesting that in “Dances with Wolves” Costner’s character married a white woman, not a genetic member of the people.
Scapegoat says:
January 13, 2010 at 2:49 am
If this movie REALLY was about respecting life, why does the “hero” start a war?
You are contradicting yourself.
The “hero” doesn’t start a war … he tries to defend the tree that is the spiritual center of the Na’vi people … the humans are going to destroy Eywa and Jake attempts to stop them.
Kathleen,
Our culture privileges men over woman is a complete myth. I don’t see women driving a garbage truck or paving asphalt, and if they do enter the industry, that industry becomes safer. How is that for discrimination.
On issue why men earn more than women, is simply..
because they are better at this!
It is what attracts women to men in the first place. Men adapted that ability to provide for women and children.
Art, I really hope you are joking with that comment. Because IT is utter rubbish.
In regards to the article, yes the movie was racist, sexist, heterosexist, as well as ableist. Do its fans care though? Not really. Because racism, hetero/sexism, and ableism do not affect them. Privilege is the most frustrating thing in the world!
I don’t agree with this article saying that the movie is racial and degrading towards natives, women and disabled. I just finished my short review about the movie I watched last night so to avoid to write all of it here, I point you to my article and you can continue the discussion here.
http://lifestyle.isgreat.org/index.php/articles/34-entertainment/63-avatar-is-a-great-movie
Afia says:
January 18, 2010 at 3:29 pm
The “hero” doesn’t start a war … he tries to defend the tree that is the spiritual center of the Na’vi people … the humans are going to destroy Eywa and Jake attempts to stop them.
That depends on one’s point of view.
To the humans, this was a mining expedition, and they guarded it with military forces. War, on the other side, is fought against another army. This was an invasion.
A war begins when somebody actually organises another army to fight the invaders.
The Na’vi are supposed to live in harmony with the world, and they didn’t kill before Sully came. They would have accepted that – eventually – every tree has to die, to make room for an new seed.
Which is pretty much how jungle vegetation works on Earth. Even the mightiest tree eventually dies and rots away, and another fills the gap.
Disney calls it “Circle of Life”. If the Na’vi couldn’t accept that, they are no more in balance with nature than the common white human male. Na’vi culture was a pacifist one.
No matter who starts the war, it begins the very moment somebody decides to fight back. There’s always at least two parties in a war, you know?
@ Scapegoat …. so, defending yourself against attack means that you “start” the war … while allowing yourself to be attacked and destroyed means… what?
ps…the large ‘unobtainium’ deposit is located underneath the Omaticaya’s Home Tree, which the humans successfully destroyed … the military then seeks to destroy the Spiritual Tree [I don't remember what the pink willowy tree is called] in an effort to completely destabilize the Na’vi culture, planetwide … Jake’s attack started only as the humans were approaching the Spiritual Tree to ‘nuke’ it … there was no retaliation for the destruction of the Omaticaya’s Home Tree…
Kathleen:
Where in my post did I even comment on women’s privilege against men in our current society? Either you misread it, or you didn’t read it at all. The only passing reference I made to women in Western culture is at the end, when I pointed out that the Na’vi have better gender equality than the modern West. You should probably read what someone says before you say something like that.
Ben:
Thanks you for crystalizing my thoughts. Your take on why Quaritch was discusted was dead on. Apparently Ashley’s 3D glasses were warped because she was seeing a whole bunch of stuff that wasn’t in the movie.
P.S.
I learned a new word today, “ableist”. Who knew that wanting 10-fingers, 10-toes, and all your senses was wrong.
Ken
This is such a dumb article, I just had to comment.
Yes, Avatar isn’t a particularly good movie, but sexism, racism, etc? Like what?
How the hell?
To Americans maybe. God damn americans, seriously. What the hell? How? What? Where?
Why be so modest? Let’s ban every movie that shows women cooking or cleaning.
And i seriously think every movie with disabled characters should be reexamined aswell. For instance I think most movies with blind characters help in creating and enforcing the myth that people with ocular disabilities don’t see as well as other people and are therefor not able to do some things that others are able to do.
And fat people. Seriously. The world is already starting to accept that big people can be beautiful too, but lets not stop there. People who have almost eaten themselves to death and whos’ body fat is 75% have to be cherished for their natural beauty aswell and should be treated as also being sexy, for it’s the society that puts us into position where we are forced to think that people who have a 50% chance of having a heart attack the next time they try to take the remote control are not as healthy and as sexy as other people.
I agree with you. I also think Avatar was racist against whites. I blogged about it: http://chunkymonkeymind.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatar-and-racism-angle-no-one-else-is.html
So, I don’t have the time to read all of these comments, so I apologize if this has already been raised.
How is it that, when a white man comes into a tribal culture, is pressured to assimilate to said tribal culture, and excels in said assimilation, this event is labeled as horribly racist?
On the same token, how is it that, when people of other races enter into a predominantly white culture and are pressured into assimilating, this is also blatantly racist? What a nauseating double-standard.
It is unfortunate that those who proclaim to stand atop a soap box of prosperity relentlessly feed on imagined conflict.
@Afia: Sorry, forgot to have a look back here…
The word you are looking for is “pacifist”. The concept is called passive resistance, and has successfully freed India from British military forces thanks to a man most commonly known as Gandhi. But of course, since most western countries nowadays FAVOR and support war, the concept of not fighting back MUST lack recognition.
@Januus:
And if we just leave your cynicism aside – just for a second, okay? What ARGUMENTS do you have? Mockery is simple and cheap.
@Palaverer:
Why should we consider this racist against whites? They were shamefully defeated and retreated – which means they have understood the error of their ways. Otherwise they would have nuked the whole area from outer space.
And it was a white man who saved the planet.
Whilst the Na’vi betrayed all of their ideals.
@Bheiss:
Interesting point, but not at all coherent with reality. A black person trying to live by “white” standards will NEVER be accepted. “Assimilation” in this case means accepting the part as a “lesser person” in a white system. Last time I looked, Martin Luther King was still dead for having a dream about a culture in which black people would be equal to white people.
And that is where the racism lies: White people idealizing other cultures may “excel” in adapting the good part of that culture.
It does not work the other way round. Think of all the criticism against late Micheal Jackson’s attempt to assimilate.
However, all of this has no connection to Avatar.
Nobody FORCED Sully to adopt the Na’vi way. He chose to. And THEN he instead corrupted the Na’vi pacifist culture and spoiled it.
The Na’vi have been assimilated as “lesser humans” while a human is now their leading idol.
I’m afraid I cannot relate to your criticism in this point.
I was injured in a Fork lift accident in 2003 that left me barely able to walk but I’ll never be able to run or ride a bike the way I used to again. I am also transgendered. If I was in Jake’s position and was able to use a female Avatar, then heck yea, I wouldn’t want to go back to my old body either. Human beings can be far too judgmental and I’d love to be able to run again. So I can relate to that wanting to run and jump need Jake had. I make do with what I have because I don’t have a choice. A lot of people are in that same boat.
http://ryeberg.com/curated-videos/avatar-race-relations-light-years-from-earth/
The more popular the film, the more the potential for harm… Mitu Sengupta argues persuasively that the critics are right: Avatar is a weighty addition to the irritating genre of racist White Messiah films.
An interesting follow up to Ashley M. Papon’s piece…
Hi everyone,
Firstly it’s incredibly refreshing to witness people talking so intelligently about something that has provoked a reaction. Yes, it is a visually beautiful film. Yes, it certainly raises questions and moral ethics about our own society. Yes, it might shine a light on subjects that our respective Governments don’t want to address. The fact that here, people ARE doing precisely that, is fantastic.
However,I don’t agree with all the points made and I just want to make note of a couple of ideas.
Sexism – hmmm. I did not feel, as a woman, that it was sexist. If some women felt that, then I would be interested in pinpointing exactly where they felt this occurred. I felt the Na’vi’s social framework was in fact less about gender, and more about spirituality. Men and women occupied equally important roles, a la Paganism and it set up a solid plateau for the understanding of their connection with nature. Neytiri chose Jake just as much as he chose her. They fell in love. If anything is alluded to here, it must surely be Shakespeare?!
Disabled issues – I felt, from an audience perspective, Cameron dealt with it headon. It will raise questions but that’s a good thing. I felt that Jake’s subsumation into the Na’vi wasn’t just about gaining a fully working body, it went way beyond that. As for portrayal, the jibes he received were not from anyone but the white human males, what does that say? was it rude or acurrate?
Racism – the fact that a white man is subsumed into a native culture and does well in it, isn’t that a kind of reverse racism? Don’t we all long to be part of something like that? White people lost our clanship a long time ago but it’s still within us, a sense of belonging and of family and without it, we’re pretty lost and culturally, I feel we are exactly that. Neo-tribes are witnessed everywhere in our society, like finds like, and so what? Doesn’t that just say we’re pack animals? Subjugation of one dominant group over marginalised groups does happen coz it’s human nature and the Na’vi show us a different route. And that’s a good thing.
Nature – true nature worship and reverence is something that is seriously gathering speed, socially, culturally and economically. It is no longer hippy, tree hugging degrading cliches, it’s something that we all have to start taking seriously. the idea that all the tree roots are connected like synapses is just a staggering and beautiful concept. It should be cherished.
I’m glad people can discuss all manner of things but the true meesage of (look after what we have, whilst there’s still time) seems to be overshadowed by human arguments, as important as they are, there’s a much bigger picture to consider here…
Brightest blessings folks xxx
Okay this is a long post but let me do my best to tackle it into the mud.
1) Racism – This film has been called racist for many reasons. It’s been called racist for “stereotyping black people” (even though the Na’vi more closely resemble Native Americans, go figure). It’s been called racist because the main character is white. It’s the “white saviour complex” or the “white guilt syndrom” or whatever rubbish they’re calling it. Okay so the hero is white. If he was black would it be called “black saviour complex”? I’d like a legitimate answer to that, and please don’t grandstand and say “No it would be called equality!” because that’s not the answer to the question I just asked.
So they complain the hero is white. Okay let’s see. All the badguys are white, too. Corporate leader Selfridge who orders Hometree blown up: White. Military leader Quaritch who blows up Hometree and then leads an attack that kills hundreds of Na’vi: White. No one complains that the movie was racist because all the badguys were white. HUM. INTERESTING.
The movie is called racist because minorities are cast to portray minorities (the Na’vi). I’m sorry that people were cast in appropriate roles for the film. I’m sorry that people of certain ethnicities had the appropraite facial structures to build the CGI off of.
When you’re white I guess you’re born wrong, right? The RDA are the badguys because they’re white and blowing up the natives for shiny rocks. Jake is the badguy because he’s white and tries to save the natives.
Oh, forget the plot archetypes of sin and redemption. Forget the Fool’s Journey to enlightenment. Forget the archetype of overcoming your adversities (like being disabled). Forget the Heroes Journey, all that stuff: It’s racist if it’s a white guy doing it.
Oh and forget that Jake was once a Sky Person and knows about their military tactics and has inside information. The person best suited to leading the Na’vi to freedom is Tsu’tey! (I’m laughing IRL, seriously.)
2) Sexism – The film protrays the Na’vi as primitive hunter/gatherers similar to the Native Americans. To impose our standards of gender equality upon them would be silly. Are you saying that all future movies which protray tribal societies both real and imagined must now adhere to your strict ideals of gender equality? That’s a ridiculous idea.
Honestly, the Na’vi were pretty progressive as far as tribal societies go! They had female hunters. They had female warriors. One clan is even lead by a female. The Omiticaya have a female spiritual leader – if you’d done any homework on tribal societies, the spiritual leader usually trumps the tribal leader when it comes down to the last word. For instance, Etukahn was going to kill Jake. As soon as Mo’at, the spiritual leader says “no, we’re gonna teach him our ways instead” – the entire tribe, including the chief’s daughter, obeys.
The Omiticaya’s best warrior is arguably Neytiri, a female. Not even Tsu’tey, the next in line for clan leader, would pick a fight with her.
And who are the two most influential characters on Jake? Grace (female) and Neytiri (female). So the two most influential roles in the movie (as they shaped the protagonist) are female.
Also, if you paid attention to the movie, Neytiri was betrothed to Tsu’tey. But she mates with Jake, with no apparent consequences other than irritating the tribal leaders (and Tsu’tey, of course). So obviously women in this tribal society have the right to refuse the man who chooses them. But I guess that passed over your head, too?
3) Disabled Prejudice – I’m sorry but you just go way out on a limb with this one. In your quest to hunt down and peck out every form of prejudice or inequality, you missed a GIGANTIC PLOT DEVICE. Only ONCE in the entire movie is a comment made about Jake’s disability, when one marine says “Hey look. Meals on wheals.” and the second marine responds “Oh man, that is just wrong.” First impressions are the strongest impressions. Cameron wanted the marines to be protrayed as callous assholes. And he succeeded, judging by your reaction, but it went way over your head. There’s also symbology – through an act of war, Jake loses his ability to walk. By humbling himself before the Na’vi and fighting for a just cause and learning to see the beauty and harmony in nature, he regains the ability to walk – not only that, but he gains the ability to soar through the air. Sure some tree hugging hippy would appreciate that message, no?
Jake’s disability is a plot device to set up the Heroes weakness (every Hero must have one to make them believable) and to give him Initial Motivation (every main character must have initial motivation or again it’s not believable). Jake is given choices. Quaritch gives him the choice: Provide me with intel and you get your legs back. Jake then has a second choice come to his awareness: Risk not only his ability to ever walk again, but risk his ability to ever breath again and help the Na’vi. Remember, while Jake gets to walk in his Avatar form, he is still dependent on his human form – if it dies, he dies. And by betraying humanity, he severes all long-term support for his human body, and thus, his life.
The most important fact in my above paragraph is that Jake is granted corprorate approval for the operation to restore his legs. In fact, a shuttle was arranged for Jake to leave *that very night*, but it was more important for him to earn the acceptance of the Omiticaya people and be with Neytiri and to find a diplomatic solution to save the Omticaya.
You criticize Jake for betraying a race for the promise of walking again : “The film’s not-so-veiled assertion suggests that betraying an entire race is worth the ability to walk”. But then you criticize him for risking his life to help the Na’vi: “Jake is still granted the ability to walk at the end of the film, delivered as the ultimate reward for his turncoat actions against humankind.”. It seems you’re unhappy no matter what Jake chooses.
“As a result, Jake spends more time in his avatar form not in appreciation of the Na’vi culture, but because it gives him the permission to inhabit a body that can walk, run and mate–the things that he no longer can in his human form.”
Now you’ve gone very far out on a very thin branch. Jake spends more time in his Avatar form because this is what’s required. Once in Avatar form, he cannot exit until he goes to sleep. Then he wakes up in human form, and his human brain needs to sleep. When he wakes up, he needs to go back into the Avatar – there is no “day off”. And if you even bothered to *listen* to his dialogue, you’d see that Jake is genuinely beginning to care about the Na’vi and Neytiri. He knows the Na’vi can’t do anything about the RDA coming to blow up Hometree, so he warns them to get them to safety. He “blows his cover” and suffers excommunication from them in order to relay this warning to them.
“Despite betraying the Na’vi, Jake is still granted the ability to walk at the end of the film”
That’s called a happy ending. But I guess movies should leave us all depressed, right?
In regards to Kathleen’s comment:
“Ben, grow up and admit that our culture still privileges men over women.”
This is entirely untrue. For instance look at the military. Women make up 15% of the military but less than 1% of the casualties. Women have the option of joining the military: men must still register for draft. If WWIII started and there was a draft, women could still go to school, men would march off and die.
Did you know that of all violent crime, 75% of the victims are male? Yet, do men have shelters? No. Women have various shelters and resources yet they account for only 25% of all victims. Why is there a “take back the night, stop violence against women” movement? Why not just “stop violence”, period, especially considering that 75% of the victims are male?
Women now make up almost 70% of college and University students. There’s special grants and scholarships for women only. There’s government aid for women only. Men get nothing. Have you ever seen a female driving a garbage truck? Or working on an oil rig? Or laying pavement?
What about reproductive issues? A man has no say, but he bears 100% of the responsibility. The man gets the woman pregnant, right, it’s never the other way around where the woman allows herself to become pregnant. It’s her body, her choice, and the man’s responsibility.
In our society women are a privileged group. They have all the rights a man enjoys, but are still protected in all the ways women have been protected for centuries.
Women are the privileged class, not the other way around.
What a load of garbage.
There have been a handful of confused individuals, redirecting their petulant rage into misunderstanding my master thesis and in-depth analysis as to how “Avatar” fails, but Feyd, yours is by far my favorite.
“Women are the privileged class”? Sure. I had a good laugh at that one. Anyone who honestly believes women are the privileged class is most certainly living in a fantasy world well beyond the grasp of Cameron’s cinematic experience.
If women are the privileged class, why have they only been allowed to vote, own property, and make somewhat autonomous reproductive choices for less than a century now? Why do women, on average, still earn .70 cents to every $1.00 that a man of equal or less experience and/or education earns? Why are women who murder their husbands disproportionately sentenced to harsher prison terms as opposed to men who murder their wives? You might be interested to know that there are a number of resources for battered men in the status quo, but as violence against women is an overwhelmingly male-on-female phenomena, more resources are allocated to them accordingly, why? Because they are anything but the privileged class.
Thanks for the laugh. It’s responses like these that make me thankful for the intelligent commentary that my articles have inspired, and reaffirm the need for Feminism. Totally the highlight of my day.
You take care now, and let me know when the oppression for those white, upper middle class males you’re crusading for gets to be too unbearable.
Rather than personally attack people who disagree with you, you gain more credibility by maturely defending your assertions. Insulting someone does not weaken their position and credibility, but it does weaken your’s.
“If women are the privileged class, why have they only been allowed to vote, own property, and make somewhat autonomous reproductive choices for less than a century now?”
Being privileged for only a decade still means: you’re privileged. And in fact if you studied some history you’d know that even most white males could not vote. During WWI most of the men who marched off to die in the trenches did not have the right to vote as most of the men did not own property.
Voting rights opened up in a rather short period of time and extended the right to vote to all people regardless of property holdings, education, gender, race, and wealth. While women were fighting for their right to vote, men who could also not vote were dying in two world wars. But few women ever protested this.
The only reason lower class men were given the right to vote was because denying them the vote after they’d all marched off to die for their home countries was a ludicrous idea and would incite internal conflict.
“Why do women, on average, still earn .70 cents to every $1.00 that a man of equal or less experience and/or education earns?”
Actually this number is almost 2 decades old and very outdated and innacurate. The reason men often earn more than women is because: 1) Men are willing to take the more dangerous jobs, which often pay more 2) Men are willing to work more hours than women, and put in more overtime 3) Men do not take maternal leave 4) Men do not call in sick as often 5) Men are naturally more ambitious and move up the ladder faster than women.
Your argument is essentially “Why do doctors earn more than nurses, it’s not fair!” Women have just as much opportunity to become doctors as men, but we find women tend to choose nursing over surgery and other disciplines.
Also, the “wage gap” myth, even if somewhat accurate in *some* fields, is dubious because 1) In most marriages, the couple live off the man’s income and the man supports the woman 2) There are more social services for women
When controlling for various factors we find that the wage gap is actually less than 5 cents overall. There are verious fields were women actually earn more then men.
“Why are women who murder their husbands disproportionately sentenced to harsher prison terms as opposed to men who murder their wives?”
This completely false and five minutes of research will disprove this assertion. Women get ligher sentences for equal crimes, *especially* for child molestation and sexual abuse.
“You might be interested to know that there are a number of resources for battered men in the status quo,”
Name one gender specific resource for male victims of violence. And it has to be gender specific, not gender neutral.
“but as violence against women is an overwhelmingly male-on-female phenomena, more resources are allocated to them accordingly, why? Because they are anything but the privileged class.”
Domestic violence is actually a 50/50 phenomena. Women are just as likely to strike their male partners as men are to strike their female partners. The interesting thing is men are actually less likely to report it and women are more likely to use objects (such as broomsticks, cooking utensils) when they hit their partners. When women kill their husbands it is typically premeditated rather than a spur of the moment decision such as when a man kills his wife. Yet women still recieve lighter sentences for it and in many case can use the “battered wife” excuse for a pardon. (Such as a Canadian woman who blew her husband’s head off with a shotgun: while he was asleep.)
ALSO what you’ve just said, which exposes your blatently prejudice and bias, is that it is basically okay for a man to be violent towards another man, but it’s not okay for a man to be violent towards a woman. So much for equality, eh?
In the end women still only make up 25% of the victims of all violent crime (this includes domestic abuse) but most of the attention is on female victims, not male victims. If this does not smack of entitlement and privilege then I don’t know what does.
“Thanks for the laugh. It’s responses like these that make me thankful for the intelligent commentary that my articles have inspired, and reaffirm the need for Feminism.”
In other words what you’re saying is because not everyone has been assimilated into the Feminist collective of misrepresented facts, outright lies, and statistic manipulation that the need for feminism’s efforts in such is reaffirmed. I understand. But unlike Star Trek, resistance is not futile and as the years march on you will notice more and more people (male and female alike) offering as much.
“You take care now, and let me know when the oppression for those white, upper middle class males you’re crusading for gets to be too unbearable.”
Don’t twist my words, please.
I never said white, upper middle class males are oppressed. I merely posited that women are a privileged class in America, which they are.
I would like everyone reading this to study feminist behavior when encountering dissension. Rather than post updated substantial information, most of her argument comes from decades old information (that was even inaccurate in its day) and condescending posturing.
Women in America are a privileged class in comparison to women in nearly every other country in the world. As for their level of privilege amongst male Americans, I have to agree with Ashley. There are a lot of subtle social conditioning and subconscious influences at work even during infancy that render a female’s shot at success, respect among her peers, and positive self-image harder to obtain, in spite of the far greater number of opportunities for women in this country than in much of the developing world. MORE privileged than male counterparts? Nah
“As for their level of privilege amongst male Americans, I have to agree with Ashley. There are a lot of subtle social conditioning and subconscious influences at work even during infancy that render a female’s shot at success, respect among her peers, and positive self-image harder to obtain”
When boys reach their teens and start to get “socialized” into their male roles… their suicide rates goes up 25,000%. Talk about a barrier to success!
Women = privileged. End of story.
While I think some of your arguments are way off-mark, I will admit that racism, sexism and ableism exist to some degree in the film. The thing is, racism, sexism, and ableism exist in real life, and I think that Avatar depicted fairly realistically what would happen in this situation with these kinds of people. If everything had been perfect and equal, it wouldn’t have been realistic, it wouldn’t have been as compelling a story, and a lot of people would be complaining.
Also, the society of the Na’vi is a stereotypical tribal culture, yes. There were and are many human cultures that follow the same form. It’s a model we (both the creators and audience) know actually works for a “primitive” culture, and the audience is instantly familiar instead of having to get used to some strange, foreign idea. Also, the story is told through the eyes of the humans for the eyes of humans, and again I think this is how a culture like this would be viewed if we discovered them.
I for one agree for one with several of the above posters. These people that see various forms of racism, sexism and prejudices are just people who seem to be obsessed with it. If majority of people see no problems with it, there must be no problems with it. Not every movie is going to be 100% clean in every way, this would make for unbelievably boring movies.
On a side note, to those who say avatar is reminiscent of Fern Gully, Dances with wolves, etc, i say so what? there’s hardly any movies coming out that are completely original. These movies and stories which may/may not inspired avatar were not very original themselves. I think these people are just angry because the film did so well, and they did not enjoy it themselves. Remember the whole purpose is for entertainment, not debate.
[...] controversy. While director James Cameron touts the environmental message of the futuristic film, many thought it demonstrated racism, sexism and disabled discrimination. The movie will finally be coming to DVD and Blu-Ray, and Cameron is going to make certain this [...]
there are so many people here who need to read a freakin book. i could barely watch this movie because of the overt racism, sexism and abelism, and to denies this is ridiculous. i hate when people make comments based on personal experience or common knowlede, do some research (using proper sources) and you will understand what this article is actually talking about. to deny the the racism, sexism, and ableism in this movie is ignorant and reinforces the terrible stereotypes this movie portrays. and movies that depict such strong stereotypical messages cause uneducated people to believe that things like racism are ok.
First of all this is a movie, it is fake, it isn’t something to get your panties in a bunch about. Let me just tell you something about myself, because it obviously seems to be important and qualifie sme to state my opinion. I am a dominatley white female. I am a single mom to a daughter who is partially sioux indian. I have a female garbage truck driver, my gyno is male even though I could go to the female doctor across the hall, and I work in an industry that is considered male dominated because it is hard work and outdoors. iI have a four year college degree as well. This movie was fantastic, it struck emotions, nerves as well and made me think, I just watched it because I have a kid and am on a budget so I can’t run to the theater ever other day. But I agree with ben and feyd on most of their points, does that make me a traitor to my gender? Sully is played by a white male, who happens to be austrailian am I not right? (ou all need to get off your high horses and realize that this was a movie and the only reason I came across this blog was because I wanted to find out if sam worthington actually went so far as to atrophy his legs to play a believable parapalegic? Where did you come up with sexism and racism. I think that the combination of native american indians and aboriginal peoples to portray the navi is brilliant and should be a testiment to those cultures because it shows the respect to them that they were two of the most advanced human beings. What they aren’t the white colored cavemen, angelo saxons that were overweight and barbaric that just ate charred meat ona spit?? Man I feel so pissed that they didn’t choose my ancient tribe to be portrayed as the navi!! I love that sully has gone through the ringer to try and become of the people, and guess who was picked to teach him these way, a girl, if this show was raciest wouldn’t the male have to be the teacher?? Maybe the women should all be the trainers of young men, sexual chemistry is a great motivator!! Haha in short, give the movie some credit, it was amazing and such a technically magnificent achievement. The actors were great and before I even saw the credits I knew it was zoe that played the female lead, so it had to be amazing technology and acting to get her so spot on! Ps sully was a great hunter because he had motivation. A person doesn’t know how good they have it till it’s gone, white black asian or norwegian!
Repeat this over and over…it’s just a movie…it’s just a movie…it’s just a movie. More importantly remember it’s just a movie and actually, not a very good one.
[...] of Family Guy and Glee are, respectively, loyal. And as we’ve seen from previous entries, society is not always down with the idea that we should be criticizing popular sources of entertainm… as anything other than, well, entertaining. But as was recently articulated by the fine ladies over [...]