Previous  1  2

Avatar has many human racial and ethnic connotations, but it not an inherently racist movie.

People will never cease to bitch at Hollywood.

People bitched at Inglorious as being racist. Remember Pulp Fiction? How can a white director make a blaxploitation that uses the "n" word yadda yadda.



Hancock was a perfect example of bitching from all around. A black superhero is dead beat screamed some blacks. Why does Hollywood push a race mixing agenda screamed some whites.

Fuck you all.
Want to see a really racist movie, go watch Birth of a Nation. NOW THAT…is truly racist.

   

It's a movie!

   

Sure, and movies can be racist. Try showing "Triumph of the Will" in Israel, say. But there are also people who see racism everywhere, won't be happy unless the movie is certified: "No animals were harmed in the production of this movie, and no white men were employed in its production or distribution."

   

Well said!

   

Well, the premise for the competing racist/antiracist claims is that the "humans" in the movie are metaphors for European colonialists and the "aliens" were metaphors for all the indigenous people of the world, who suffered under European colonialism.

The story, for those who havent seen it, is about humans who colonize this planet of blue-skinned "primative" aliens and try to kill them off in order to mine a precisous resource called "unobtanium". As far as that goes, its a pretty accurate retelling of our Imperialist and Colonial history and much of our continued activities in the under-developed world, only set in outer space. This is why the film makers and other fans claim it is not racist, but in fact points the finger at US and our wicked ways.

The argument that it is racist comes from the claim that it is patronizing and is similar to the argument that came out after Dances With Wolves and other similar movies: The natives are easily mislead into befriending a "white" man with ulterior motives and are at the mercy of the "whites" throughout the film and incapable of saving themselves. In the end, they are only saved because the Great White Saviour, in all his glory and righteousnous decided to save them. Critics say this is racist because it is not empowering and portrays them as naive and powerless children who need a "white" protector to lead and protect them.

Personally, I think this 'racist' criticism is misguided. First, one has to accept that this movie does not aim to deliver a racist message. It is a movie by White people, for an audience that is largely White. If there was any deliberate attempt to deliver a social message, it would have to be delivered in a way that this mostly-white audience would receive. Even if we assume for a moment that white people did identify themselves with the 'humans' in the film, they would not appreciate or be amenable to lessons from a story in which 'they' are portrayed as being universally evil and then massacred by some noble tribe of non-whites. In order to make the moral lesson of colonialism/imperialism palatable to this audience, one would have to have a white hero with whom they could identify. Much of this happens at the subconscious level.

Second, from a plausability point of view, Im not aware of many situations in which the Colonialists were driven out solely by an indegenous tribe. In most cases where indegenous people were involved in defeating colonialists, it is because they allied themselves with another colonialist (ie British and French in North America).

My criticism is that the story has a happy ending. In the real world, the natives almost always lose and are always exploited and subjugated by the more powerful and advanced invader. This gives people illusions about the real power relations that take place in the real world between developed and undeveloped nations and the servile relationships that really exist.

   

Previous  1  2