Avatar supposedly racist

[Spoonist]

"This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare," Newitz wrote. "It's not just a wish to be absolved of the crimes whites have committed against people of color; it's not just a wish to join the side of moral justice in battle. It's a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside. Think of it this way. Avatar is a fantasy about ceasing to be white, giving up the old human meatsack to join the blue people, but never losing white privilege."

I have seen these type of arguments before and understand the inherent implications, but my personal opinion is that its b-s. This since it does not matter which skintone the human has. It does not even matter that it is a human. It could just as easily be another alien race.

[Broomstick]

It's my opinion that some of these sort of criticisms amount to racism in and of itself: you're white, you'll always be white, you'll always be the oppressor even when you aren't, and you can't redeem yourself from the evil of being white. Any attempt to be non-racist will fail because you are, as a white person, inherently racist. In other words, it's judging people based on their skin color.

[Oskuro]

Yeah, but racism is only bad when whites do it, like baby killing and God.

[Singular Intellect]

Funny story; taking a cab home a couple of years ago, and I was listening to the cabbie go on about all the racism he has to deal with and how it pisses him off (apparently he refuses to pick up blacks because he had very bad experiences with them).

He was obviously of East Indian descent, but what really surprised me was when he asked me if I knew who the least rascist group was, I replied "Don't know personally" (I honestly never gave it much thought nor consider myself qualified to answer), to which he replied "white people". Further discussion about immigration and other ethical groups had me commenting "I don't care what colour your skin is or where you're from, if you're an honest person, obey the law and work hard, I say welcome to Canada." To which he then said "I rest my case!".

Obviously this is just a single example, but it was refreshing to hear a non bashing view on white people.

[wolveraptor]

I definitely don't think it's reasonable to claim that only white people are racist, but it is worth noting that the kinds of racism that actually matter, that don't just amount to hurt feelings, favor whites. That much is undeniable. I think some white people, particularly conservatives, lose sight of that.

EDIT:
I think it's worth noting that the criticism is not of the character who transforms into an alien native. That character's righteousness is never brought into question. Rather, the criticism is of the filmmaker, who chose to cast the hero as a human in a Na'vi body, rather than a real Na'vi.

"By the end of the film, you're left wondering why the film needed the Jake Sully character at all," the Moving Image wrote. "The film could have done just as well by focusing on an actual Na'vi native who comes into contact with crazy humans who have no respect for the environment."

[ArmorPierce]

I definitely don't think it's reasonable to claim that only white people are racist, but it is worth noting that the kinds of racism that actually matter, that don't just amount to hurt feelings, favor whites. That much is undeniable. I think some white people, particularly conservatives, lose sight of that.

What he said.

In my experience, minorities tend to be actually much more openly racist than white people. As you stated however, the difference between racism from the group in power and the group without is pretty major.

[Bakustra]

It's my opinion that some of these sort of criticisms amount to racism in and of itself: you're white, you'll always be white, you'll always be the oppressor even when you aren't, and you can't redeem yourself from the evil of being white. Any attempt to be non-racist will fail because you are, as a white person, inherently racist. In other words, it's judging people based on their skin color.

Well, reading the original blog post, it's saying that it's racist because white people partaking of "white guilt" fantasies are themselves fantasizing about leading minorities, and are therefore controlling fantasies. The author herself is white, interestingly enough.

There are merits to this idea, but it immediately fails upon declaring that this happens in District 9. Wikus at no point becomes a leader of the aliens, and he finds Christopher Johnson because it was Johnson's house that he got sprayed at. After the events of the movie, he simply becomes another alien on the street. Another problem is that these sorts of articles tend to dip straight into assumption of pure metaphor without suspending disbelief. There are plenty of reasons why Wikus wouldn't like becoming an alien beyond becoming an oppressed minority, just to continue the District 9 examples.

On another level, though, the effect of this wouldn't change if you altered Sully's race. The matter would shift from race to culture, a conflict one of Western ideals versus the ideals of the Na'vi. This itself occurred in the first few centuries of settlement in North America, where people would join Native tribes and live with them, adopting their culture. Of course, more people look at race than they do at culture, so they haven't necessarily thought this through.

On a third level, the idea of the hero simply standing by or serving as a spear-carrier for the climax is ludicrous for a conventional film, which is what Avatar is. Sully would have to gain a position of leadership in order for him to be a hero in the context of a film. In the context of a novella, you could get away with ending it after he decides to give up on forcing the Na'vi out, but literature is not film. You could potentially do it in an artier film, but then Avatar would have been a disaster, given its cost of production.

Another idea suggested is that Sully need not be white. Let's ignore the culturism that would then take hold for this. The argument is that people need not have a white hero to sympathize with. Cynically, one could say that with the state of race relations in the US, the majority of people need a white guy to sympathize with. Alternately, you could presume that they had a purpose to making him white, since Avatar does have many parallels to the Indian Wars, and indeed, much of American intercourse with Native tribes. With that, we can see that having a "race traitor" sends the message that it is possible to free yourself from racism and the racist attitudes of other people, and learn to appreciate the culture of others. Having a minority serve (unless said minority is a majority within the context of the film) this role undermines the idea. Of course, analysis is a matter of interpretation, and people are free to disagree with my interpretation, as I'm sure the supporters of this thesis would.

Finally:

By the end of the film you're left wondering why the film needed the Jake Sully character at all. The film could have done just as well by focusing on an actual Na'vi native who comes into contact with crazy humans who have no respect for the environment. I can just see the explanation: "Well, we need someone (an avatar) for the audience to connect with. A normal guy will work better than these tall blue people." However, this is the type of thinking that molds all leads as white male characters (blank slates for the audience to project themselves upon) unless your name is Will Smith.

and

Whites need to stop remaking the white guilt story, which is a sneaky way of turning every story about people of color into a story about being white. Speaking as a white person, I don't need to hear more about my own racial experience. I'd like to watch some movies about people of color (ahem, aliens), from the perspective of that group, without injecting a random white (erm, human) character to explain everything to me. Science fiction is exciting because it promises to show the world and the universe from perspectives radically unlike what we've seen before. But until white people stop making movies like Avatar, I fear that I'm doomed to see the same old story again and again.

For the first quote, I presume that this means the removal of Sully and the other sympathetic avatars. The movies would then become a racist screed about how awful white people are, or, if we make the RDA multicultural, how awful humans are. Now, feel free to disagree, but I don't think that racist screeds of any color (hah) have much merit. Of course, if there is anybody reading this who agrees with the article, feel free to explain how it would not be racist to have every on-screen human character be evil or "crazy", and also white. While the author could be trying to say that they should put the focus on a random Na'vi rather than Sully, that is not what comes across in the quote, where s/he seems to be suggesting that the human cast be entirely malevolent.

Now, this second part is a little tangential, but I think that Avatar has relatively saintly natives who live in harmony with nature (though it provides a semi-justification) because it needs a sledgehammer. The Na'vi are very humanoid when the rest of the fauna is alien, and for the same reason. I think that Cameron felt that the Na'vi need to be incredibly sympathetic for people to sympathize with them, and I can't fault him, seeing the arguments in the review thread. On the other hand, most of the people who are hostile to the movie would not be pacified by less subtlety or a blatantly racist, culturist, and specieist message.

Thirdly, and dealing with both quotes, while I agree that I would like to see more visual works depicting aliens from their own perspective, films cost money. A lot more money than writing a novel for even the lowest-budget films. High-budget special effects extravaganzas which could do justice to aliens and an alien world, are not likely, in the eyes of marketers and possibly in reality as well, to sell a number of tickets. Such films are a niche market, and the film world is less open to niche appeal, unless it comes to small-budget independent works, which themselves may not be sustainable on niches like this alone. On another level, this is an attempt to remove all escapism from sci-fi, and immediately cast all aliens in the roles of minorities, while humans all become white, even if they are black, or Latino, or whatever. If I may be facetious, then, how do we know which aliens are black, as opposed to being Latino, or Asian, or even Jewish, beyond squinting our eyes for stereotypes?
Spoiler

Trick question! American bloggers can only think about race in terms of black and white, so all aliens are black when it comes to American reviewers. Contribute your own countries?

For that matter, why must all aliens serve as a metaphor for oppression? There are stories out there without any oppressed aliens, you know. There are more where you have some oppressed but not others.

The author followed up with a post about minorities rising to the top within fiction. This starts with Taran from Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain, a white guy rising up to rule white guys in a land with no racial minorities. Still, it's faithful to Mabinogionic Wales, and suggests that she's A-OK with class, rather than race, being the deciding factor. Well enough. She then goes to disqualify Star Wars, because apparently Luke Skywalker is actually part of the privileged class because of his father. True, but a) Luke doesn't end up ruling the galaxy, b) this is nothing more than a cheap shot at Star Wars, and makes you look like a snob, and c) you are only solidifying your "snobby nerd" credentials by ignoring the prequels. We then go on to include Gor as a good example of this. There is a moratorium on that series, and for good reason, so all I will say is that I rapidly scrolled upwards to ensure that, yes, the author of the article was female.

The rest of said article consists entirely of framing various stories in ways that make them sound utterly unappealing. Her use of Octavia Butler's work, and her description of "schizophrenics take over LA, turn out to be psychics, are unified by a woman who mysteriously has psychic powers that don't drive her mad, and take over the rich and powerful". Congratulations. This sounds like it was written by a schizophrenic Marxist fantasizing about a world where the mentally ill rule and fuck over the rich. I'm going to go out and buy it right away! Actually, I now have no desire to read or watch any of the works she suggests, because they are all characterized as pure revenge fantasies on the power structure. Of course, I already knew to avoid Battle for the Planet of the Apes and Gor, but still. Now, out of the works I've read from her list, she mischaracterizes several of them to get her point across. I won't go into details here, but here and [ur="http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white- ... e-avatar"l]here[/url] are her two articles.

Ultimately, her own opinions reveal that her own white guilt is manifesting itself through categorizing everything she likes in such a way as to make it a means of getting back at THE MAN. I think savior fantasies about Native Americans, or Zulus, or Australian Aborigines, may be healthier than fantasizing about a homeless blind lesbian Venezuelan with narcissistic personality disorder kicking your throat in and taking all your money because you're white/black/Chinese/Pakistani/Berber/straight/bi/male/sighted/mentally stable/not destitute. At least the first option is only subliminally racist at the worst.

Ultimately, I find myself depressed by articles like this because they are based on the presumption that everything must be seen through tinted glasses. That is, everything must be a metaphor for race, or class, or gender, or sexual orientation, or whatever the glasses are tinted to. This is ultimately flawed, because there are, believe it or not, works where people were not concerned with race when they wrote about aliens or elves or whatever, and it makes everything metaphorical. Quick question- are the portrayals orcs in LOTR and old-school D&D racist? Yes, but not because they're metaphorically black or Amerindian, but because it treats a group as uniformly or overwhelmingly evil and never offers a note of dissent, making it okay to massacre and slaughter said groups within the context of the universe. Please do not take the opportunity to turn this into a debate about orcs or LOTR, or D&D. Take it to Fantasy, if you would. Now, the orcs of LOTR can be seen as metaphorical if you mine through Tolkien's letters, for sure, but the same cannot be said about D&D orcs, and the point still stands. It is more effective to look at things from a SoD standpoint than a metaphorical standpoint at times, and putting on your metaphor goggles makes that impossible.

They also find themselves blind to any contradictions. For example, in the Octavia Butler example above, we can use the metaphor goggles and declare that she is prejudiced against schizophrenics, because she is equating it with psychic powers rather than the mental disorder it is. So much for the example of a non-prejudiced novel. In addition, we have the non-schizophrenic heroine entering the schizophrenic community and leading them because of her special powers. That's exactly what she was ranting about in Avatar, was it not? I guess Octavia Butler wrote the Dances with Wolves of schizophrenia, then.

I definitely don't think it's reasonable to claim that only white people are racist, but it is worth noting that the kinds of racism that actually matter, that don't just amount to hurt feelings, favor whites. That much is undeniable. I think some white people, particularly conservatives, lose sight of that.

Yes, yes, I agree, partially. I think that there is racism beyond the levels of hurt feelings that doesn't favor whites, but that it's mostly interminority and less important than the economic and political dominance associated with being white, (and with being a WASP, as well, to a more limited extent). Of course, the idea that only white people are racist is one that I believe is held by a tiny, tiny minority, when using the definition of racism common to this board. The problem, I think, comes from a misunderstanding. Parts of the anti-racist community have decided to redefine racism so that only whites can be racist and only males can be sexist. This is purely Americentric, as one person who advanced it admitted when called on it. Similarly, they have decided to divorce minority from mere questions of crude numbers and turn it totally into a question of power, simply because, again, they are Americentric, though willing to discuss these manners. As a result, many people make a misstep initially in any discussion of race, and are then classified as either racists or ignorant, resulting in bitterness. I do believe that actually anti-white racism or female supremacism is relatively rare, and confined to a few loudmouths, quite a few of whom overlap.

What he said.

In my experience, minorities tend to be actually much more openly racist than white people. As you stated however, the difference between racism from the group in power and the group without is pretty major.

In my experience, I know more openly racist white people than minorities, but I'm white, so I probably hear more racist remarks thanks to the other side of racism: the assumption that anyone that shares your skin color shares your crackpot beliefs on why Detroit is in such awful shape. I also went to a very white school in a very white area, and lived in a very white subdivision that was blatantly unwelcoming to the one black family that moved in the neighborhood. I think, judging by this, that few people will actually be racist to someone's face anymore, but behind their back, the whisperings about "those people", "their kind", and "mosques/burquas/Arabs always creep me out" begin as soon as they've walked away. I've noticed that older people are more openly racist when it comes to blacks/African-Americans, while middle-aged people are more freaked out by Middle Easterners, and people of all ages are somewhat anti-Semitic; within my personal experience, but I grew up in Michigan, which boasts the largest Arabic community in the US in Dearborn.

Now, I have experienced racism directed against myself, or rather nationalism/ethnocentricism. It was in Ukraine, from other white people, and they wanted to know if my family was going to kill the little girls we were trying to adopt for their internal organs. I also had a rock thrown at me once, and yet at the end of the day, I was still part of a vastly richer nation, from a vastly richer family than any in the small town, and had far more prospects in life than they had. After all, I came to Ukraine, whereas they did not come to the US. Ultimately, political and economic power are far more important than suspicions and the occasional punch thrown.

My apologies for the length of this post.

[ArmorPierce]

In my experience, I know more openly racist white people than minorities, but I'm white, so I probably hear more racist remarks thanks to the other side of racism: the assumption that anyone that shares your skin color shares your crackpot beliefs on why Detroit is in such awful shape. I also went to a very white school in a very white area, and lived in a very white subdivision that was blatantly unwelcoming to the one black family that moved in the neighborhood. I think, judging by this, that few people will actually be racist to someone's face anymore, but behind their back, the whisperings about "those people", "their kind", and "mosques/burquas/Arabs always creep me out" begin as soon as they've walked away.

By openly racist I mean racist right towards someone's face. White people are less likely to act like it openly, but just as or more likely to keep racism down low, when they only with their white friends or people they know, think that hold the same beliefs. [/quote]

Now, I have experienced racism directed against myself, or rather nationalism/ethnocentricism. It was in Ukraine, from other white people, and they wanted to know if my family was going to kill the little girls we were trying to adopt for their internal organs. I also had a rock thrown at me once, and yet at the end of the day, I was still part of a vastly richer nation, from a vastly richer family than any in the small town, and had far more prospects in life than they had. After all, I came to Ukraine, whereas they did not come to the US. Ultimately, political and economic power are far more important than suspicions and the occasional punch thrown.

Not exactly racism but good point

[Darth Wong]

It's my opinion that some of these sort of criticisms amount to racism in and of itself: you're white, you'll always be white, you'll always be the oppressor even when you aren't, and you can't redeem yourself from the evil of being white. Any attempt to be non-racist will fail because you are, as a white person, inherently racist. In other words, it's judging people based on their skin color.

Well, reading the original blog post, it's saying that it's racist because white people partaking of "white guilt" fantasies are themselves fantasizing about leading minorities, and are therefore controlling fantasies. The author herself is white, interestingly enough.

It's not surprising at all. Anyone who enjoys a fantasy about righting a historical injustice (by replaying it elsewhere but changing the outcome) is supposedly suffering from "white guilt" now? See how she takes a simple emotional impulse, common to most people who dislike injustice, and tries to interpret it as a psychological disorder.

In short, she's one of those "beyond racism" people who thinks that the racism dragon has been slain and that everybody (particularly the minorities who keep thinking it's a problem) should just "get over it". Funny how the people who think white racism is an overblown problem are almost always white.

[wolveraptor]

It's not surprising at all. Anyone who enjoys a fantasy about righting a historical injustice (by replaying it elsewhere but changing the outcome) is supposedly suffering from "white guilt" now? See how she takes a simple emotional impulse, common to most people who dislike injustice, and tries to interpret it as a psychological disorder.

I don't think the issue is with wanting to right old wrongs. I think the issue she raises is that almost all of these movies require a white protagonist to guide the presumably inept and helpless victims of oppression (be they Native Americans, Na'vi, black people, or whoever) to freedom. She's saying (and I agree) that it would be refreshing and, to a degree, empowering, to portray the oppressed as the leaders of their own resistance movements. There's no denying that white people have been very active in civil rights movements historically; indeed, they were probably vital to their successes. But at the end of the day, it was Dr. King, a black man, who was the most prominent leader of the black Civil Rights movement. It was Cesar Chavez, a latino, who was the most prominent leader of the Chicano movement. It was Gandhi, an Indian man, who was the most prominent leader of the Indian Independence movement.

In short, she's one of those "beyond racism" people who thinks that the racism dragon has been slain and that everybody (particularly the minorities who keep thinking it's a problem) should just "get over it". Funny how the people who think white racism is an overblown problem are almost always white.

Huh? I'd think she'd be percieved as one of those ultra-liberal hippie eggheads who believe that being white is a crime. Shit, isn't that how Broomstick just portrayed her?

[Broomstick]

Could someone actually link to these articles or blogs or whatever so I can read the original text? It would make it easier to actually discuss the topic.

From what I gather, there seems to a meme that all leading men still have to be white, unless named "Will Smith". What about Samuel Jackson? No one blinked when Morgan Freeman was cast as God. Does that make everything OK and racism absent from Hollywood? Of course not - anyone who says racism doesn't exist is full of shit. I do think the authors of the mentioned criticisms are taking things a bit too far when there is direct contradiction to the idea that only white men can lead in Hollywood. I would like it if there was more such evidence, but let's acknowledge that there has been some small progress.

Casting everything where someone goes native as a "white guilt fantasy" is a caricature of reality. My Other Half's first European ancestor to set food in North America did run off to live with the Cherokee - not as a hero or big leader but because they gave him a better deal than the whites of the time. Nor was he the only white person to jump the fence. Back in those days those who crossed that line were demonized - now they are simply declared mistaken. That criticism ignores that for many Americans going over the wall to the natives, adopting their language, culture, dress, and traditions was not a matter of guilt, or wanting to take over the natives but an actual human choice and also a part of our history. And those whites (and blacks - escaped slaves also crossed over into natives tribes) used their knowledge of the Europeans to benefit their adopted families. To do otherwise would be foolish. Just as some Natives attempted to assimilate into white culture, some Europeans attempted to assimilate the other way, and their reasons for doing so were varied.

To say that no one could honestly and without racism assimilate into a native culture is similar to saying no one can truly change their citizenship from one country to another. Would anyone seriously suggest that Arnold Schwarzenegger came to the US in 1968 with a master plan to become Governor of California decades later? Would they suggest that this was prompted by some European guilt over treatment of former colonies?

That is not to say that there couldn't be a story of "white guilt", and Avatar certainly started with Jack Sully on a mission to assimilate for ulterior purposes - but if that is the case then the evidence should come from within the movie. I have heard that the Na'vi are Native American, that they are black (based on their hairstyles using beads), that they are Fern Gully fairies, that they are catpeople straight out of a furry's fantasy - such characterizations say as much about the person making the statement as they do about the movie.

I'd much rather see a discussion of whether or not Jake Sully was a good man and an actual hero - or a flawed traitor betraying his own people as a short-cut to getting a working pair of legs again (which is obviously for a completely different thread). And yes, some discussion of racism - the movie isn't subtle about how some human view the Na'vi, and how some of the Na'vi view humans. Neytiri underwent changes of her view of humanity just as Jake underwent changes of his view of the Na'vi, but let's ignore all that because it's so much easier to pigeon-hole Avatar as a "racist white guilt" than using it as a springboard to an actual discussion of racism and history.

[bobalot]

It's my opinion that some of these sort of criticisms amount to racism in and of itself: you're white, you'll always be white, you'll always be the oppressor even when you aren't, and you can't redeem yourself from the evil of being white. Any attempt to be non-racist will fail because you are, as a white person, inherently racist. In other words, it's judging people based on their skin color.

Well, reading the original blog post, it's saying that it's racist because white people partaking of "white guilt" fantasies are themselves fantasizing about leading minorities, and are therefore controlling fantasies. The author herself is white, interestingly enough.

It's not surprising at all. Anyone who enjoys a fantasy about righting a historical injustice (by replaying it elsewhere but changing the outcome) is supposedly suffering from "white guilt" now? See how she takes a simple emotional impulse, common to most people who dislike injustice, and tries to interpret it as a psychological disorder.

In short, she's one of those "beyond racism" people who thinks that the racism dragon has been slain and that everybody (particularly the minorities who keep thinking it's a problem) should just "get over it". Funny how the people who think white racism is an overblown problem are almost always white.

It's funny how since it's not legal to discriminate against somebody on the basis of their race, white people assume that white racism is non-existent rather than just not as open.

Take for example, if two people with identical qualifications were going for a job in a western country. In general, the white guy has an advantage over a person from some minority.

[Broomstick]

Actually, MOST white people are well aware of that bias - but they don't bitch because they gain from it.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, MOST white people are well aware of that bias - but they don't bitch because they gain from it.

I dunno, I've run into a lot of white people who honestly seem to think there's no real racism against minorities any more. What's particularly frustrating is the self-absorbed assholes who say things like "I've never seen it", which is a lot like a man saying that sexual assault is an overblown problem because neither he or any of his golf buddies have ever been raped.

[Flameblade]

As a white man, raised by a fundie racist and a member of the mindless middle, living in Arizona, I can say that there's a crap ton of casual racism everywhere you go in the state. I've lived in upper class, middle class and dirt poor neighborhoods here, neighborhoods that were predominantly white, ones that were predominantly Mexican and ones that had varying mixes of the two. Anyone who tries to claim that racism is dead in America is lying, delusional or deeply misinformed. I'm just glad that I'm at least educated enough to work to overcome my upbringing.

[Broomstick]

Actually, MOST white people are well aware of that bias - but they don't bitch because they gain from it.

I dunno, I've run into a lot of white people who honestly seem to think there's no real racism against minorities any more. What's particularly frustrating is the self-absorbed assholes who say things like "I've never seen it", which is a lot like a man saying that sexual assault is an overblown problem because neither he or any of his golf buddies have ever been raped.

Yeah, but Mike, you're not white (yes, yes, I know you're Chinese-Canadian but for many the operative term is "not white") and it would ever so rude to admit to racism in front of someone who isn't white. Or maybe they're hoping you haven't noticed.

Yes, there ARE clueless idiots who have never seen it for themselves - on both the race and the sexual assault issue. Trust me, there are plenty who do see it and pretend otherwise/put on an act. "I've never seen it" can also mean "I refuse to see it."

Of course, now that I've admitted this to the "other side" I'll have to turn in my White Person Card, but fuck 'em.

[ArmorPierce]

Actually, MOST white people are well aware of that bias - but they don't bitch because they gain from it.

As Wong, in my experience, most white people are not aware of this. Even the researchers that did that study that found that people with non-white sounding names are a whole lot less likely to be called back for a interview had hypothesized that the reverse would be true.

[Broomstick]

Entirely possible that my experiences are not typical, too.

[Ryan Thunder]

Actually, MOST white people are well aware of that bias - but they don't bitch because they gain from it.

As Wong, in my experience, most white people are not aware of this. Even the researchers that did that study that found that people with non-white sounding names are a whole lot less likely to be called back for a interview had hypothesized that the reverse would be true.

I wonder how much of that is "names that aren't white" and how much of it is "names that don't sound native". If it's the latter, I hypothesize that you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere where it didn't work that way.

[ArmorPierce]

I wonder how much of that is "names that aren't white" and how much of it is "names that don't sound native". If it's the latter, I hypothesize that you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere where it didn't work that way.

It may have somewhat to do with it but either way it's still discriminatory. If a person went to a American High School and University it is safe to assume that his or her English speaking abilities is adequate. A phone call will confirm this. Furthermore, the studies also concluded that a person with a white first name and a non-white sounding last name are still less likely to receive calls (although more likely than someone that has both non-white western european sounding first and last name).

Broomstick, did you watch Borat movie and heard the comments made by the frat guys? That basically typifies a common belief. Most Americans do realize that racism is still a problem that persist but from personal experience (may be wrong) most are against things such as affirmative action for college selection due to a combination of selfishness and ignorance (or intentional ignorance). It's hard to say either way though.

[ArmorPierce]

To expand on my post, I think a lot of it is like poor republicans who are voting against their self interest (except in this case it is all for their self interest) versus republicans voting for their self interest.

[Zixinus]

Ah, another wonderful example of some idiot crying "RACIST!" in order to gain attention and even reputation. Arriving to such a conclusions using racist assumptions or thinking. So while supposedly crying against racism, one actually helps spread its mindset.

Of course, I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched Avatar yet. But seriously, this does not come to a surprise. This is just atypical shit: new popular movie, it gets a lot of attention and discussion and someone will sprout such bullshit to gain some of the attention. And who will stand out to criticize an (idiotic) anti-racist statement and risk looking like a racist?

[wolveraptor]

Could someone actually link to these articles or blogs or whatever so I can read the original text? It would make it easier to actually discuss the topic.

Bam

From what I gather, there seems to a meme that all leading men still have to be white, unless named "Will Smith". What about Samuel Jackson? No one blinked when Morgan Freeman was cast as God. Does that make everything OK and racism absent from Hollywood? Of course not - anyone who says racism doesn't exist is full of shit. I do think the authors of the mentioned criticisms are taking things a bit too far when there is direct contradiction to the idea that only white men can lead in Hollywood. I would like it if there was more such evidence, but let's acknowledge that there has been some small progress.

It's not just about casting minorities as leads in movies - it's about the meme that minorities being oppressed by The Man have to be saved by a white guy gone natives. I think it subtly implies that the minorities are incapable of leading their own fights against oppression.

Casting everything where someone goes native as a "white guilt fantasy" is a caricature of reality. My Other Half's first European ancestor to set food in North America did run off to live with the Cherokee - not as a hero or big leader but because they gave him a better deal than the whites of the time. Nor was he the only white person to jump the fence. Back in those days those who crossed that line were demonized - now they are simply declared mistaken. That criticism ignores that for many Americans going over the wall to the natives, adopting their language, culture, dress, and traditions was not a matter of guilt, or wanting to take over the natives but an actual human choice and also a part of our history. And those whites (and blacks - escaped slaves also crossed over into natives tribes) used their knowledge of the Europeans to benefit their adopted families. To do otherwise would be foolish. Just as some Natives attempted to assimilate into white culture, some Europeans attempted to assimilate the other way, and their reasons for doing so were varied.

Again, it's not just an issue of white people adopting foreign cultures as their own. The author says it best:

This is a classic scenario you've seen in non-scifi epics from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.

The message is that "anything you can do, the white man can do better".

Now, at a certain point, I think it's reasonable to say that the author is simply bitching. Had the director made the changes she recommends, absolutely nothing would change about race relations in America, and institutional racism would surely continue. As usual, Avatar is simply a case of art reflecting life. You need to make the necessary changes in the real world before you stop seeing movie tropes like this.

[Rye]

To be honest, it's just a hero's journey anyway, Na'vi with human knowledge of human technology ought to be tactically superior to the average tribesperson. It's not the fact that he's a white human, it's the fact that he's the hero and that's how the story works.

[Spoonist]

Why do so many of you bring up racism in north america as the default? I believe that racism/culturalism/specism is a human trait. Nothing more, nothing less. The inherent nature of humans in power to keep other humans out of power by blaming skintone/culture/religion/whatever is prevalent on a global scale and its bad mmmkay.

However lets make a clear distinction between bad racism and good racism. That is what is the intent and causation of it.
For example, a doctor taking the obvious genetic setup (skintone+facial features) into account when doing a checkup is good racism, the intent is that with better knowledge of certain ailments that is of a higher likelyhood within the specific genetic setup you can treat them more proffessionally.

Now the blog is obviuosly calling the racism in Avatar "bad". Which I disagree with. It might be a cliche or stupid at times but its not a racist movie with the effect of promoting bad racism. I would even argue that the noble savagecliche is not racist in and of itself. It is just anti-techno, go wild fantasy. It is very prevalent in japanese manga for instance.

Another example:

I definitely don't think it's reasonable to claim that only white people are racist, but it is worth noting that the kinds of racism that actually matter, that don't just amount to hurt feelings, favor whites. That much is undeniable. I think some white people, particularly conservatives, lose sight of that.

This quote definately shows racism. Why? Because it takes out human nature of the equation. There are plenty of examples where "whites" are not even involved and the racism is still fucking awful. China comes to mind. The middle east treatment of their "guest" workers. etc etc
Now was Wolveraptor's intent racist, no of course not he was just responding within his own cultural context, which obviously is europe or north america.

Again, it's not just an issue of white people adopting foreign cultures as their own. The author says it best:
"This is a classic scenario you've seen in non-scifi epics from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member."
The message is that "anything you can do, the white man can do better".

But within the context of the avatar movie she is wrong. Spoiler

The natives are clearly incapable of stopping the corporation, before and after Jake.
Jake although a heroTM is plainly an idiot who doesn't know how to lead the natives to his advantage.
The turoc thingie could probably be done by any Na'vi you just had to be stupid enough to try.