When did Americans start cheering for the robber-barons?

[Darth Wong]

We've all seen the criticism of Avatar from American media outlets where it is described as "anti-American" or (for the people too self-conscious to parrot FOXNews) having an over-simplistic moral message (which is an intellectual sounding way of saying that they should have shown more of the corporate assholes' point of view).

The thing is, the basic plot structure of this film is not too dissimilar (if at all) from a quintessentially American form of entertainment: THE WESTERN. In the classic western, a wandering stranger befriends a family or community, and becomes accepted by them in time through various means. But there's a problem: some greedy rich person wants their land, and he's going to drive them out through any means necessary. So the lone gunslinger straps on his pistols and rides off to do battle with the evil baron and his thug henchmen.

Sound familiar? So why is Avatar "anti-American" while the classic western is quintessentially American? When did people start identifying with the rich robber-baron who wants somebody else's land?

[adam_grif]

Is the "Avatar is Anti-American" message really as prevelant as you're implying? I think I've seen a few articles but I didn't get the impression (especially from the comments) that anybody was really taking them all that seriously or agreeing.

I don't think it's fair to lump people criticizing it for being overly simplistic, morally, with the people who are literally saying that eco or anti-corporate messages are anti-American.

[Dominus Atheos]

When did people start identifying with the rich robber-baron who wants somebody else's land?

It's a generational thing. Before the 60s most movies were produced for the "greatest generation" who lived through the great depression and WWII. But then came the Boomers and it's well known that they somehow think that they are going to become one of those robber barons someday, and so they don't like directing any criticism at them for fear it might one day be directed at them.

[Darth Wong]

Is the "Avatar is Anti-American" message really as prevelant as you're implying? I think I've seen a few articles but I didn't get the impression (especially from the comments) that anybody was really taking them all that seriously or agreeing.

FOXNews is the #1 news network in the country and they promoted that message (and not just on Glenn Beck's show). Probably a third of the population takes their word as gospel.

I don't think it's fair to lump people criticizing it for being overly simplistic, morally, with the people who are literally saying that eco or anti-corporate messages are anti-American.

There's a helluva lot of crossover.

[adam_grif]

There's a helluva lot of crossover.

Perhaps. I'd guess that this is to do with people who hate it for the former reason discovering this criticism and latching onto it as though it made their initial one any more valid. I know of an awful lot of non-Americans (i.e. my friends) who lambast it for the moral complexity reason, but never mention anything like it being unamerican or unaustralian or what have you.

FOXNews is the #1 news network in the country and they promoted that message (and not just on Glenn Beck's show). Probably a third of the population takes their word as gospel.

This is quite distressing.

[The Romulan Republic]

FOXNews is the #1 news network in the country and they promoted that message (and not just on Glenn Beck's show). Probably a third of the population takes their word as gospel.

In other words, the same people who are always cheering for the robber barons.

[Ariphaos]

The average age of the Fox News viewer is 65. This is when they can live off of the teat of the Government (and my income) forever and claim that any sort of reciprocity that I would like in return (like having a life-saving surgery I need) is socialism. That the chief intellectuals of the next age are calling bullshit on their hypocrisy offends them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We've all seen the criticism of Avatar from American media outlets where it is described as "anti-American" or (for the people too self-conscious to parrot FOXNews) having an over-simplistic moral message (which is an intellectual sounding way of saying that they should have shown more of the corporate assholes' point of view).

The thing is, the basic plot structure of this film is not too dissimilar (if at all) from a quintessentially American form of entertainment: THE WESTERN. In the classic western, a wandering stranger befriends a family or community, and becomes accepted by them in time through various means. But there's a problem: some greedy rich person wants their land, and he's going to drive them out through any means necessary. So the lone gunslinger straps on his pistols and rides off to do battle with the evil baron and his thug henchmen.

Sound familiar? So why is Avatar "anti-American" while the classic western is quintessentially American? When did people start identifying with the rich robber-baron who wants somebody else's land?

I think there are a few things you are missing.

The village or community in the typical western is white. With the rare exception it might be native americans or something... but you never see a western where some gunslinger defends the chinese people who are building the railroad and being shafted by Union Pacific.

In Avatar, the village/community does not even have the decency to be black. They are blue. Blue and inhuman. Inferior.

The other thing you are missing is that the villain's footsoldiers in a typical western are bandits. In Avatar, they were Marines. Not just marines. Ostensibly American Marines. How dare you not love our troops!

The third thing is that people have internalized two different value sets that are incompatible. The first is capitalism and rugged-individualism, the second is environmentalism. The people who think that this anti-imperialist and environmentalist message is anti-american are the ones who have rationalized the two competing belief systems by rejecting one. They link in their heads that capitalism=american, and that rugged-individualism=american. Anything that goes against this is to be rejected.

In most westerns, the people trying to keep their land are rugged individualists. They are trying to keep land that they Own, property rights being inviolate and all that, against a robber baron who has government backing. The colored ni... er I mean Na'Vi are basically communists who are a part of the land, not owning it. They do not fit in with the idiom. They are just ethnically inferior tree-huggers.

[Vendetta]

The thing is, the basic plot structure of this film is not too dissimilar (if at all) from a quintessentially American form of entertainment: THE WESTERN. In the classic western, a wandering stranger befriends a family or community, and becomes accepted by them in time through various means. But there's a problem: some greedy rich person wants their land, and he's going to drive them out through any means necessary. So the lone gunslinger straps on his pistols and rides off to do battle with the evil baron and his thug henchmen.

Sound familiar? So why is Avatar "anti-American" while the classic western is quintessentially American? When did people start identifying with the rich robber-baron who wants somebody else's land?

On the other hand, in most of those westerns, the small time community under threat is a community of white folks, whereas the Na'vi are native americans painted blue, and they're almost always the enemy (or at least an aggressive threat) in a western.

Just about the only western which is much like Avatar is Run of the Arrow, which does have the same conflict between the lone wanderer assimilated into a native culture against American militarism.

[mr friendly guy]

You may be onto something there. In the Avatar threads those same people who cheer on RDA try to twist and squirm using the most pathetic excuses when the positions are reversed and the same logic is applied to them. It seems its more of the "its ok when we do it, but not when someone else does it" line of thinking. The Na'vi are clearly not human, while RDA personnel are, so they don't like the outcome.

[PainRack]

I think that's the most important think. The values involved.
The traditional western are about rugged pioneers making it in the frontier, being threatened by greedy city/outsider folks who don't get it. Both of them are proponents of capitalism, however, the smaller community is the "normal folks" who's out to get their own pile.
For Avatar however, its the values of free trade/capitalism vs environmentalism.


Sam Gunn isn't a tree hippy.

[Thanas]

A lot of westerns also involved people vs the indians. In that sense, Avatar is clearly compatible, after all, white miners vs. Indians is not far from removed from miners vs. Natives.

[Caramel Apple]

. . .When did people start identifying with the rich robber-baron who wants somebody else's land?

I hate to say it, but love of the robber-barons is nothing new in America. Back in the twenties when you saw blacks organizing, and demanding skilled labor when they moved into the large cities one of the ways society allowed them to be stomped down by the factory-owners and unions was to label them communist, and anti-american for wanting a bigger slice of the pie.
Similarly when workers started to organize and demand better working hours, and fair compensation, the bosses also called them communists, and society as a whole sorta went "Well, they get what they deserve for wanting hand-outs." when they were again and again crushed by the moneyed interests
After the civil war, many blacks went to work on the farms as share-croppers only to discover that their pockets were being picked seasonally by their employers/owners, and before being re-disenfranchised a lot of blacks attempted to vote in legislation that made things more equitable for the workers of these plantations. For some reason though, the poor whites of the south refused to get behind passing such legislation so it of-course disintegrated when blacks were re-disenfranchised from policy and politics.

We have always had a masochistic sort of sympathy for the wealthy in our gung-ho capitalistic society. It follows the meme of "Maybe some day I can be just like the top 0.9%". The problem with environmentalism is that, there is something in the suggestion of "We should be responsible in our enterprises, and work towards not destroying other resources in developing this one" that the above sympathetic hear as "I want you to put some of your profits towards faggoty-feel-good-communes because it's politically-correct, and let Academia/Liberal Elite and the poor pick at our hard earned treasure!"

This sympathy for the irresponsible and the greedy hoarders of "more-and-more" is part naivety on the part who dream about some day becoming a hoarder, wreckless-ignorance towards the level of destruction left in the wake of unregulated industry, delusions of sympathetic interests with the irresponsible-wealth, and a whiny sort of "Well the yellow-peril/brown-doom/EVIL STALINIST aren't doing it, so why should we be the ones to make sacrifices!??!
It's all very convoluted, and ridiculously ignorant.

[stormthebeaches]

A lot of people are arguing that it is due to racism or identifying with the Western miners more than the "communist" Navi. If that were the case then films like Dances with Wolves wouldn't have been so successful.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Sometime in the 1950s the influence of a Japanese and an Italian director made the Western more about money and honor. As Yojimbo, Rashoman, became adapted to westerns *well hell they were westerns set in fuedal Japan* and Sergio Leoone, made the Dollars/Once Upon a Time Trilogies, where like film noir the hero is morally grey, and motivated by money. Around the 80s when the last get the destructive robber barons out westerns showed up (Heaven's Gate, Pale Rider) they were commercial flops, however your MTV Westerns (Young Guns, American Outlaws), and your anti-hero westerns (Unforgiven) were still viable.

[The Spartan]

To answer the OP, and it may be my relative youth speaking, the 1980's. The shift began before then, I'm sure, but it was the 1980's it seems, that it became noticeable enough that you could make such a claim about the whole society. Reaganomics and all that.

[Lonestar]

I think there are a few things you are missing.

The village or community in the typical western is white. With the rare exception it might be native americans or something... but you never see a western where some gunslinger defends the chinese people who are building the railroad and being shafted by Union Pacific.

Shanghai Noon. Blazing Saddles.

In Avatar, the village/community does not even have the decency to be black. They are blue. Blue and inhuman. Inferior.

The other thing you are missing is that the villain's footsoldiers in a typical western are bandits. In Avatar, they were Marines. Not just marines. Ostensibly American Marines. How dare you not love our troops!

You would have to be really, really, stupid to think that the security troops in Avatar are Marines. Even my brother the Birther saw them as Blackwater-analogs with most of their heavy equipment being related to mining operations.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Shanghai Noon. Blazing Saddles.

Those dont count. Jackie Chan and Mel Brooks films are each in their own Genre (even if unofficial) distinct from westerns, even if the setting is such.

Even if they were not, they were comedy-westerns, and closer to being spoofs of westerns than anything else.

You would have to be really, really, stupid to think that the security troops in Avatar are Marines. Even my brother the Birther saw them as Blackwater-analogs with most of their heavy equipment being related to mining operations.

Sample size of one. Most people are really really stupid, and will automatically empathize more with predominantly white and ostensibly american soldier types who resemble marines more than they will blue non-humans.

That having been said, I will grant that they are better blackwater analogues.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Those dont count. Jackie Chan and Mel Brooks films are each in their own Genre (even if unofficial) distinct from westerns, even if the setting is such.

Even if they were not, they were comedy-westerns, and closer to being spoofs of westerns than anything else.

Then how about Quigley Down Under. Did you have a chance to read the plot?

[NecronLord]

They're ex-marines. Counts-as in the hindbrain.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Those dont count. Jackie Chan and Mel Brooks films are each in their own Genre (even if unofficial) distinct from westerns, even if the setting is such.

Even if they were not, they were comedy-westerns, and closer to being spoofs of westerns than anything else.

Then how about Quigley Down Under. Did you have a chance to read the plot?

I did. Definitely an exception to the rule

[Oskuro]

I've been thinking about this, and I'm of the opinion that this has a lot to do with recent international politics.

No matter how you look at it, the actions of the US in the middle east look bad. It is a powerful first world nation with advanced military blasting the hell out of third world countries, and causing a lot of collateral damage. I'm under the impression that, to lessen the impact on popular opinion, the US government has been using the patriotism card to justify these actions, to the point that many have come to accept overwhelming military action (shock and awe) as a defining trait of what being American is. And this is what I felt about the issue even before 9/11, afterwards we got the oh-so-nice "Either you're with us, or aganist us" that so much damage has done to the American psyche.

So here we have a movie where the awesome military fight the underequipped natives, with themes of corporate greed thrown in. I doubt these are coincidences, I'm pretty certain the movie did try to criticise this notion. Unfortunately, for most people out there it is easier to have a knee-jerk reaction than actually think if their notion of what being American is might be misguided, or plainly wrong.

So, in short, I believe it is more a problem with the ongoing social indoctrination present in American culture, rather than a conscious support for robber-barons. I mean, the USSR did pretty much the same in Afghanistan back in the day, and even Rambo and James Bond lend a hand to the Taliban, but you hardly see anyone acknowledging that today. It's doublethink, I think.

As for FOX news and all those manipulative bastards, they use those knee-jerk reactions to further their political agenda, so it is not surprising they'll latch unto anything the populace perceives as anti-american.

[Stark]

It's arguable that American 'culture' has become progressively brutalised over the last decade; if the Na'vi can't keep the humans out, then hey sucks to be them, right? Might makes right. Defend the homeland. If you can't stop us, you don't count. Hey, you'd do it to us if the roles were reversed. It's a 'stress position'.

[Lonestar]

Those dont count. Jackie Chan and Mel Brooks films are each in their own Genre (even if unofficial) distinct from westerns, even if the setting is such.

Even if they were not, they were comedy-westerns, and closer to being spoofs of westerns than anything else.

Eeehhhh...I'll give you the Jackie Chan one, but it's clear from the start that Blazing Saddles is suppose to be a Western that happens to be used as a vehicle for social commentary. Perhaps more so than any other Mel Brooks film(except maybe maybe To be or Not to Be).

[Ritterin Sophia]

Sound familiar? So why is Avatar "anti-American" while the classic western is quintessentially American? When did people start identifying with the rich robber-baron who wants somebody else's land?

Everyone from the so called "Gilded Age" is either dead or senile (Most people would rather have mom & dad shipped off to an old folks home than have to listen to how it was when there was no regulation), Americans have a very short cultural memory so they don't know what it was like to have their throats crushed under the heels of jackbooted thugsPrivate Security Operatives hired by the Company that owns them in every sense of the word through their bribery and unregulated business practices.