The Cosmopolitist
Reasoned opinion in a complex world



Links of great interest:
Yglesias, Sullivan, Marshall, Schneider, Larison, Bookforum, Economist, Cowen, Douthat, Hitchens, Frum, Le 20h, Packer, Democracy in America


Contact

Is Avatar Racist?

A friend points us to Newitz at io9, who says:

These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color - their cultures, their habitats, and their populations. The whites realize this when they begin to assimilate into the “alien” cultures and see things from a new perspective. To purge their overwhelming sense of guilt, they switch sides, become “race traitors,” and fight against their old comrades. But then they go beyond assimilation and become leaders of the people they once oppressed. This is the essence of the white guilt fantasy, laid bare. 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.

This is interesting, but a bit off. There are two distinct but separate race-related issues in the film: 1) a colonizer vs. colonized theme, and 2) a black vs. white theme.

Regarding colonization, Newitz assumes too much. While the film does use role reversal of the main character as a crucial turning point, it is not due to Sully’s “guilt” of the forest people’s (the “Na’vi“‘s) destruction at the hands of humanity. Indeed, the disaster has yet to even occur; Sully takes up an opposing cause in an attempt to prevent it from happening. Simply put, nobody’s doling out reparations here.

The black vs. white theme is a bit more complicated, and prevalent. The first issue is that Cameron made the misguided creative decision that the forest people should physically resemble African people. Uncannily, in fact. Which, for an American audience, quickly calls to mind modern-day racial tensions. Making the fact that a white character single-handedly(!) “saves” an African-looking race from elimination certifiably cringe-worthy.

But is this “racist”? There is certainly some glorification of limited and incremental colonization, as well as a bit of military fetishism (but only a bit—any compliments here are pretty backhanded). But does it promote the “idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others”? Considering the film’s ending, which outright suggests that racial integration is basically impossible…it’s a tough sell.

Rather, as mentioned in the previous post, the film’s greatest offense is its pathetic predictability. These awkward racial undertones simply exacerbate its badness.

blog comments powered by Disqus