‘Avatar’ and the Myth of the Noble ‘Blueskins’: Part Two
by Dan Gagliasso[Ed. Note: This is part two of a two-part series. You can read part one here.]
The Noble Redskin, or Blueskin stereotype that James Cameron’s Avatar shoves down historically ignorant sci-fi geeks throats is one of the most damaging myths in our country’s history today. Cameron’s Na’vi are definitely warrior-like and have geographic based clans, the mountain people, the coastal people etc., but there is no mention of previous inter-tribal warfare and inter-culture wounds to mend. The Na’vi are good, noble and courageous while the humans, American type humans at that, except for the scientists are greedy, selfish and bloodthirsty. Michael Medved’s excellent recent book The Ten Big Lies About America quotes less then politically correct Harvard archaeologist Steven LeBlanc showing that genocides and land raids amongst regional and ethnic groups have always been the norm for native peoples, regardless of ethnicity.
Historian Elliot West’s award winning 1998 book The Contested Plains also points out that inter-tribal warfare before the white man hit the shores of North America claimed many more native lives then warfare between the tribes and Europeans. I guess Cameron’s Na’vi are just so much more evolved then our own real-life historical Indian tribes. That doesn’t even include the good old cannibalistic Aztecs who managed to make more then a few of the neighboring tribes part of their daily menu. Did you ever wonder how Cortez and his small band of merry Spaniards managed to make allies of almost all of the surrounding tribes? It wound up being pretty damn easy to do when the local bully has been using you and yours as a convenient Burger King for the last few generations.
Gang rape of female captives was also an accepted part of the spoils of war to most of the western tribes regardless of a warrior’s marital status and genocide against ones enemies was the norm. This wasn’t because Indians were evil, terrible people but because they were primitive stone-age warriors. That’s how primitive warrior cultures react to their enemies and if you’re not one of “the people,” i.e. their specific tribe like Cameron’s Na’vi tough luck, you’re out of luck. In 1841 American missionaries traveling with the Sioux were shocked as they watched Lakota warriors casually wiped out a Pawnee Village including all the women and children.
The Comanche on the Southern Plains achieved a reputation for capping off such gruesome “festivities” by skinning the female captive alive, or burning her to death – usually after they had bashed her baby’s head out against a tree. These terrible atrocities had nothing to do with the color of their skin, but everything to do with being a stone age warrior protecting his own resources that he had forced someone else away from by being meaner and tougher. When John Ford’s Texas Rangers in his 1956 classic The Searchers and real rangers went charging through a Comanche village they “didn’t have time to pick and choose their targets,” but when the fight was over the women and children were spared. On a History Channel show I was producing on the Comanche respected Texas historian T. R. Ferenback told me that, “If you’re looking for good guys and bad guys during the Comanche Wars, you won’t find them. It was a clash of two completely disparate cultures that just didn’t understand each other.”
The end game in primitive warfare is if you’re the enemy (anyone who isn’t from your tribal group) you can look forward to winding up face down, staked out, tortured and missing a good part of your hair. European primitive warrior cultures like the Picts in Britain and the Gaul’s reacted much the same way to the Romans. And don’t buy all that claptrap about the European settlers creating scalping, they didn’t. American Indian tribes really did start the practice, after a period of taking the whole head for spiritual reasons well before the white man ever showed up on the shores of North America. Occasional settlers and soldiers took scalps and it was usually considered a case of fighting fire with fire.
When Rogers’ Rangers, the great grandfathers of all modern Special Forces units, snuck 200 miles behind French and Indian lines up into Canada in 1759 to attack the Abanaki village of Saint Francis the streets of the village were lined with scalp poles. There were hundreds of them each with dozens of New England colonist’s scalps, women and children as well, on every pole. The French paid them for those scalps with guns and trade goods, sometimes the Abanaki were even sent on those raids by their Jesuit priests. Funny, many of them were Christian Indians like numerous tribal members allied with their British enemies.
The Ranger’s killed the warriors they found, though most were out with the French looking for them, looted the village of property taken from the settlements and a few Jesuit silver candlesticks, repatriated captured prisoners and told the Abanaki women, children and old folks to tell the warriors to stay out of New England or they’d be back to finish the job. Director King Vidor made a really great movie, Northwest Passage back in 1940 based on Kenneth Robert’s top-notch book on the Rangers and the raid. Spencer Tracy played Major Rogers and the film pulls no punches dealing with the brutal, primitive forest warfare of the French and Indian War.
Part-Seminole and leading Plains’ Indian author and expert Michael Terry describes in his frequent lectures that once European traders made it into Indian country the tribes clamored for the weapons and trade goods that were now available. The Sioux had been pushed out of their Minnesota homelands in the early 1700s by Chippewa’s who made good martial use of French muskets, steel knives and hatchets. And what did the Sioux use to trade for weapons to even up the score? Buffalo robes. That’s right Indian tribes’ East and West killed off more then their own share of buffalo to trade the skins for weapons and goods at the white folks trading posts. For a number of years British military leather was made from buffalo hide, hence the title “buff” leather.
Terry points out that well before the Civil War Plains’ tribes killed off incredibly large numbers of buffalo, usually calves and cows, always the fattest and best tasting without restraint, “The feeling was if God wanted them to have buffalo there would be more next year. Of course ask any rancher today what would happen if you killed off your youngest stock and breeding females and they’ll tell you that very quickly you that wouldn’t have any cattle left.” By the 1840s the Plains Indians had already sewn the seeds of their own destruction well before white hunters hastened the almost end of the buffalo in the 1870s.
Which brings to mind the question, just what do Cameron’s Na’vi eat? I don’t remember it being shown though alien wolf, rhino and cape buffalo-type creatures do menace Avatar/former Marine Jake Sully. They eventually come to the rescue helping to kill American/Earthling transgressors in the film’s final set piece battle. I guess James Cameron is a closet PETA member, too. Though I doubt the Na’vi are vegetarians, I’ve never seen a vegetarian yet with much testosterone or well-channeled aggression, unless it involves saving a whale or taking verbal shots at George Bush. President Bush was the real red meat of the far left. Though the appropriate and quite accurate modern southern and western description of vegan hippy-types as “lettuce heads” still basically holds true. Cameron’s Na’vi do the “we are the world’ bit by escorting the numerous earthling military survivors to their space ships to send them back to their “Dying planet.” Do I detect the heavy hand of Al Gore in a Hollywood fantasy film? God forbid, say it ain’t so.
Ever hear of the Fort William Henry massacre in 1757? That’s the big wipeout in Michael Mann’s excellent 1992 film Last of the Mohicans that had the guts to show Eastern Indian warfare in all its bloody reality. The British surrendered with a promise of safe conduct and safe passage. French officers tried to hold the warriors back, but the massed tribes allied with the French killed, scalped and tortured a good number of the departing British troops as well as members of their families. The only revenge the colonists had for a while was that Huron warriors dug up and desecrated the fort’s graveyard not knowing that some of the dead had succumbed to small pox.
Six years later during what is known as Pontiac’s Rebellion allied eastern tribes wiped out all of the British forts west of the Allegheny Mountains except for Detroit and Fort Pitt. They did it by promising safe passage, “Take your women and children and oxen and go.” Then once the gates of the fort opened tomahawks and war clubs ran red with British and colonist’s blood. For every treaty that white folks broke, this was a harsh reminders of numerous brutally broken promises by the tribes. By-the-by Fort Pitt’s commander had small pox infected clothing left outside of the fort to try to infect the warriors, but it didn’t work. Given the “no quarter” fall of the other forts can we blame him? An outer space massacre might have been a far more interesting end to Avatar, but of course would spoil any chance for future billion dollar plus box-office sequels. Cameron says he has several sequels planned so I guess more “evil” American military types are going to be back and this time they’re going to be really pissed off.
As I pointed out in part one of this essay the whole reason behind my history lesson tirade here is that since we don’t teach history any more, most of the last few generations get their history from movies and television. Occasionally they get it from leftist propaganda like Howard Zinn’s ridiculous graphic novel The People’s History of the United States. The History Channel recently let Matt Damon turn Zinn’s historical monstrosity into a special with other far left actors like Danny Glover sitting reading that garbage to the audience. We need to start fighting back, talk with you’re kids about films like Avatar. Pick out books that you’ve researched and agree with yourself for them to read. Encourage them to challenge their teachers, but only when they have the facts to back them up. Will they run into the “Even if it isn’t true, it’s still the truth” attitude that is so prevalent on the academic left today, of course they will. But you have to fight the good fight and teach your kids to do the same thing. History and the truth behind the propaganda will help them become well rounded, courageous American’s who believe in the basic truths of the founding fathers.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
168 Comments
As a Historian, who coincidently works at the U.S. Cavalry Association, it is refreshing to hear an accurate depiction of the "Nobel Savage". In some of the letters, depictions, and official documents of period shows a far different depiction by historians, films, and environmentalist. The Indians were warlike, and their ability to inflict death on their enemies came easily. I have made the same argument about Cortez forming an alliance with oppressed tribes to defeat the Aztecs, and most academic historians will look at you with a blank-look. Sort of like Ashton Kutcher's "Dude" character.
An excellent and informative series that is much appreciated.
Thanks for the articles. I'm reading through Medved's book right now. I've heard him debate this topic many times on his show and it is depressing how ill informed the people are.
BTW there are a couple of spots in the article where "then" needs to be changed to "than". Sorry to be the grammar police but I don't want trolls dismissing the article over something silly.
"As a Historian, who coincidently works at the U.S. Cavalry Association"
You would be someone worth knowing.
It is a great place to work at. We are located at Fort Riley, Kansas, the home of the Cavalry at one time. Also home of the "Big Red One" infantry. Keeps this historian busy. ;0)
Great article! If you want to see the noble savage in modern times look to Africa, more specifically Rwanda. The Hutu and the Tutsi genocide that took place.
It's always amazing to see the lack of intellectual curiosity from the leftists in Hollywood and academia. A similar occurrence comes from the "Poor Muslims savagely attacked by the Crusaders" meme. How do people suppose the Muslims came to be residents in the Holy Land? Time-shares?
I have been there.
It is fantastic. A lot of history there.
Years ago, I was fortunate enough to know some old men of the west, who were stationed at Ft. Riley, KS. These were WW I, and WW II Veterans. They sure had some great old history photos. That stuff sure needs preserved. There are still a few WW II Vets, whose stories need told.
I knew one man in Midland, TX, who went to Military School, was stationed at Ft. Riley as a Cavalry Officer, and went on to serve on McArthurs Staff.
I always was awed by their stories.
Love this article! As I mentioned I had my daughter and I read through part 1. In her Hollywood school, she spent 2nd, 3rd & 4th learning about the native indians. She spent less than 2 weeks on America's Revolution and founders in 5th grade. She came home feeling guilty about America breaking treaties and killing the women & children. She had a guilt ridden emotional imprisonment. I freed her from that guilt by asking, do you think indians were all peaceful loving people? that common sense had suddenly freed her from the guilt. but most kids dont get conservative advice at all, and grow up hating themselves and America.
Tribalism is on the lowest rungs of civilization yet somehow tribalism is on the rebound. Tribalism is one of the main reasons for the trouble in Afganistan, Iraq, etc. What I find hard to understand is how so many of the so-called enlightened left like tribes and tribalism so much? This was a really good article and as someone who has read quite a bit about historical times I find it disturbing how much History gets re-written to satisfy political agendas. It dooms us to repeat mistakes if we cannot know what really happened. Do I think Europeans were innocent of wrong doing, of course not. The real problem with so-called modern Historians is that they expect you to judge actions without taking into account the limited knowledge or the generally acceptted attitudes of the times.
You are right about that, Fort Riley is great. I have met, corresponded, and talked to a great deal of WWII, Vietnam, Gulf-War, and of course I work among the great soldiers of today, and feel honored everyday. The Cavalry Association puts out a journal that combines the History of the Cavalry, as well as the current goings on of today's cavalry trooper. We have a large collection photos, biographies, unpublished manuscripts, Army manuals, and personal papers of Cavalry troopers. And, yes it is easy to be awed, and amused (they are salty), by their stories.
I know we've all picked this movie to shreds here, but the reference to the different clans (and why is it that we are only told of the existence of these other clans at the very end of the movie?) in Cameron's Pandora prompts me to note this point:
As long as we're going to criticize this film for the myth of the noble savage, how about we take note of another overused trope of the sci-fi/fantasy genre present in the film? I am referring to the "White man/American/Earth man is the only one who can unify us against the common threat" schtick. All the peoples of the planet Mongo were suffering as Ming the Merciless played them off against one another–until Flash Gordon showed up to unify them against their common foe. Only John Carter (from Earth, and a Confederate soldier, no less!) can stave off the inevitable end of the civilizations of the Red Men and Green Men of Barsoom (Mars). In the comic books, it is only Adam Strange (a dilettante archaeologist) who can help defend the far more technologically advanced people of Rann from their enemies.
Not only does Avatar play to the modern day lefty stereotypes of the noble savage; it also rolls out the late 19th/early 20th century "progressive" idea of "the white man's burden", advancing the idea that these savages need to be led, and steered, by a more sophisticated and enlightened (read: White and European) culture.
I'm sure that Cameron and his multi-culti pals would probably recoil from such an analysis, but to me it seems patently obvious. There's a very Wilsonian argument being made under all that cool CGI and performance capturing technology. Fortunately, these Hollywood-ists are incapable of any kind of critical thinking, and will be spared from confronting the implicit subtext of their silly movie.
Off topic, I know…the blue folks do not look at all good in close up stills. There's nothing glowing or 3D to distract you.
Gagliasso me with a spoon!
Are you serious, it takes a two part series to whine about how a fictional movie doesn't do enough to parallel real history?? Rather, it took two parts to rationalize your own guilt over atrocities of American history. Because, for idiots like this, if "they" do it, its ok if I do it. Right? For example, Its ok for America to torture prisoners because terrorists behead their prisoners. Well, maybe it assuages your guilt, but in the process it makes you just like "them". The terrorists beat you. You disgust me. And you call yourself an American. Thumbs down!
The Israelites cried unto the prophet: GIVE US A KING.
You could easily substitute: The Americans cried out: Give us a King!
Is the content something silly? Because the content is more than enough to dismiss the article. I mean, I agree people are woefully ill informed, but pointing out the harshness of reality doesn't justify one's own harsh actions. Its an excuse, nothing more. And the grammar is expected, its consistent with the photo (cowboy hat & tux). I'm such an elitist. But I don't try to be, how can we not when moronic articles like this are published in conservative ecosystems? It makes Al Gore look smart!
You should go have yourself a good cry!
Tribalism is popular today due to the growing self-loathing in Western culture. Western culture and technology is seen as "evil", and destructive to the earth. Poor, primitive people are righteous and pure, and live in harmony with the earth. Climate change, pollution, and even social problems like the stratification of society are all things caused by the evils of civilization (the West).
In the eyes of Leftist environmentalists, if humanity could go back to living in mud huts in small egalitarian communes, we'd finally "return" to utopia. Several of my Anthropology professors in college actually lamented the agricultural revolution, as it led to the social stratification of society; separation of the rich and the poor classes. Until large-scale agriculture allowed mass populations of humans and the construction of civilization as we know it, humans lived in a pure, egalitarian state in peace and harmony. If only we could return to that…. /sigh (sarcasm)
"In the eyes of Leftist environmentalists, if humanity could go back to living in mud huts in small egalitarian communes, we'd finally "return" to utopia. Several of my Anthropology professors in college actually lamented the agricultural revolution, as it led to the social stratification of society; separation of the rich and the poor classes. Until large-scale agriculture allowed mass populations of humans and the construction of civilization as we know it, humans lived in a pure, egalitarian state in peace and harmony. If only we could return to that…. /sigh (sarcasm)"
To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg re: the Hatian earthquake, "those who live in a state of nature will be treated most harshly by nature – did you get that, Mr. Cameron?"
[...] the scientists, slightly refuting the movie’s falsehoods. Here are the articles: Part One and Part Two. Please do read it all and prepare to be challenged by Gagliasso’s factually clear, [...]
Good 2 part article. Way too many people get their history from movies these days. History is rarely as simple or one sided as we like to make it. One sided history is simple, easy to digest, but almost always wrong.
Why should anyone in any any way feel the least bit of guilt for anything "America" did hundreds of years ago. No one alive now had anything to do with it. And trust me if you are going to feel bad about things done in America's past, you should do a little more research on how Barbaric human history is in EVERY culture and race. Every culture has its dirty past, but strangely ours is comparitively humane compared to ancient Asia, Africa, or Europe. the only difference is that people love to make Americans try and feel guilty. All societies were brutal at one point or another, to feel like you are in someway responsible is sill and better refered to as codependency
Don't forget Dune: Young nobleman unites a native people on Dune in order to avenge his father's death and rid the planet of his enemy.
Yes, it's out there. Still liked Dune though.
I have still yet to hear anyone bring up the "shock and Awe" campaign in the film. Or the part where the main charactor said, "they killed their mother" How much more blatanly obvious could James make it that Avatar is a political film?
If he is reading this now from a film critics perspective, you really took away from the film's greatness because everything was serious and dramatic only the military was so stupid it was almost like watching a comedy or slapstick genre film when they appeared. It just didn't fit. The terminators didn't have goofy catch phrases like, "GET SOME!!" which is why that was a good film and Avatar was not good in comparrision.
What a GREAT article! A historical fact based tirade that leaves you with that tingly feeling one gets when a singer hits that perfect note!
My favorite line? "… I’ve never seen a vegetarian yet with much testosterone or well-channeled aggression, unless it involves saving a whale or taking verbal shots at George Bush. President Bush was the real red meat of the far left.". Maybe not the MOST politically correct statement, but you just can't help busting a gut over it.
we waterboarded 3 terrorists. you and i can get waterboarded. 1000s of U.S. service men get waterboarded as part of their training. I would not want any of the terrorists forms of interrogation.
American has done bad, but you are able to be anonymous on a website and vent your anger w/o any persecution from govt or tribes or religious fanactics. ENJOY.
our schools, our elementary, middle & high schools are teaching guilt. and shame. and our kids are drowning in it.
i'm a christian, and throughout history, i see missionaries and christians that come in and force the brutal primitives to accept a new way of life. as in the Conquistadors vs the Aztecs or English vs the Hindu & Muslims in India or Missionaries in Africa. brutality was the norm, slavery was the norm, until Christians came into a land. struggles & violence on both sides yes, but the end affect of a succssful Christian movement was a humane civilized society, however imperfect. methinks.
I was thinking the same thing. The native americans each other so it was completely ok that the europeans come and not only take their land but destroy their culture as well. Not to mention kill off everybody who is considered a savage. __Agree with you 100%
Avavatar was a pretty poor movie with incredible art and a great message. The fact that American so-called "conservatives" are only the people in the world against it's themes of respect for the environment and native cultures says a lot about this segment of out society.
Why do we get alot of boohoohoo about Crusaders killing Muslims in the Holy Land, but not much mentioned about Muslims whacking and hacking and killing across Spain and Frace until they run into a wall of Frankish Knights.
I gree. The agrarian thing popped into my head this morning for some reason. If being a hunter/gatherer was so great, why did so many people convert to settled agrarian life? If "oneness with nature" was so pleasant, why did people spend so much time trying to avoid it by doing "un-natural" things – such as making fire, wearing clothes, building permanent dwellings, domesticating animals and plants, clearing land of trees and bushes to plant crops, creating irrigation systems, etc.? Have any societies that we know of ever voluntarily said "Screw this civilization shit – we're going back to the jungle?" Why do you suppose that is?
There's a reason why humanity is in the situation it is today, and it has nothing to do with greed or unequal distribution of wealth and power.
…..and that is why in a couple years when Avatar is on the small-screen of TV without the 3-D, people are going to watch it and think to themselves "wow, this is really a crappy movie – what was I thinking?!?!?"
FraNce
I appreciate these two articles. It's not that anybody's trying to let America or themselves off the hook for what was done to Native Americans. It's that facts are more honorable than lies.
I have to ask: Are Americans really as ignorant of their own history as Cameron, Zinn and others seem to think they are? After fifty years of counter-history at school and anti-heroes in the movies, is it even possible that Americans could believe some triumphalist myth about this country? Do we really need leftist crank historians and Hollywood cartoon-mongers to shake us out of our complacency? Or is it possible that we're smarter, better informed, and more morally secure than they realize?
In the Avatar prequel it will be revealed that the Blueskins wiped out their fellow Greenskins that were a noble and peaceful race. Apparently it had something to do with one of their mothers and some bad cloning.
I wrote a trilogy about the German settlements on the Texas frontier; so of course, I had to deal with the historical realities of Comanche raids – and the absolutely stomach-churning accounts of what happened to those (both from other Indian tribes, as well as whites and Hispanics) who were taken captive. The Comanches lived by making war, by plunder and slave-trading. There's no earthly way to paint them as peaceable innocents, unjustly set upon.
One of my research books was by Gregory and Susan Michno, a collection of captivity accounts. I could hardly stand to read more than a couple of chapters at a time, as almost every one of them began with survivors seeing friends and family being slaughtered all around them.
Part 2.
If James Cameron made a movie about the history of American Indians and the American government and framed it within the storyline of AVATAR then I would agree with this essay. But he didn’t! He made a Sci-Fi movie with mythical characters and fictional storylines for a world audience.
The concept against imperialism is a noble one. I think most Americans are against imperialism if this imperialism is Russia trying to restack the eastern European block, China trying to absorb Taiwan, or North Korea trying to take over South Korea. Stopping this type of aggression is what the United States has spent the last Century doing. And if Cameron throws in a few “shock and awe’s” and “we need a preemptive strike” lines here and there … well, this is done to get an emotional response from people like you. And it’s the smartest thing to do when you are trying to create buzz, word-of-mouth, and publicity.
Part 3.
Movies that make you think how you act and interact with others is what most conservatives have always yearned for. What better way can you do this in 2010 than by using a fictional Sci-Fi film? This isn’t Fahrenheit 9/11. It is more like a future-set The Great Gatsby. It’s supposed to make you think about how you as a human being can be a better human being. How that is offensive or suspicious is beyond me.
Well said James Cameron. We shouldn't feel guilt about it, but we should know the reality and accept it.
The problem with hollywoodron's schools is they don't teach the value of being critical. We should be critical of ourselves and our history, no more or less so than we are of others and their history. We shouldn't feel guilt for it, we should feel empathy. Maybe America was less barbaric than other countries historically, and thats highly arguable, but it doesn't make us better than them.
Thank you! Talk about missing the point. NOBODY said what the settlers did was great, just understandable. The whole point of both portions of this article is that too many people don't know real history, and are swayed by dreck like Avatar. The nobility of indigenous peoples is still a sacred cow. Wouldn't it be better if people were taught the truth…indigenous people are "people". They come in good and evil just like everbody else. Guess what, America and Western Civilization didn't invent evil. It was around before we showed up.
Did you even read the article?
You and dallasgirl have reading comprehension problems. That is not what the author of the article is saying.
What he is saying is that you can't often paint one side of a conflict better than the other side of a conflict. There is no PERFECT group of people on this planet. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. Every group, since the dawn of Man has been the conqueror or the conqueree.
The real task is to MOVE ON FROM THE PAST AND DEAL WITH WHAT HAS BEEN GIVEN YOU. Do you spend decades, hell even centuries, complaining about what happened lo those many years ago, or do you take the lemons and make lemonade.
Please note the difference between those that move on from the problems and tragedies they have suffered, and those that don't. I guarantee that 99% of the first group does better in life, as a group and as individuals, than does the second group.
Cont'd
And what are we supposed to do with the guilt anyway? Reparations? More "special rights" for these groups to the detriment of everyone? What is YOUR solution? Because it sounds like the Left just uses grievances to take more control over our lives, all in the name of fixing a problem that doesn't even exist, or wouldn't exist if people would stop whining like a bunch of 2 year olds.
A little random, but that show that was on Spike back in the day, "The Deadliest Warrior," one episode featured Apache warriors, and it made my blood run cold the way the fellow representing the Apache spoke with pride about how ruthless his ancestors had been in slaughtering settlers, that there was something noble to him about scalping infants. Yeah, okay, my people were on the Trail of Tears. But that doesn't mean everything they ever did was holy.
Exactly JC. Exactly. Didn't I just get in to a brief tussle with someone on this website about that? I think I did. He was insistent that my reason for denying my guilt was because I felt guilty. And not once could he articulate why I should feel guilty for something I didn't do. Not once.
Because it is illogical and defies common sense, something sorely lacking on the Left.
Good article.
Great Site.
Apparently the word "allegory" means nothing to do.
And apparently you didn't notice the similarities of plot with Dances with Wolves meets Pocahantos.
You need pull your head out of your proverbial third point of contact.
The message was loud and clear, except for people like you.
If that's the case, then maybe he should make movies for the terrorists to watch, or Fidel Castro, Chavez, the Chinese Gov't, Kim Jong Il, etc. etc. They need more of a lesson in how to be better human beings than Americans do. Americans created the first country where the INDIVDIUAL was held supreme over all else except God. We are the most generous nation on the planet, and yet WE need a lesson on how to be better.
Can we improve? Sure, but we certainly don't need any lessons from Cameron, a man who called Kate Winslet “Kate Weighs A Lot” because she wasn’t the Hollywood ideal (emaciated Size 00). Physician heal thyself. Those that are always pointing fingers at other people for their foibles are usually full of their own. Jesus had something to say about that. And perhaps you and Cameron and others like you should do the same.
Europeans claim Americans are racist and sexist, but European men are known for their chauvinistic attitude towards women (and I’ve witnessed it myself) and they also have their share of racists. Who brought the slaves to the Americas anyway? Americans? Nope EUROPEANS.
So, those without sin cast the first stone.
CHIRP, CHIRP, CHIRP . . . just as I thought.
No, I am a writer and I know the liberties writer's take. And so anyone who doesn't agree with you is "a person like you?"
And for your information Cameron did not base the story on Dances with Wolvers nor Pocahantas–he began the early stages of AVATAR in 1977; long before Dances with Wolves. And if that is your point of reference for literature there is no use having a conversation. You give conservatives a bad name.
The reason this movie warrants discussion is because the narrative is off. That is putting it mildly. Any film is based upon human experience because we have never been to other worlds and do not know the histories of those peoples. We use the human narrative to tell our stories, even in science fiction. Look at the narrative going on in the world today. Stone-age tribal warriors are trying to bomb civilization into oblivion so that we all have to live in the 12th century. Where is the nobility in that? Look at the biggest narrative going on right now that flies in the face of Cameron's narrative. Tens of thousands of American warriors are in Haiti at this moment SAVING LIVES.
The only good Na'vi, is a dead Na'vi!
Yeti, excellent points! With the bad that was done, Western Civilization also brought us innovations in medicine and technology that allows us to live longer and healthier lives. So much so that many of us have nothing better to do than to complain about things that Doug McIntyre likes to call "First World Problems".
Being "stone-age" doesn't give one any more moral high ground than being "advanced". We are all humans and therefore imperfect.
And yes, those horrible American baby-killing soldiers are . . . saving the lives of babies, children, men, women, older people, EVERYONE, just like they always do. And my husband may be one of them, even after returning from Iraq last August on his second tour, where he was . . .helping people.
And no good deed goes unpunished.
Dan was drawing a comparison with the truth and the "Noble Savage" myth and how it relates to academia today. The truth of pre-European America is a bloody one. Indians used to sit you on a horse, cut open your stomach, grab a piece of your intestine, tie it to a tree and run the horse around the tree. That kind of sheer disregard for your fellow man is not taught anymore because it would be "offensive" to someone. Not a good precedent.
Or the Muslim (theres that word!) on Christian genocide in Darfur.
This type of stupidity is why the right is such a failure.
What is this supposed to mean?
What's interesting is China's government is scared of the movie and has now limited it to only IMAX theaters in hopes less people will watch it. They are afraid of civil uprisings because of the allegory that can be drawn to chinese Corporations taking over people's land and evicting them for expansion purposes.
The message is THAT strong. I love the movie, I was able to differentiate reality from fiction and allegory from reality pretty easily. It's only sadly the right who seems to have such a problem with the movie, and what's even more sad is most of them have learned because they can't think for themselves and rely on propagandist morons such as the original writer of this silly article.
Stupid people are easy to control, and biased columns like this one do not help them think for themselves and watch the movie to draw their own conclusions.
People don't like being reminded and made to feel guilty. Especially if you are on the right. They have been in the wrong for so long it may just give them a heart attack. It's the shame of what this movie makes them feel they hate the most.
it sounded like a joke to me, hippie.
They look pretty dead behind the eyes, that's for sure.
They gave us the ol' Liberal "take n' twist"
Read: THE BEUATIFUL PEOPLE MYTH – BY Michael Shermer. Or CS Lewis and his comments on Chronological Snobbery. They both apply.
I'm shocked that you would actually advocate the genocidal destruction of fictional blue space aliens!
I suppose the Oompa Loompas are next on your list!
The thing that makes me crazy is that I really wanted to love this movie. My major source of enjoyment is using my imagination, and I have never been so betrayed by a movie as I was by Avatar. It was like Cameron drove a BMW up to my front door for me and then wailed all over it with a baseball bat. If Cameron had just kept his political/social liberal crap to himself, I could have really enjoyed it. I can ignore political messages and enjoy entertainment. I've always done it. I couldn't with this movie. There was just too much of it, conversely there wasn't enough content I could get behind to enjoy. The thing slapped me around from almost minute one on just about every level.
I heard Cameron's original ending had Sully and his woman captured by the Marines. The Na'vi woman says to him, "Looks like we're in real trouble now," at which point Sully jacks out and says, "What's this 'We,' blueskin?"
Ashamed? Who's ashamed? We're just sick and tired of having political propaganda served up to us by Hollywood in the name of entertainment, like so much gift-wrapped garbage. That's what this whole site is about, in case you hadn't noticed.
For someone like James Cameron — who lives in a mansion and has a carbon "footprint" far beyond anything the rest of us generate — to make a movie about nature and environmentalism and "destroying the planet" is rich, to put it mildly. He has the right to make the movie, but we also have the right to call him a hypocrite.
Joe you should have ended your post with "dude!"
It would, racist coward.
Unfortunately, Kristine, the "Nobel Savage" is no myth. In the last couple of years alone, we've seen both Al Gore and Barack Obama receive the prize. It would be hard to find men with more savage principles than these. (They just do their dirty work more indirectly than the tribes of old did.)
"We're just sick and tired of having political propaganda served up to us by Hollywood in the name of entertainment,"
Why would you be sick and tired? What harm does it do to you? It obviously gets to you on some personal level. Why? Why doe's it really bother you so much? Just because you read somewhere someone saying, "it's anti-american!" doesn't make it true.
"For someone like James Cameron — who lives in a mansion and has a carbon "footprint" far beyond anything the rest of us generate –"
Woah woah woah… Wait a second… So you actually DO care about the environment enough to hold him accountable? Is that what you are saying? So what problem do you have with the movie again? Oh yeah, the "political propaganda" whos message is peace, love, and unity and allegories to our terrible past and current situations. That's the crap you hate getting served up by hollywood.
Talk about, "rich."
There's no doubt that the reason the Rwanda horrors were so meticulously ignored by the MSM was because, despite all efforts, they were unable to blame it on America.
"It’s supposed to make you think about how you as a human being can be a better human being. How that is offensive or suspicious is beyond me."
It's a hard thing to swallow for people who know in their hearts they support ideology and leaders who would send their boys off to fight unnecessary wars based on lies, (that goes for both sides). Rational people can see through the message, and learn from it, but people on the right tend to close their hearts and minds to the truths they know they've helped viciously unleash upon the world.
"If that's the case, then maybe he should make movies for the terrorists to watch, "
He does, Americans love that movie True Lies. Hem ehrm! Just kidding!
"Americans created the first country where the INDIVDIUAL was held supreme over all else except God."
That's kind of scary since there is supposed to be a separation of Church and state. Unless you are ok with verses from the Koran on your money, or séances in your classrooms, or Koran readings before games. Wait, you don't want that stuff, but are ok with making other people of religions go through the same exact thing.
"We are the most generous nation on the planet, and yet WE need a lesson on how to be better. "
No, we are ONE of the most generous nations on this planet we ALL share together, and we need a lesson on what's going on in the world in the name of expansion and the world changing excuses that we seem to be ok with. The only people making a stink about this movie are YOU guys.
"Can we improve? Sure, but we certainly don't need any lessons from Cameron,"
D'Oh! Wish the rest of this planet agreed with you there, but it's looking like they don't.
"Kate Winslet “Kate Weighs A Lot” because she wasn’t the Hollywood ideal (emaciated Size 00)."
Why do you suddenly care so much about hollywood actors? Aren't you kind of being a hypocrite?
"those that are always pointing fingers at other people for their foibles are usually full of their own."
Ah.. That explains a lot about you.
Couldn't agree more with what you said about Europeans, but what that has to do with what you were saying before is beyond me. It's like you are just blabbering to a therapyst. Anyone who will listen to your disjointed thought process. Take your next sentence. What does this have anything to do with your point?
"So, those without sin cast the first stone. "
Huh? Are you suggesting that anyone who's done any wrong cannot have an opinion? What are you talking about? You make NO SENSE.
"CHIRP, CHIRP, CHIRP . . . just as I thought." My turn to say that?.
I saw the movie. Visually, it was a masterpiece. The plot was utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to dwell on how it caricatures the military and corporate bigwigs, or on how much BS the myth of the Noble Savage is. Everyone else has done that for me. I am going to dwell on how the plot made no sense, which begins with touching on those points.
Somehow, the Marines (of US? Earth? Doesn't matter, they all sound American) have instituted a Rent-A-Regiment program to protect extraterrestrial mining operations, among other things. You would think that before putting a guy in as commanding officer for an independent operation that involves managing a delicate situation in which mishandling could start a war, you would want to check his psych profile to make sure you are not promoting a trigger-happy meat head. But that's just me and my non-military experience talking. It would also be reasonable to expect that in this hypothetical program the rules of engagement would not be 100 percent negotiable by the client.
Several of my ancestors were kidnapped by Indians, and it wasn't the picnic that Dances with Wolves shows. They were the lucky ones; other family members were killed in front of their family. One of the survivors who escaped became a lifelong Indian hater – he'd seen his own mother taken away by the Indians.
People are people and human nature is human nature. Atrocities were rampant on both sides (natives VS non in America). It's just alot easier to sympathize with the invaded instead of the invaderers. I just finished a good book called the Frontiersmen by Allan Eckert that gives a fascinating look at Frontier life during the late 1700's/early 1800's that gives a "fair and balanced" (in the real sense/not in the Fox news sense) persepective.
Did you see the movie?
What did you think of it? I would like to know.
Partially agree, partially disagree. The results of missionary/western influence on local indigenous peoples are something of a mixed bag. The British Empire's efforts in India were tremendously positive. Conquistadors vs Aztecs, the French in Haiti and other places, less so. To my mind, the reason for this is a difference in the philosophy that underlies the Anglospheric mindset (John Locke, "the rights of men") vs. the Continent (Rousseau, "the rights of man)–a point which was made in some other thread in one of the "Big" sites recently.
Given the problems in the world today, looking at the rear view mirror, the British Empire looks awfully good.
Furthermore, we are expected to believe that the corporate manager Parker Selfridge is so greedy that he is willing to commit genocide to make a short-term profit that will quickly evaporate when it hits the news and his company's stock turns radioactive overnight.
We are expected to believe that it would not be a well-known and obvious truth among people like Selfridge that genocide is terribly bad PR. Even an amoral pragmatist should be able to appreciate the fact that the most efficient ways of making lots of money generally require avoiding mass murder.
Then we are expected to take it in stride that the most obvious course to get to the unobtainium motherlode under the sacred tree is to take the tree down, with or without the Na'vi in the way. Slant drilling and coming in to the deposit from the side, for instance, would not make anyone any friends, but avoiding a blatant war crime probably wouldn't have made things any worse than they were at the start.
I'm sorry – there are grownups discussing things here. Back to the kid's table with you…
Now the Na'vi themselves: It is just plain weird for an intelligent race to develop a form of civilization amidst jungles teeming with dangerous beasts, and have such a comprehensive and staunch reverence for nature that extends to holding a small funeral for each and every animal you have to kill. With such a dangerous environment, any normal primitive society's personification of nature would characterize her as a crazed killer.
The only way to make some sensible explanation of how the Na'vi developed their belief system, and how they apparently never to go to war with one another, is to conclude that they are not in fact the dominant species of Pandora, and thus not the ones who the RDA should approach for permission to dig mines. The real dominant species is the trees, or rather Eywa, the superintelligent entity made up of a giant neural network made of trees. The entire ecosystem of Pandora has been manipulated by Eywa to make herself comfortable, and the Na'vi are her slaves.
Now, what if there was something to that hypothesis? That would make quite a movie.
What's lean, mean, green and looks good on a Na'vi?
A United States Marine
Q: How many Na'vi does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: No one knows. The primitive a-holes don't even know what a lightbulb is.
Dja hear about the blond Na'vi they found staring at a canister of orange juice because it said "Concentrate?"
After which time she apologized to it profusely.
Part 1.____AVATAR is a fictional Sci-Fi movie, and never once has James Cameron proposed that it is suppose to be an actual accurate history of the United States. He is making an artistic statement of his opinion and his life experience–the same as you are doing with this same two-part essay you have written. As an artist you can be making a statement about Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan, ancient Rome, or any culture to come in the future. This is called "Art." And this is the beauty of fiction. AVATAR is not being taught in high school history class. It is an allegory. ____An allegory teaches a lesson through symbolism. Someone in China is going to think about AVATAR from their world view. They are supposed to look at the Chinese government as the aggressor in this movie. If you are from Russia then you will look at the aggressor as being Stalin and his gulag. If you are from North Korea—well you won’t even get to see this movie! The point being is that movies and allegories are about what we can learn from the story. 30 other cultures could plop their countries histories into the plot and it would fit what happened there too. __
Well, got to hand it to you guys. Clever way to channel that hate. Clever indeed. You've never sounded more like nazis.
LOL…. I bow to such supreme logic reaching a probable, and obvious example, of such deviousness among the modern savages.
"we waterboarded 3 terrorists. you and i can get waterboarded. 1000s of U.S. service men get waterboarded as part of their training. I would not want any of the terrorists forms of interrogation."
Didn't Sean Hannity say that he would be waterboarded for charity? Still waiting on that coward to step forward. Oh, and about the "we waterboarded 3 terrorists" thing. You believe lock stock what the government tells you? Especially after this Iraq fiasco?
"or religious fanactics."
What do you think makes up the majority of this website buddy? Also, why the opposition to allegories that bring up a nations dirty past? Why do you think people and societies progress? So that people can be freely allowed to think rationally, (and Irrationally) and admit mistakes (and refuse to admit them,) and realize allegories in films (and deny them as anti American.)
All so that people are aware and know the truth and can possibly avoid making future terrible mistakes. IE such things as (Iraq and Afganistan.) It's so people can say, "hey, look at our past, at what we've done. Let's learn from this."
Wouldn't you agree?
"The real task is to MOVE ON FROM THE PAST AND DEAL WITH WHAT HAS BEEN GIVEN YOU."
That also means LEARNING FROM THE PAST AND NOT REPEATING THOSE MISTAKES.
"Do you spend decades, hell even centuries, complaining about what happened lo those many years ago,"
No, you go to school and learn about why these conflicts came about in the first place, who was pressing the buttons, what the power struggle was about. Then you apply this to present day knowledge and you feel better about yourself that you are lucky enough to live in a country that really doesn't deal with this type of conflict. You make yourself aware in your ignorance the atrocities, ALL atrocities throughout history so that they can be avoided at all costs in the future. You learn setting up puppet governments in other countries only to have them bite you in the butt at a later date is PROBABLY not a good thing to do. Especially INVADING one of them and removing the man you helped prop up who was actually managing to keep the whole country from warring with itself.
"The real task is to MOVE ON FROM THE PAST AND DEAL WITH WHAT HAS BEEN GIVEN YOU"
It's called BOOKS. You read them instead of burning them. You watch the movie instead of believing the propaganda and then BURNING it.
"I guarantee that 99% of the first group does better in life, as a group and as individuals, than does the second group. "
If you had any relatives that went to Nam, they may disagree with you there.
"Way too many people…."
What "history from movies" are you talking about? What "way too many people" are you talking about? Source please?
"One sided history is simple, easy to digest, but almost always wrong. "
And yet, you reject anything that makes you look at the other side. How interesting you summed up pretty much everyone who is on here.
"And not once could he articulate why I should feel guilty for something I didn't do. Not once. "
That's not exactly how it went down, but hey, whatever makes you feel better.
Let me ask you this. Why so against the movie then? If you feel no guilt, then you should have no problem watching the allegories taking place in the movie, because you would understand what was being talked about. They are allegories to real things that have happened, and are happening on this planet right now. Why does the movie bother you so if not for avoidance of being reminded what's taken place in our past? Hmm?I
Like you did.
It does say a lot Joe. They are the only ones who seem to really have a problem with the movie. And we all know why. It makes them feel guilty for supporting such things as the allegories in the movie depict. And they just can't have that "liberal" dreck being feed to them. Of course, the rest of the sane populace thinks it's great, and apparently can't get enough.
I finally got to see it for the third time today at the IMAX. WOW. That's all i have to say. The show was SOLD out, and for good reason. It looks absolutely amazing on the big screen. Flawless.
"In the Avatar prequel it will be revealed that the Blueskins wiped out their fellow Greenskins that were a noble and peaceful race.'
Oh, so that's the only way you can accept a movie these days? Funny enough, your premise is eerily like the movie AVATAR, just switch out "blueskins" for "sky people," and "greenskins" for the "blueskins." Oh, and the "skypeople" win. Yep, facepalm.
Aww, too bad for you the majority of people feel better about the actual movie.
Religion, such an easy tool to get people fighting for your wars and land grabs.
"but most kids dont get conservative advice at all, and grow up hating themselves and America."
Why do you think being aware of ALL our history (especially the bad parts) would make them grow up hating themselves and more silly enough hating America? If anything, keeping them ignorant of Americas mistakes would have an adverse effect on the child would you not agree? Why is teaching them about war, pain, and suffering a bad thing again?
It's. A. Movie.
That's why i've seen it three times already in the theaters! Love it! Oh, Psst. So does everyone else who's not INSANE.
"before putting a guy in as commanding officer for an independent operation that involves managing a delicate situation in which mishandling could start a war, you would want to check his psych profile to make sure you are not promoting a trigger-happy meat head."
You know, who popped into my head when you said this? Bush. Interesting how well you hit it on the head there guy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.