Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Read the shocking news here!

Do you know that old Hollywood cliche where a white guy is the hero of a native race? Well that's happening here in James Cameron's Avatar and some people aren't taking kindly to that.

Like the Titanic, people are sinking low to a new level into ridiculousness.

Movies that had white men leading natives into victory are Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, and Broken Arrow. I don't think people have had an issue with those movies before but when they see a white man leading the giant smurfs to victory against the humans and their spaceships and giant robots, those people knew they have had enough.


I know we need to get the racism nonsense away from the videogames but is it really necessary for the movies to be next on the hit list?

The film's reliance on old cliches is what holds it back as a classic.
After watching the second trailer, I wondered what the other twists in the plot would be that we could see from the trailer. I went to see the film - found there wasn't any.

Originally posted by roughrider
The film's reliance on old cliches is what holds it back as a classic.
After watching the second trailer, I wondered what the other twists in the plot would be that we could see from the trailer. I went to see the film - found there wasn't any.

Your post reminded me of this picture.

http://i50.tinypic.com/21mempk.jpg

typical shite where people see jake sully as a WHITE hero rather than simply a hero.

would ppl say that if will smith had the lead?

Well, Jake Sully actually discards his "white" body and literally becomes a Na'Vi. So, it wouldn't matter what his race is, in the end, because he completely discards his body and quite literally, becomes a Na'Vi.

I"M MAD CAUSE HANCOCK WAS A DRUNK AND BLACK AND THE WHITE MILF HAD EVERYTHING GOING HUNKY DORY!!! RACISM!!

i be mad if i found out my wife had a blk man...... i have low self esteem when it comes with pleasing women and knowing will smith was with her would seriously under mind what little confidence i had in the bedroom... is that racist?

no will smith is just well endowed...

...cause he's black. Too bad he isn't Jamaican or you would be screeewwed in this scenario.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Read the shocking news here!

Do you know that old Hollywood cliche where a white guy is the hero of a native race? Well that's happening here in James Cameron's Avatar and some people aren't taking kindly to that.

Like the Titanic, people are sinking low to a new level into ridiculousness.

Movies that had white men leading natives into victory are Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, and Broken Arrow. I don't think people have had an issue with those movies before but when they see a white man leading the giant smurfs to victory against the humans and their spaceships and giant robots, those people knew they have had enough.


I know we need to get the racism nonsense away from the videogames but is it really necessary for the movies to be next on the hit list?

Broken Arrow?

This?

Originally posted by REXXXX
This?

Ah, I was thinking of John Travolta.

Yeah, that was the other result Wiki gave me. I figured it wasn't that.

Originally posted by silver_tears
Your post reminded me of this picture.

http://i50.tinypic.com/21mempk.jpg lol

glad to see you still posting

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Read the shocking news here!

Do you know that old Hollywood cliche where a white guy is the hero of a native race? Well that's happening here in James Cameron's Avatar and some people aren't taking kindly to that.

Like the Titanic, people are sinking low to a new level into ridiculousness.

Movies that had white men leading natives into victory are Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, and Broken Arrow. I don't think people have had an issue with those movies before but when they see a white man leading the giant smurfs to victory against the humans and their spaceships and giant robots, those people knew they have had enough.


I know we need to get the racism nonsense away from the videogames but is it really necessary for the movies to be next on the hit list?


more ignorant idiots.. people are just jealous because cameron is going to have possibly the first ever $2 billlion dollar movie

Just throwing it out there:

The "We need to save them because they can't save themselves" motif is not new in Cameron's work, and does encompass a large body of media going back hundreds of years which served to oppress and justify the oppression of many non-white peoples.

The same tactic has been used by non-whites, but the general connotation is that media made for white, christian audiences glorifies said culture by having it solve other people's problems, which in turn was used to make people believe that military force and expansion was justified as helping poor people without the guile to help themselves.

People are just making a big fuss over the film cause it made a huge profit.

Some of the propagandists just want a piece of that share.


EDIT: Just found out that the film is the 2nd highest-grossing film in history

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
People are just making a big fuss over the film cause it made a huge profit.

Some of the propagandists just want a piece of that share.

regardless, it is still something that we should be discussing.

I don't believe Cameron made the movie with the intent of propogandizing some archaic "save other weaker civilizations" issue, but the fact is, that is still a very strong cultural idea.

Are people being sensationalist, sure, but maybe there is room to critiscize something for being so short-sighted, or even for being so unimaginative to fall into the most cliche storytelling devices without even considering the underlying meanings. At the very least, it signifies that Cameron spent a day and a half with the script

Originally posted by inimalist
At the very least, it signifies that Cameron spent a day and a half with the script

...oooor....over a decade.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...oooor....over a decade.

the length of production is probably not reflective of how challenging of a script it was.

At the very least, no studio is going to throw that kind of money at something that might make the audience think, beyond already established cultural maxims and centuries old cliches.

Someone dug up the R-word to sound politically correct?

Is there a relationship between CGI and the perception of racism? (after all, it turned up after TPM as well.)

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
would ppl say that if will smith had the lead?

Well, wasn't it a black man and a jew who saved the world in Indipendance Day ?

But these were Smurfs. Doesn't that count?

Avatar is overhype...

If the Smurfs are as anti-semitic as suggested, then no, they dont need to count.

Oh... now they're anti-semitic... Some people sure have WAAAAYYY to much time on their hands.

and according to wiki, Gargamel is a jewish steriotype.

i'm offended that the alien smurfs were blue when they should have bn brown as it was an obvious refernce to native americans and indigenous ppl of the americas..

f$%@ black ppl being mad they have no claim here shuff off only ppl i see having the right to be mad is true native americans from south and north

Smurfs are communists govern by the wizard-communist Papa smurf.

Love those crazy Dutchs...

Everything is racist. If you can't win something, that's because it's racist, if something is working better than you'd like it to, that's because it is racist. If you don't do anything with your life, it's because it's racist. If things are not going your way, it is because it is racist.

If you have failed at life, it is because everything is racist all the time at every point and every place, everywhere.

Anyone telling you any different is clearly a racist who is trying to get away with racism.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Everything is racist. If you can't win something, that's because it's racist, if something is working better than you'd like it to, that's because it is racist.
If you have failed at life, it is because everything is racist all the time at every point and every place, everywhere.


AHA!


With that knowledge, I can create the GUT!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Everything is racist. If you can't win something, that's because it's racist, if something is working better than you'd like it to, that's because it is racist.
If you have failed at life, it is because everything is racist all the time at every point and every place, everywhere.
qfft

right, because racial inequity has no historical source or legacy and effects the lives of nobody today

Originally posted by inimalist
right, because the racial inequity people are complaining about in avater has no historical source or legacy and effects the lives of nobody today fixed.

Originally posted by inimalist
right, because racial inequity has no historical source or legacy and effects the lives of nobody today btw what is an "inimalist"?

Originally posted by One Free Man
fixed.

it in fact does. The image of the white person saving less developed people from fights they could never win is very common, especially in stories generating from the time of colonialism. It hits a cord with people who have, as recently as the 80s, had their children taken from them to be educated in Christian schools "for their own good".

Obviously Cameron wasn't trying to be racist. However, the point is that he has adopted a very common story telling device that has been used to oppress people, some of whom are still alive. Some discussion about what, if any, effect that might have and the personal experiences that come from being on the losing end of that narrative is probably warranted.

Less warrented is dissmissively insulting people who don't agree with you, especially if you don't know the origins of modern Hollywood cliches.

Originally posted by One Free Man
btw what is an "inimalist"?

me?

the "M" is decadent and superfulous

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Smurfs are communists govern by the wizard-communist Papa smurf.

Love those crazy Dutchs...

Weren't they Belgian? Like Poirot?

Originally posted by inimalist
it in fact does. The image of the white person saving less developed people from fights they could never win is very common, especially in stories generating from the time of colonialism. well, the bad guys were all white, it wasn't like they were portraying the blue people as lesser. It's the same story as Pocahontas. I wouldn't consider that racist, as it is based on historical fact.

Originally posted by One Free Man
well, the bad guys were all white, it wasn't like they were portraying the blue people as lesser. It's the same story as Pocahontas. I wouldn't consider that racist, as it is based on historical fact.

ok

however, there are people who don't agree with you. They see the idea as insulting, because it promotes the idea that without the intervention of "white man", people would be left to die out. Inherent in this is the idea that people want to be helped and that the help is benevolent, or rather, this is seen as irrelevant. The lesser is in the interpretation:

"We are weak alone, but here comes whitey to save the day"

Pocahontas, the movie, was largely inaccurate and faced some of the same criticism, iirc (I was young, and imho Native issues get more play in Canada)

I personally think a better criticism is to say that Cameron was unimaginative as far as the script was concerned, but there are people who interpret it in a racial way. Its like the video games thing though. You don't have to agree that it is racist, just appreciate that there is that connection and maybe pay some respect to it. People certainly shouldn't censor themselves, but they should also not just be passive recipiants of culture.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
would ppl say that if will smith had the lead? they did in hancock so either way some how or another no matter if the hero is white or black somwhere along the line its gonna be racist for someone cause nothing satisfies anyone anymore really.

Originally posted by inimalist
right, because racial inequity has no historical source or legacy and effects the lives of nobody today

Only if your definition of 'racial' inequality is synonymous with that of 'slavery'.

Racism itself, is a fairly new phenomenon, as Michel Foucault explained ie, the social discourse of 'racism' is very new, as opposed to xenophobia which existed at all times, everywhere.
From beginning of human history and civilization, and ever since there were different tribes and those different tribes became...different tribes... there was xenophobia and divide.

I guess the film "Amazing Grace" must be racist then. What with it having a white hero of a black cause.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Only if your definition of 'racial' inequality is synonymous with that of 'slavery'.

Racism itself, is a fairly new phenomenon, as Michel Foucault explained ie, the social discourse of 'racism' is very new, as opposed to xenophobia which existed at all times, everywhere.
From beginning of human history and civilization, and ever since there were different tribes and those different tribes became...different tribes... there was xenophobia and divide.

I think colonialism is more pertant to the discussion than slavery, but I get what you are saying.

My point was more in respect to your sarcasm about people being offended by things with a racial connotation. Agree with them or not, there are items that bring back images of oppression.

I get your point though, and Foucault is amazing, if in love with semantics

Originally posted by jaden101
I guess the film "Amazing Grace" must be racist then. What with it having a white hero of a black cause.



I took a course about the African Diaspora, and a major theme was how black people are responsible for their own freedom.

I don't think either view is comprehensive, but yes, there are people so sensitive to the issue that if no mention of the black contribution is made, they will cry foul. However, this is reasonable given how often they are probably told the equally absurd "White people freed the slaves"

Originally posted by inimalist
I took a course about the African Diaspora,

Now why would you go and do a silly thing like that? You'll only encourage them. Next thing they'll want the vote. And it'll be your fault.

I can't believe that piece of shit is the #2 film of all time.


Carbon fiber skeleton or not, Chewbacca could take any of those freaks.

Originally posted by jaden101
Now why would you go and do a silly thing like that? You'll only encourage them.

jungle fever

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Racism itself, is a fairly new phenomenon

I saw on the History Channel that Arisotle wrote that Greeks had the ideal human skin color as opposed to black Africans and pale Northerners.

^ That isn't just "different tribes", that's about color.

Originally posted by inimalist
jungle fever

There's a cream for that.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Read the shocking news here!

Do you know that old Hollywood cliche where a white guy is the hero of a native race? Well that's happening here in James Cameron's Avatar and some people aren't taking kindly to that.

Like the Titanic, people are sinking low to a new level into ridiculousness.

Movies that had white men leading natives into victory are Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, and Broken Arrow. I don't think people have had an issue with those movies before but when they see a white man leading the giant smurfs to victory against the humans and their spaceships and giant robots, those people knew they have had enough.


I know we need to get the racism nonsense away from the videogames but is it really necessary for the movies to be next on the hit list?

It's stupid and absolutely pisses me off to no end.

The level of stupidity in our society truly makes me want to go live with the penguins.

People are always looking for a way to make something into a racist remark. Like white people have EVER cared about being subtle when it came to racism.

Originally posted by WhiskeyGirl
Like white people have EVER cared about being subtle when it came to racism.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ah, I was thinking of John Travolta.

Haha, as did I.

I wonder if people who tend to find 'racist' elements in films or games, have some kind if need for superiority. As long as they can put down people with talent down to some kind of moral inferiority, they can feel elevated above the rest. Now, to me that's about as fascist as it gets.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok

however, there are people who don't agree with you. They see the idea as insulting, because it promotes the idea that without the intervention of "white man", people would be left to die out. Inherent in this is the idea that people want to be helped and that the help is benevolent, or rather, this is seen as irrelevant. The lesser is in the interpretation:

"We are weak alone, but here comes whitey to save the day"
I disagree. There is loads of precedence of whitey "saving the day". Take africans. they are dying of aids, hunger, canibalism, tribalistic ignorance. Call it racism to say this, but this is what it is. Now look at the african american. here, heating, cooling, westernized philosophy, aidsless, home owners, political power, freedom of speech, equal treatment, etc.

Slavery has indirectly helped every single african american who has claim to a heritage of being subservient to "whitey. (while we're at it, why don't we call black men 'darky?')" If african americans were still in africa, the majority would be dying of aids, dictatorships, poverty, or hunger in a ventless hut, prison, or tribal jungle. Call it racist, but this is true.

And now, you can argue all you want that the current system in 70% of africa is a culture and its racist to trash talk it, but that's bullshit. It's not a culture, its a failing system.

Any culture or heritage an african american has cannot be traced back to africa, and no african american would return to take part in their culture as monstrosities equal to the ones of today were taking part in africa, such as slavery, tribe warfare, canabalism, superstition, rampant disease, nakedness, and a lack of technology.

I'm not going to respect any such connection. Assuming a victim stance because of such a connection is wrong stupid. It's a cooincidence. the connection was not planned. If it was, it's a political message about Iraq.

Originally posted by One Free Man
they are dying of aids, hunger, canibalism,

Is cannibalism really such a big cause of death it should be named after aids and starvation? And but couldn't one argue similarly, as has been done, that the western world have benefited greatly from the exploitation of African colonies as well as the enslavement of Africans. Then one could feasible say that yes, on average the descendants of slaves are better off, but it is not so much thanks to the whites and it is partly not about them being better off but the others being worse off.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I disagree. There is loads of precedence of whitey "saving the day". Take africans. they are dying of aids, hunger, canibalism, tribalistic ignorance. Call it racism to say this, but this is what it is. Now look at the african american. here, heating, cooling, westernized philosophy, aidsless, home owners, political power, freedom of speech, equal treatment, etc.

Slavery has indirectly helped every single african american who has claim to a heritage of being subservient to "whitey. (while we're at it, why don't we call black men 'darky?')" If african americans were still in africa, the majority would be dying of aids, dictatorships, poverty, or hunger in a ventless hut, prison, or tribal jungle. Call it racist, but this is true.

And now, you can argue all you want that the current system in 70% of africa is a culture and its racist to trash talk it, but that's bullshit. It's not a culture, its a failing system.


The failing systems as you call it were caused by the people from the West, Europeans. A lot of these countries have been corrupted by the West during the colonisation days. Heck, they just divided this continent up among themselves, took what they wanted etc. And now we leave them to rot. We owe a lot of our riches to what we stole from Africa and other colonies. We have more than enough money, food and resources to deal with all the problems these countries have. But we don't because money people rule.

And if you think that a country like America has learned from this history... Alas. Look at Iraq, they're making the exact same mistakes: invade at will, take what you want, leave the country in ruins.

And no, this has not so much to do with racism, I wish there was something like a ideology behind it. But it's all about greed, money, greed, money and lot of selfish indifference.

Originally posted by queeq
The failing systems as you call it were caused by the people from the West, Europeans. A lot of these countries have been corrupted by the West during the colonisation days. Heck, they just divided this continent up among themselves, took what they wanted etc. And now we leave them to rot. We owe a lot of our riches to what we stole from Africa and other colonies. We have more than enough money, food and resources to deal with all the problems these countries have. But we don't because money people rule.

And if you think that a country like America has learned from this history... Alas. Look at Iraq, they're making the exact same mistakes: invade at will, take what you want, leave the country in ruins.

And no, this has not so much to do with racism, I wish there was something like a ideology behind it. But it's all about greed, money, greed, money and lot of selfish indifference. what did we take that wasn't already being taken? People? sure, but we gave them better lives here. They weren't sex slaves and religious sacrifices in america.

Resources? Not really. they have everything they did before "whitey" invaded.

South africa? fine. sure. white people have south africa. It's a tiny tip at the bottom of a vast continent.

We didn't cause aids, we didn't take all of their food, and if giving them western technology is going to be blamed for this, I revert to "it's not the hammer that hit your friend on the head, it's you who hit your friend on the head".

Every genocidal, irresponsible, petty politician to reign in africa in the last 50 years has been black.

We didn't cause anything in africa.

as for Iraq, if we were just their to take(oil as some say), why isn't my gas 50c a gallon?

Why are my taxes extra to pay for it?

and people who want to help nigerian starving people have to smuggle food in, or they are denied by the authorities. We are unable to help in many countries due to the governments.

It must be great to have such a lack of historical perspective.

OFM does have a point and not only with African countries but also with Spanish speaking countries in the Americas. Third world countries will continue to have revolutions over and over again UNTIL their political cultures change and I don't mean chaging to shit like socialism. It's a fail system for these nations. Capitalism continues to be introduce to them and little by little they're learning it. Within time they will adapt and drop their old ways.

Originally posted by queeq


And if you think that a country like America has learned from this history... Alas. Look at Iraq, they're making the exact same mistakes: invade at will, take what you want, leave the country in ruins.



There is a rebuilding process happening.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I disagree. There is loads of precedence of whitey "saving the day". Take africans. they are dying of aids, hunger, canibalism, tribalistic ignorance. Call it racism to say this, but this is what it is. Now look at the african american. here, heating, cooling, westernized philosophy, aidsless, home owners, political power, freedom of speech, equal treatment, etc.

Slavery has indirectly helped every single african american who has claim to a heritage of being subservient to "whitey. (while we're at it, why don't we call black men 'darky?')" If african americans were still in africa, the majority would be dying of aids, dictatorships, poverty, or hunger in a ventless hut, prison, or tribal jungle. Call it racist, but this is true.

And now, you can argue all you want that the current system in 70% of africa is a culture and its racist to trash talk it, but that's bullshit. It's not a culture, its a failing system.

Any culture or heritage an african american has cannot be traced back to africa, and no african american would return to take part in their culture as monstrosities equal to the ones of today were taking part in africa, such as slavery, tribe warfare, canabalism, superstition, rampant disease, nakedness, and a lack of technology.

I'm not going to respect any such connection. Assuming a victim stance because of such a connection is wrong stupid. It's a cooincidence. the connection was not planned. If it was, it's a political message about Iraq.

unrelated to my point and grossly inaccurate anyways

Originally posted by queeq
It must be great to have such a lack of historical perspective.

people like to hate.


I loathe those people

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
There is a rebuilding process happening.


They TRY to rebuild. They're not very good at it.

Originally posted by queeq
It must be great to have such a lack of historical perspective. Please, my friend, correct my "lack of historical perspective." the third world countries will continue to have civil wars into eternity, regardless of "white" intervention.

So how much do you know about the colonisation of Africa between the 1600's and the 1900's? Because if the answer is "nothing" your lack can only be corrective by some major reading and/or schooling.

Avatar is made of many chliches that
are known to work on movies, i dont
see any racist problem is just a white
men saving blue aliens. however each
person can make an analogy of the story
to their own circumnstances or episodes
in history.

I dont think Cameron has a racist agenda
or anything like that, he is just trying to
show a positive message, but people
can see it on different sides of the coin.

Originally posted by queeq
The failing systems as you call it were caused by the people from the West, Europeans. A lot of these countries have been corrupted by the West during the colonisation days. Heck, they just divided this continent up among themselves, took what they wanted etc. And now we leave them to rot. We owe a lot of our riches to what we stole from Africa and other colonies. We have more than enough money, food and resources to deal with all the problems these countries have. But we don't because money people rule.

And if you think that a country like America has learned from this history... Alas. Look at Iraq, they're making the exact same mistakes: invade at will, take what you want, leave the country in ruins.

And no, this has not so much to do with racism, I wish there was something like a ideology behind it. But it's all about greed, money, greed, money and lot of selfish indifference.

That is the nature of imperialism, and money, alas is in the nature of capitalism. Someone somewhere must rot in poverty and agony so that someone somewhere could have so much money he/she is not actually sure how much that is.
Capitalism.

The most hard working people are those that are lowest paid - take a look at the factory workers, at the actual working class.
Then take others for example - sitting in an office, surfing internet, drinking grande latte from starbucks...

In capitalism, only those who control the capital are the ones who are always better off. And in order to remain better off, they exploit those who do not control the capital.
Works the same on a global or micro scale.

I'm not justifying it, far from it, but this is the price others pay for turbo capitalism.

Originally posted by queeq
So how much do you know about the colonisation of Africa between the 1600's and the 1900's? Because if the answer is "nothing" your lack can only be corrective by some major reading and/or schooling. And how much did america, ireland, and/or sweden colonize of africa? Nothing. therefor I am spotless of all blame, much as much as america is.

Europe did, but that's expected. I don't care about europe. I'm talking about slavery in america.

and, like LB said, that's much more of a capitalism issue than a racism issue. They didn't colonize africa because of race.

I was talking about america when I said that the africans we brought here are better off than the ones in africa. You said we were to blame for the situation in africa. America didn't colonize africa, therefor we are not.

In fact, america ensured the decolonization of the entire continent by 1980.

America is a longer younger and has hit its colonisation puberty in the second half of the 20th century. And now it's making all the same mistakes the Europeans did. Not surprising that America was a colony itself and that Europeans made it to what it is today.
Now, with America being the largest economy in the world, consuming per citizen on average the most of the earth's resources and leaving poor counmtries to rot, does kinda make it responsible.

But apparantly you prefer the isolationist approach America has always advocated: "we only care about ourselves, screw the rest."

Originally posted by One Free Man
And how much did america, ireland, and/or sweden colonize of africa? Nothing. therefor I am spotless of all blame, much as much as america is.

Um im pretty sure there were some Irish people involved in it but not the nation as a whole. If yoiu have Irish ancestry you most likely have english blood as well, or Welsh etc

Originally posted by One Free Man
that's much more of a capitalism issue than a racism issue. They didn't colonize africa because of race.

This is very important.

Slavery was NEVER about racism. It was always and only about money.

Racism was later encouraged, because enslaved white people (yes there were white slaves) were in the same situation as the enslaved black people, the slave owners feared rebelion and/or trouble.
They were also '' mélangeaient '' with each other which also posed a threat.

They therefore encouraged division based on skin colour, as devision by class was impossible.

Originally posted by queeq

But apparantly you prefer the isolationist approach America has always advocated: "we only care about ourselves, screw the rest." Yes. Let them do whatever they want.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Yes. Let them do whatever they want.

The Monroe Doctrine, really isn't all that applicable in today's interconnected world.

Hardly... And not just because of electronic interconnections. Also because a lot of resources come from other countries and we don't consider very civilised anymore to harass and subject other peoples. And air pollution goes everywhere.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Yes. Let them do whatever they want.

For someone who presumably considers themselves to be particularly liberal and enlightened, you are a complete arse.

Originally posted by Deadline
Um im pretty sure there were some Irish people involved in it but not the nation as a whole. If yoiu have Irish ancestry you most likely have english blood as well, or Welsh etc

ireland didn't colonize anywhere. they were too busy recovering after fighting off the english.

Originally posted by -Pr-
ireland didn't colonize anywhere. they were too busy recovering after fighting off the english.

I know they didn't. What im saying is there were Irish individuals involved in the process but not as a whole.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
For someone who presumably considers themselves to be particularly liberal and enlightened, you are a complete arse.

He does?

From his posts, I thought he was a typical redneck.

Is there a difference?

Originally posted by queeq
Is there a difference?



Yes. They are opposites.


Rednecks are conservatives, to the max. I live in redneckville: Oklahoma. There's plenty of racist, ignorant, God-fearing conservatives here. Waaaay too many, in fact.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Read the shocking news here!

Do you know that old Hollywood cliche where a white guy is the hero of a native race? Well that's happening here in James Cameron's Avatar and some people aren't taking kindly to that.

Like the Titanic, people are sinking low to a new level into ridiculousness.

Movies that had white men leading natives into victory are Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, and Broken Arrow. I don't think people have had an issue with those movies before but when they see a white man leading the giant smurfs to victory against the humans and their spaceships and giant robots, those people knew they have had enough.


I know we need to get the racism nonsense away from the videogames but is it really necessary for the movies to be next on the hit list?

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

Well said.

Originally posted by Deadline
I know they didn't. What im saying is there were Irish individuals involved in the process but not as a whole.

which makes one free man right, then.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He does?

From his posts, I thought he was a typical redneck.

He had a V for Vendetta thingy and is called One Free Man. That indicated to me that he at least assumes he is both liberal and hugely enlightened.

Assumes... indeed.

Originally posted by -Pr-
which makes one free man right, then.

No he isn't because Ireland was involved quite abit and in slavery as well. Ireland didn't colonise Africa but they helped the English.

that kind of contradicts what you just said though

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
that kind of contradicts what you just said though

I edited my post. Not sure if that helps.

Avatar Destroys Star Wars!


http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-01-17-box-office_N.htm?csp=34


Oooohhhh!!!!!

Batsy is next!

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Avatar Destroys Star Wars!


http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-01-17-box-office_N.htm?csp=34


Oooohhhh!!!!!

Batsy is next!

I hope they are taking inflation and ticket prise differences into consideration when calculating that.

Don't worry, they aren't.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Avatar Destroys Star Wars!


http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-01-17-box-office_N.htm?csp=34


Oooohhhh!!!!!

Batsy is next!

Think again. After adjusting Avatar is only #34

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Originally posted by Deadline
No he isn't because Ireland was involved quite abit and in slavery as well. Ireland didn't colonise Africa but they helped the English.

no they weren't. no they didn't.

one or two deserting b*stards does not constitute "the irish".

Of course it's not racist.

Jesus.

Why is there even such a discussion?

-AC

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Think again. After adjusting Avatar is only #34

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

From the same site:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
From the same site:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

No one denies that, it's just pointless.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
From the same site:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

So if we ignore the effects of inflation and don't look at foreign market Avatar is in the top five. Isn't that sort of like saying everything is green so long as we ignore everything that isn't green?

I'm not ignoring...just pointing out other charts from your site.

I don't really like how they arrive at the "adjusted for inflation" thing, it's not quite fair, it's definitely better than absolutely unadjusted.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I'm not ignoring...just pointing out other charts from your site.

It was a completely irrelevant link to post then, so please do not waste time.

Can we keep this one on topic, please?

Originally posted by -Pr-
oh sweet christ.

look at the years when that happened.

back then? irish people THEMSELVES were slaves.

That's not really relevant. Black people participated eagerly in the slave trade.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not really relevant. Black people participated eagerly in the slave trade.

the irish people back then were under the heel of the british. the only people who had any power or any influence were the anglo-irish (who yes, had slaves). they were not representative of the irish people or the irish nationality.

This is spectacularly NOT the topic. You should know better, PR.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is spectacularly NOT the topic. You should know better, PR.

i was giving him the courtesy of a reply, nothing more.

Then you should have done it by PM- getting another comment in on something off-topic is still just off-topic, and there are no such excuses for it after such a clear declaration by a mod.

.

Ok, next person who makes an off-topic post here gets an official warning as a prelude to a ban.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Then you should have done it by PM- getting another comment in on something off-topic is still just off-topic, and there are no such excuses for it after such a clear declaration by a mod.

facepalm

fine, whatever.



no, avatar isn't racist. anyone who thinks it is, is being an idiot.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, next person who makes an off-topic post here gets an official warning as a prelude to a ban.

Ush wants us to talk about racism.

I will just raise the point...why is this film even consider racist?

The accusation is that it conforms to a stereotype that non-white races can only stand up for thesmelves when helped by a white hero.

Avatar is a retelling of the story Pocahontas. Pocahontas is based on a true story. Can a true story be racist in the way this thread is questioning?

Well, that is always found in practically 50-80% (or even higher) of sci-fi/fantasy works. Which coincidently is writen by anglo-white (no emphasis) folks.

So, yeah...it's blatant racist.

First of all, the parallels with Pocahontas do not stand up to scrutinity; Dances with Wolves or Ferngully is better.

Secondly, yes, because the Pocahontas story is exceptionally racist and was part of a culture used as justification for 'civilising' the native AMeircans.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Well, that is always found in practically 50-80% (or even higher) of sci-fi/fantasy works. Which coincidently is writen by anglo-white (no emphasis) folks.


Err... no. The concept under discussion here does not happen in the majority of sci-fi films. This is simply an untrue statement.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err... no. The concept under discussion here does not happen in the majority of sci-fi films. This is simply an untrue statement.

If you read my post carefully I stated "sci-fi/fantasy works" which is a true statement.





Edit (going off topic please disregard since I can't delete post)

My apologies.

No it is not a true statement. Is is an actively untrue statement.

See, I can't argue with you because then I be will bringing a TON of material (which serves as proof) that will no longer be on topic.

Therefore I can't argue any further.

I have to step down.

As you wish- it was a blatantly untrue statement.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, the parallels with Pocahontas do not stand up to scrutinity; Dances with Wolves or Ferngully is better.

Secondly, yes, because the Pocahontas story is exceptionally racist and was part of a culture used as justification for 'civilising' the native AMeircans.

So, if a white man, in real life, were to help an indigenous people from a real threat, would that be considered racist?

I think you are confused as to what happened in real life. What happened in real life is that John Rolfe brought a girl from the Americas back home, taught her to be like a European and then paraded her around basically saying "Look at this! These people can be made to be just like us! Isn't it great?"

Short of a massacre, it was about as racist as you can get,- saying that the only way these people could have value was in that they could be made to be exactly like Chrisitan whites.

There was no defending against a common threat at any point.

That's the basis of Pocahontas, so that's hardly a defence of Avatar.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if a white man, in real life, were to help an indigenous people from a real threat, would that be considered racist?

no, but how is that relevant? The issue is social myth bolstered by common cultural narratives

Originally posted by inimalist
no, but how is that relevant? The issue is social myth bolstered by common cultural narratives

So, what is the remedy?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, but how is that relevant?

It is relevant because stories get distorted depending on the agenda of a storyteller. Remember that old saying?

"History is writen by the winners"

That's what Shaky was moving....

Avatar story is nothing new...since we've seen relative story tellers from Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves.



"Without the whites you people are BACKWARDS"







On a side note...I'm really SORRY if I'm shifting the topic. But come on man! Racism and fiction is a very broad discussion.

My farts might be racist if you listen to them a certain way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, what is the remedy?

to which issue?

do we want people to stop being offended by inadvertent references to things that happened in the past or do we want people to be so sensitive to racial and cultural issues that they no longer produce anything that might challenge people?

I don't even know if I see a problem. It is unfortunate that such common story-lines in our culture are based on items previously used to justify oppression, but we probably shouldn't throw out some of our oldest rhetorical devices just because some can find offense with them.

What is problematic, I suppose, is that Cameron wasn't attempting to be transgressive with the film. The antagonists are clearly supposed to be "Imperial America", but beyond that, he has said there is no real political message behind the work, because he wanted to make it appealing to all audiences. That he could include such obvious allusions to stories that have impacted the lives of people still living without that being the intent shows a total lack of understanding of "others".

Obviously, the best thing we can do is discuss the issue rationally. Like I said earlier, it surprises me that white people seem much more enraged by the potential racial connotations of the film than do minorities.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It is relevant because stories get distorted depending on the agenda of a storyteller.

exactly

thus, it is irrelevant if a single white man ever helped any non-white people. The stories themselves represent the topic of discussion, their origins and validity unrelated to how they are used in the social setting to justify policy and action.

Originally posted by inimalist
to which issue?

do we want people to stop being offended by inadvertent references to things that happened in the past or do we want people to be so sensitive to racial and cultural issues that they no longer produce anything that might challenge people?

I don't even know if I see a problem. It is unfortunate that such common story-lines in our culture are based on items previously used to justify oppression, but we probably shouldn't throw out some of our oldest rhetorical devices just because some can find offense with them.

What is problematic, I suppose, is that Cameron wasn't attempting to be transgressive with the film. The antagonists are clearly supposed to be "Imperial America", but beyond that, he has said there is no real political message behind the work, because he wanted to make it appealing to all audiences. That he could include such obvious allusions to stories that have impacted the lives of people still living without that being the intent shows a total lack of understanding of "others".

Obviously, the best thing we can do is discuss the issue rationally. Like I said earlier, it surprises me that white people seem much more enraged by the potential racial connotations of the film than do minorities.

I'm sorry, I should have made my self more clear.

So, what what do you do to fix a movie like Avatar so that it is not racist?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, I should have made my self more clear.

So, what what do you do to fix a movie like Avatar so that it is not racist?

I'm of a totally different mindset

you can't avoid such allusions, so don't just do them without any awareness. I'm not saying Cameron should have done anything different with his work, I'm just saying that we should then be open to discussing the potential interpretations of it.

there are clearly different types of "racism". That probably isn't even the correct term in this instance.

My point, I suppose, is a reaction to those who seem to think any time people feel oppressed by mainstream society it is their own fault, as if modern culture is racially inert. My complaint would be that Cameron didn't push the issue enough, or that it was an unconscious subplot, not that it could be racist.

Originally posted by inimalist
exactly

thus, it is irrelevant if a single white man ever helped any non-white people. The stories themselves represent the topic of discussion, their origins and validity unrelated to how they are used in the social setting to justify policy and action.

But as you well know...history does tend to repeat itself. So there will be similar events happening in the future. The origins are very indeed valid and important.

As mythologist Joseph Campbell said once (and Shaky you going to love this) :

"A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself."

That is the basis of the story....however, storytellers these days care more about what color of skin the hero happens to be.

Good god,people are always stirring up something that is being racists.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself."

That is the basis of the story....however, storytellers these days care more about what color of skin the hero happens to be.

I dont understand your point...

are you saying that the film is entirely racially inert?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm of a totally different mindset

you can't avoid such allusions, so don't just do them without any awareness. I'm not saying Cameron should have done anything different with his work, I'm just saying that we should then be open to discussing the potential interpretations of it.

there are clearly different types of "racism". That probably isn't even the correct term in this instance.

My point, I suppose, is a reaction to those who seem to think any time people feel oppressed by mainstream society it is their own fault, as if modern culture is racially inert. My complaint would be that Cameron didn't push the issue enough, or that it was an unconscious subplot, not that it could be racist.

I think we are in agreement on this issue.

Originally posted by inimalist
I dont understand your point...

are you saying that the film is entirely racially inert?

Arrrghhh!!!!....see, I CAN'T get any further in that direction....as you saw Ush wants us IN TOPIC. Therefore, I cannot go any further.

Honestly, any discussion with a Racism tag attach to it is too broad to discuss....we need approval or otherwise...warning will be given.

It is better to just drop the subject. Since limits to the discussion have been impose.

Ush wanted people to stop discussing Ireland

Feel free to explain it to me, Ush can give me the warning if he wants, I take full credit

No, he clearly was addressing in general.

Better take it to the PM option.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
See, I can't argue with you because then I be will bringing a TON of material (which serves as proof) that will no longer be on topic.

Therefore I can't argue any further.

I have to step down.

You could open a thread on the topic and bring out that material. I'd be interested since I don't quite follow your 50 - 80% claim.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think you are confused as to what happened in real life. What happened in real life is that John Rolfe brought a girl from the Americas back home, taught her to be like a European and then paraded her around basically saying "Look at this! These people can be made to be just like us! Isn't it great?"

Short of a massacre, it was about as racist as you can get,- saying that the only way these people could have value was in that they could be made to be exactly like Chrisitan whites.

There was no defending against a common threat at any point.

That's the basis of Pocahontas, so that's hardly a defence of Avatar.

I think people mostly compare it with Disney's Pocahontas, which is somewhat similar to Avatar. You probably know that though on second thought and were solely replying on the historical perspective. Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Arrrghhh!!!!....see, I CAN'T get any further in that direction....as you saw Ush wants us IN TOPIC. Therefore, I cannot go any further.

Honestly, any discussion with a Racism tag attach to it is too broad to discuss....we need approval or otherwise...warning will be given.

It is better to just drop the subject. Since limits to the discussion have been impose.

An answer to inimalist would be totally on topic, no?



Anyways, I read an interesting article about the "white guilt" aspect of Avatar and a comparison with District 9, which I though was pretty good.

http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar

I haven't seen District 9, but in concept this part made a lot of sense to me.

"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. Jake never really knows what it's like to be a Na'vi because he always has the option to switch back into human mode. Interestingly, Wikus in District 9 learns a very different lesson. He's becoming alien and he can't go back. He has no other choice but to live in the slums and eat catfood. And guess what? He really hates it. He helps his alien buddy to escape Earth solely because he's hoping the guy will come back in a few years with a "cure" for his alienness. When whites fantasize about becoming other races, it's only fun if they can blithely ignore the fundamental experience of being an oppressed racial group. Which is that you are oppressed, and nobody will let you be a leader of anything."

Originally posted by Kovacs86
For someone who presumably considers themselves to be particularly liberal and enlightened, you are a complete arse. Liberal... and enlightened... How can these two things be put in the same sentence together? I'm what you would call an "atheist" in the church of politics.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Liberal... and enlightened... How can these two things be put in the same sentence together? I'm what you would call an "atheist" in the church of politics.

I like that line....Who did you steal it from?

Originally posted by jaden101
I like that line....Who did you steal it from? No-one. I wrote it. It was part of my "Alignment" essay for my critical thinking English class last year.

Edit: It was an analogy of a church as a government. In this "church" everyone in the clergy blindly places faith in the preacher (president), the "bible (constitution and amendments)" and the Elders, while they continuously revise the "bible" and reinterpret it so that they can manipulate the lives of the clergy. The clergy whines about the present arangements no matter what they are, thinking they are creative or free because they get that much say in the matter, but the truly free ones are the ones who identify the lie and become independant.

Originally posted by One Free Man
No-one. I wrote it. It was part of my "Alignment" essay for my critical thinking English class last year.

Well then I may at some point steal it from you.

Originally posted by jaden101
Well then I may at some point steal it from you. Imitation is the sincerest form of compliment. (<--this I stole)

Originally posted by One Free Man
Imitation is the sincerest form of compliment. (<--this I stole)

Flattery...Close enough though.

Charles Caleb Colton

Originally posted by jaden101
Charles Caleb Colton

maybe that was just his excuse for stealing the line?

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe that was just his excuse for stealing the line? What line? >.>

the joke was: maybe saying "imitation is the highest form of flattery" was Charles Caleb Colton's excuse for stealing that line from someone.

it was lame, I guess

Originally posted by inimalist
the joke was: maybe saying "imitation is the highest form of flattery" was Charles Caleb Colton's excuse for stealing that line from someone.

it was lame, I guess Well if you think about it a bit, it has that cerebral ironic kind of cleverness. Not really a "ROFL" funny.