/Unitedbank
/Eedition

Does the recent blockbuster 'Avatar' perpetuate the white messiah myth?

Posted by
in Opinion
Tuesday, January 12. 2010
Comments (25)
Every age produces its own sort of fables, and our age seems to have produced The White Messiah fable.

Please login or register to read the rest of this story.
Bookmark and Share
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
#1 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 09:07 AM
Haven't seen it yet...not really interested.
#2 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 09:32 AM
I suppose it depends on perception. To some people, Jesus was white.
#3 anonymous on 01/12/10 at 09:34 AM
this is so stupid. just make everything thats good black i could care less. this world is about to get whats coming to it. the morals of this country is so sick. everywhere you look babies running around and no fathers.
#4 Enoc Siuol on 01/12/10 at 09:40 AM
Isn’t it interesting how we always create this dualistic mindset where there is good vs evil. Could it ever be so simple? We always take all that we don’t like about ourselves or mankind and project it on to our brother and call it evil. We do this just so we won’t have to look at ourselves in the mirror and recognize what we don’t like. On the global sense we do the same. Man against man, Man against himself, Man against nature or the environment, Man against his God, God against Man, what an absolute insane reality we create for ourselves. Oh well, it has its entertainment value.
#5 Psycho on 01/12/10 at 09:44 AM
Avatar was a good movie. Not anything new in story, but as far as graphics it was a big step up from what we have seen. I think it was made more so to try out the directors new technology of filming.

I don't see what the big deal is with the story. It makes me think of Pilgrims and Indians. Stuff like this actually happens in real life. What about John Smith and Pocahontas? Similar story right?
#6 Enoc Siuol on 01/12/10 at 09:53 AM
Very simular
#7 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 10:05 AM
and how many are of mixed race?
#8 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 10:10 AM
Who said black?
#9 Only One on 01/12/10 at 10:49 AM
Yay. A fellow non-dualist. Are you also a Course in Miracles student?
#10 Psycho on 01/12/10 at 11:09 AM
David Brooks the one who started this column Said "The whole White Messiah fable, especially as Cameron applies it, is kind of offensive?" he goes on to say.
"It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades."

Well one; I'm offended by his use of the word white people. I feel he should say American people, but whatever.

Second; Is he saying that Americans have not or is not hurting the environment? Is he saying that America is not over weight?

The natives in the movie are thin and athletic because they have to hunt to survive. Plus did he see the movie? They are bigger than the humans by several feet!

Im sure the idea of the natives being spiritual came from indians. As far as the Americans and religion, the belief of no religion is third to Protestant and Roman Catholic.

So don't we need someone to help out our country? I say we can do it ourselves, but I don't see anyone stepping up.

Movies like this are here to wake us up and try to motivate us into doing what is right, not start hate.

This is a fictional movie, a form of art that can be interpreted many ways. This is just mine.
#11 Enoc Siuol on 01/12/10 at 11:12 AM
We have a tendency to stand out don't we? Especially during a discussion on morality.
#12 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 12:09 PM
I was feeling alone in this small town. I suppose I have more work to do.
#13 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 12:44 PM
It made me think of pilgrams and indians, but who cares? It was a very good movie and I will be going to see it again.
#14 Madison on 01/12/10 at 12:45 PM
I think Brooks uses the term "white people" quite deliberately. Considering the movie was made by a team of white males and the movie focuses around a predominately white team (including the main character who is a white, male Marine) using the term American would falsely homogenize the very point being brought to light.

I don't think Brooks is saying that Americans (word used for your understanding) have both hurt the environment (or at least misunderstood it) and are less athletic due to their difference in life standards.

Your notion about the natives being this and athletic because they are a hunter/gatherer culture is precisely his point. They live a garden of Eden existence that has not been tainted by cell phones, computers, automobiles or the like. They are in tune with the world around them and take only what they need for survival.

And not to split hairs but the notion of agnosticism/no religion/atheism is third to Christianity and Muslim. By definition Catholicism (being Roman, Russian or American) is lumped in with Christianity.

The article was not about needing someone to help our country. If you believe that then I think you carry an imperialistic mindset and are exactly where our government would like you to be. You rest on the benevolence of Uncle Sam and our patriots. WE are not the natives in this illustration. Therefore WE don't need a leader because WE are the ones who are enslaving others.

You state, "movies like this are here to wake up up and try to motivate us into doing what is right, not start hate." I wish to correct you in that movies like this are thinly veiled propaganda films that incorporate old, tried-and-true themes to sell an eye-catching special effects film.

Yes, it can be interpreted in many ways. I completely respect your opinion and admire you for posting it.
#15 Psycho on 01/12/10 at 02:25 PM
Your confusing me.

First when he says white man who is referring to? I thought he was speaking about America. Not the marines in the film. The main character could have been black and I would still get the same moral of the story. I don't see what race has to do with it.

David Brooks is saying that he finds the movies plot offensive. Then lists things like the natives are athletic, spiritual, and so on. Like he dose not like the way the white man is being portrayed. Like white men are not these things. So I related that to Americans. The majority is over weight, a not as spiritual, or helping the environment become better. I was not offended, because I take responsibility for who I am.

I didn't say the article was about someone to help our country. That was my opinion from the movie. It shows me that it not right to miss treat living things for my own gain. That it is okay to stand up and fight for what is right even if the odds are against you and others don't see what they are doing is wrong.

What did you get from the movie?

I do think this county is not in a 3rd would state of help, but it dose need help in some areas do you not agree?

I also don't think that it is up to one man. That was his words not mine.

Besides in the movies it was not one man that fought against the "White man". Other white men and women fought against the "White man" too. He just gave them the push they needed because he was a fighter.

I know it was a long movie but did you guys fall asleep?
#16 Psycho on 01/12/10 at 02:28 PM
I have a question.

What did you think about the movie Wall-E?

It basically said that people that rely too much on technology will end up fat and stupid. No one got offended by that.

So why is it that Avatar show humans from Earth go to a planet and tries to kick an alien race out of their home area by killing them just so they can mine for a rock that can make them rich offend people?

When white men did the same thing to indians in real life!
#17 Madison on 01/12/10 at 02:36 PM
With all due respect, much of Brooks' argument is literal. When he refers to the "white messiah" he is referring to a white man whose cinematic purpose is to save a person or a people. In this case it is the marine saving the people of Pandora. So Brooks' argument would, in fact, be lost on you if you were looking for a more universal moral.

He doesn't find the plot offensive. He finds the rehashing of a timeless scenario (the white messiah) offensive. It has been seen over and over in such movies as 'Last of the Mohicans,' 'Pocahantas' and 'The Last Samurai.'

I totally agree with you in your assessment of it being right to stand up to a moral wrong and fight for what you believe in. Brooks is saying that that is right and that no one needs the "white messiah" character to empower them to do that. Leaders do not always make the battle.

Yes, the United States needs direction. We are missing a purpose and a strategy. But I disagree with the notion that we need someone to guide us to that understanding. Rather, we need the plural. We need leaders, communities and voices.

On a side note, no, I didn't fall asleep. It had slow moments, yes. At least it was long enough to make me feel like it was worth the outrageous ticket price!
#18 Psycho on 01/12/10 at 03:05 PM
Okay, I guess I was looking to deep to see why this movies was offensive to someone. Like he wanted me to read in-between the lines or something, because I just wasn't seeing what was wrong about the movie.

In that case yeah like I said before the movies plot was nothing new, but that's not why I went to watch it. I wanted to see the new graphics tech at work and loved it.
#19 enoc Siuol on 01/12/10 at 04:42 PM
We need to start an ACIM study group.
#20 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 05:24 PM
You got that right about people who rely on technology ending up fat and lazy! If they had to rely on their own selves to survive a lot of people would be dead. The government should stop supporting these types of people and start making them do with out all of the modern things like disposable diapers and instant formula and had to go back to the way it was back before welfare was instigated then the world might not be in the shape it is in.
#21 trollnmotor on 01/12/10 at 06:50 PM
I see the Oprah Book Club fans have chimed in.
#22 Only One on 01/12/10 at 06:55 PM
That would be fantastic! A friend of mine and I were driving to Fayetteville to attend an ACIM study group but had to stop..gas is expensive.
#23 Anonymous on 01/12/10 at 06:56 PM
Frankly who gives a hoot. The movie and its visual effects are wonderful.
#24 Enoc Siuol on 01/13/10 at 04:19 AM
Email me and we will explore the possibility.
lscone@msn.com
#25 Anonymous on 01/13/10 at 05:28 AM
In an earlier stage of our development most human groups held to a tribal ethic. Members of the tribe were protected, but people of other tribes could be robbed or killed as one pleased. Gradually the circle of protection expanded, but as recently as 150 years ago we did not include blacks. So African human beings could be captured, shipped to America, and sold. In Australia white settlers regarded Aborigines as a pest and hunted them down, much as kangaroos are hunted down today. Just as we have progressed beyond the blatantly racist ethic of the era of slavery and colonialism, so we must now progress beyond the speciesist ethic of the era of factory farming, of the use of animals as mere research tools, of whaling, seal hunting, kangaroo slaughter, and the destruction of wilderness. We must take the final step in expanding the circle of ethics. -Peter Singer, philosopher, professor of bioethics (b. 1946)
Only registered users may comment on stories. Please login or register to post comments. Your browser must support cookies.
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Copyright © 2008-2011 The Herald-Gazette