Avatar musings
Jan. 16th, 2010 08:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
concertigrossiOk, so I read the the uncut script to Avatar (I'm fangirling, ok?) And I read this scene, from right after Neytiri starts showing Jake around:
MO’AT, watching Jake and Neytiri, leans over to Eytukan.
MO'AT
(subtitled)
Neytiri will test this “warrior.” Hey may
learn nothing -- but we will learn much.
EYTUKAN
You speak truth. We must understand
these Sky People if we are to drive them
out.
I wish they'd kept it. I really do. Because it shows that the Na'vi aren't passively laying back and allowing the humans to come in and take over. They're trying, dammit. As cool as they are, they're a stone-age people, and without a deep understanding of human military technology and tactics, they have no hope of prevailing. In this scene, we see that the Na'vi understand that.
(Now, a way cooler story would be the Na'vi acquiring the knowledge without the help of the turncoat warrior, but that's not James Cameron, is it.)
See, what gets me about this sort of story is that the natives are always portrayed like this: the Noble Savage, corrupted by Civilization. They are uniformly child-like, naive and innocent.
What a load of 19th century claptrap! They're none of that, goddamnit! They're people!
In Hollywood, it ALWAYS plays out like this. Gentle, peaceful natives are doing their thing. Evil Oppressor comes in, rapes, plunders, pillages and enslaves. It's simple, black-and-white, morally clear and, in my opinion, far more racist than what actually happened.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, if you want to treat all beings equally, you have to allow that all beings are equally capable of being machiavellian bastards.
Look, the leader, who is leader because he convinced a whole bunch of not-stupid people that he should be in charge, is going to weigh anything newly encountered for its threat or profit potential. Why? Because he's the leader, and wishes to remain so! He's worried about the safety of his tribe, and worried that his rival - and every person in a position of power has a rival - will get the edge up on him. Not, "We will accept these newcomers in the spirit of universal peace and brotherhood!" but "Is this going to be a problem? If it is, how do I deal with it? If it's not, how do we work this to our advantage?"
Pizarro could never have conquered the Inca without the help of the surrounding tribes. Why did the surrounding tribes support Pizarro? Because they were sick of the Incans coming in and bossing them around! Did they choose poorly? Yes, they did. Is Pizarro any less guilty of being a cruel, imperialistic motherfucker? No, he's not. But that doesn't make the native South Americans naive pawns, either. When the Plymouth colony was close to death, the question came before Massasoit as to whether they should wipe the remaining Englishmen out. Massasoit seriously considered it. He decided to help them with the hope that his tribe would be granted favored trading status, thus bolstering the Pokanoket's position against all the other tribes in the area. Would it have been better for his tribe had he let the Plymouth colony die? Probably (hindsight is 20/20). Did the English totally screw the Wampanoag over? Certainly. But the point is this: Massasoit chose. He was an active player, not a leaf blown on the wind.
If you took a bunch of humans from all over the world and wiped their minds of their memories and all their inculcated ideas of race and gender, and plopped them down onto an island in the middle of nowhere, after a while, they will pick a chief. Pack dominance is encoded into our DNA from back before Homo Sapiens was a glint in some mutant monkey's eye. And their chief will behave as I've outlined, as leaders have throughout history: they will be smart, they will be canny, and they will be trying their best to prevail, for themselves and their children.
Trying to say otherwise is a denial of their humanity. It's treating them as amusing pets, to be studied as they entertain us, to provide material for graduate theses and cocktail party conversation, but it does not treat them as humans of equal stature.
MO’AT, watching Jake and Neytiri, leans over to Eytukan.
MO'AT
(subtitled)
Neytiri will test this “warrior.” Hey may
learn nothing -- but we will learn much.
EYTUKAN
You speak truth. We must understand
these Sky People if we are to drive them
out.
I wish they'd kept it. I really do. Because it shows that the Na'vi aren't passively laying back and allowing the humans to come in and take over. They're trying, dammit. As cool as they are, they're a stone-age people, and without a deep understanding of human military technology and tactics, they have no hope of prevailing. In this scene, we see that the Na'vi understand that.
(Now, a way cooler story would be the Na'vi acquiring the knowledge without the help of the turncoat warrior, but that's not James Cameron, is it.)
See, what gets me about this sort of story is that the natives are always portrayed like this: the Noble Savage, corrupted by Civilization. They are uniformly child-like, naive and innocent.
What a load of 19th century claptrap! They're none of that, goddamnit! They're people!
In Hollywood, it ALWAYS plays out like this. Gentle, peaceful natives are doing their thing. Evil Oppressor comes in, rapes, plunders, pillages and enslaves. It's simple, black-and-white, morally clear and, in my opinion, far more racist than what actually happened.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, if you want to treat all beings equally, you have to allow that all beings are equally capable of being machiavellian bastards.
Look, the leader, who is leader because he convinced a whole bunch of not-stupid people that he should be in charge, is going to weigh anything newly encountered for its threat or profit potential. Why? Because he's the leader, and wishes to remain so! He's worried about the safety of his tribe, and worried that his rival - and every person in a position of power has a rival - will get the edge up on him. Not, "We will accept these newcomers in the spirit of universal peace and brotherhood!" but "Is this going to be a problem? If it is, how do I deal with it? If it's not, how do we work this to our advantage?"
Pizarro could never have conquered the Inca without the help of the surrounding tribes. Why did the surrounding tribes support Pizarro? Because they were sick of the Incans coming in and bossing them around! Did they choose poorly? Yes, they did. Is Pizarro any less guilty of being a cruel, imperialistic motherfucker? No, he's not. But that doesn't make the native South Americans naive pawns, either. When the Plymouth colony was close to death, the question came before Massasoit as to whether they should wipe the remaining Englishmen out. Massasoit seriously considered it. He decided to help them with the hope that his tribe would be granted favored trading status, thus bolstering the Pokanoket's position against all the other tribes in the area. Would it have been better for his tribe had he let the Plymouth colony die? Probably (hindsight is 20/20). Did the English totally screw the Wampanoag over? Certainly. But the point is this: Massasoit chose. He was an active player, not a leaf blown on the wind.
If you took a bunch of humans from all over the world and wiped their minds of their memories and all their inculcated ideas of race and gender, and plopped them down onto an island in the middle of nowhere, after a while, they will pick a chief. Pack dominance is encoded into our DNA from back before Homo Sapiens was a glint in some mutant monkey's eye. And their chief will behave as I've outlined, as leaders have throughout history: they will be smart, they will be canny, and they will be trying their best to prevail, for themselves and their children.
Trying to say otherwise is a denial of their humanity. It's treating them as amusing pets, to be studied as they entertain us, to provide material for graduate theses and cocktail party conversation, but it does not treat them as humans of equal stature.
