QuoteThat is meant to show the contrast between the foolish evil civilized man who cannot be in harmony with nature, and the Navi who are.

Pfft. You've got quite the imagination. I've got to say.

QuotePaying nature a little visit, and actually living in nature without any of the benefits of civilization, are two very different things.

RPGPundit

It's a bit short sighted to think that you don't live in nature 100% of the day.

Quote from: RPGPundit;352902Quite right, they did provide the world all kinds of wonders. India is a truly ancient culture that has lived through a number of cycles of civilization and decadence. But by the time that the west came along to conquer India, it was back in another stage of decadence.

Except decadence does not mean Savagery. America could be considered decadent at this moment but this does not make it "savage" or in need of "saving" nor does it take away from the fact that it continues to play a vital role in the World. One could argue that Imperialism is a symptom of decadence but again, this would not make the Imperialist, savages. I of course disagee with your assesment that India was decadent it was merely ripe for outright conquest after numerous skirmishes with the British Empire.

QuoteAgain, India had marvelous civilizations, including several that were, at the time, foreign invasions, and it has managed to learn from each of them. Your case study here seems to be arguing in favour of my point, actually.

How so ? Your point is that India was a Savage in need of saving. You changed the tone of your argument to India being decadent. Of course countries learn from their invasions and those invasions were based on expansion and greed but your point was that the later day Imperilaist were in India to save India from Savagery based on altruism which is certainly not the case because :

1. India was already an advanced Civilization which had a relationship with the British Empire

2. Like Western Civilizations, had already gone through it's own process of being delievered from "savagery"
 

QuoteHundreds of years earlier, when the Middle East and India WERE the civilized places, and Europe was clawing its way back out of barbarism, yes, absolutely.

Again, this merely means they were already Civilizations. Unless you are saying that India reverted to barbarism by the time it was colonized, which certainly is not the case. I doubt very much (and you would know more about this) that Europe was clawing it's way out of barbarism. It seems to me, that the Middle East and India learnt a lot from Europe too. I think it was a two way street.

QuoteThat's ironic, because what I consider to be one of the greatest mistakes of colonialism was the sequence of events that allowed Islam to be co-opted by radical fundamentalism. The modern Wahabi movement is entirely a product of European intervention during the colonial era, and a tragic and stupid mistake.

Good point. I was acknowledging Christianity as one of the new paradigms that caused a change in the mindset of the colonized. I think it's important to understand how radical a concept Christianity was at one time. I'm not talking about the religion per se but rather it's use as an agent of social change.

QuoteThat's a deeply cynical view. Again, you can say it was a tainted altruism, but what motivated the western culture as a whole (apart from profiteers) was the sense of responsibility of spreading civilization.

Well the point here is that they wanted to spread "their civilization" which they considered superior. This would have been altruistic if who they were conquering were in fact savages in need of some kind of saving but this was not the case. These "savages" had something they wanted and it was easier to take by force then deal with equals.

QuoteJudging some of the actions and forms of this sense of responsibility by today's modern standards may end up finding it erroneous on many levels; and certainly racism was mixed into things in a way that harmed the whole enterprise, but don't pretend that an entire civilization got up one morning and said "hey, let's go destroy all these people for kicks and our own benefit!"; that's not what was going on.

I don't think they got up one morning said "hey let's go destroy all these people for kicks and for own own benefit" I think it was a slow insidous process where their ideals were warped and they begun to understand how easy it would be if they controlled instead of negotiated.

QuoteLots of other civilizations got rich off of lesser nations they conquered, but did NOT end up developing humanitarian ideals.

Some colonizers were "better" than others. I don't dispute this. In fact I think I acknowledged this in one of my replies.

QuoteYes, that's fair, fine.
What it also means is that ultimately the other half of the blame depends on the choices made by the people in these countries themselves. They are not free of responsibility, praise or blame.

I never said they were free from responsibility or blame.

QuoteNo, I don't think that's the determinant factor. According to you (and others, and yes, a good argument can be made), the English intentionally tried to sabotage India when they left; there were other countries where England or other powers tried to leave on good terms, but the place was subverted by warlords or marxist guerillas. India, in any case, turned out quite well.

I didn't mean intentional sabotage by the Colonial powers. What I meant was, the kind of colonizers they were - the good one or the bad ones, the kind of resistance the natives put up and the kinds of different ideological groups that were created during this time. The alliances made then broken etc.

QuoteThe creation of Pakistan is certainly something that England bears some responsibility, but if I'm not mistaken there was also the little matter of the Muslim intelligentsia in India desperately wanting to create their own state, and millions and millions of muslims in India who were convinced that without the british around to protect them the Hindus would end up devouring them. So like, you know, I don't recall that British troops had to go around forcibly making the state at gunpoint, either.

Jinnah was a prick of the highest order but ultimately it was the British who were in control. They didn't have to go around with troops (although in this case in certain places they did in fact do this) to manipulate the population to get what ultimately benefitted them. Remember their policy was to divide and conquer. The rise of the Muslim intelellgenstia was something they secretly encouraged.

QuoteWell, you were. I'm talking about Civilization. Although, if you really think that the U.S. isn't an imperialist nation, and one of the most successful of all time, you're kind of being blind. They probably did better than the greeks, romans and british combined when it comes to spreading their culture all over the world, the good and the bad.

No, you were talking about the British in India who were indeed Imperialist. You also begun this derail by talking about the altruistic nature of Imperialism. You have so far tried to downplay the difference between Imperialism and Civilization. I have no problem with Western Civilization but I do have a problem with Western Imperiliazation.

And yes American is the most successfull imperialist nation of all time, but I think where they do very well , where they benefit the World most, is through their cultural expansion, which I don't view as a form of imperialism.

QuotePerhaps I wasn't clear, and if so I'm sorry. I do think that western civilization is a superior civilization; there are lots of other civilizations that also have a lot of virtues to them. Then there is savagery, which is different than civilization.

I don't have an issue with this, although I think when we view people as savages, we make all kinds of excuses as to why "we" are better, when the reality is, that they may not be savages at all. I do think that the Imperialist viewed the colonized as savages when they in fact were highly developed civilizations.

QuoteSome of the places that western civilization expanded into had their own previous civilizations, or had already been influenced by earlier civilizations that were also foreign to them. Other areas were barbaric, either having always been barbaric or having fallen into barbarism after long periods of decadence.

Again, decadence does not equal savagery and it certainly does not mean the kind of barbarism that the Roman Empire encountered.

Quote(most of) India in the time of the English domination of India was not savage; it was a decadent civilization.

I disagree with this charatization but again, your main point is that Western Imperialism brought civilization , which is certainly not the case with India and many other countries.

QuoteThe main difference between India and Africa was actually that India already had prior experience of civilization before its encounter with the West; whereas most of sub-saharan Africa did not.

I think this is one factor but like I said, what is really important is the nature of the colonization and the events leading up to liberation, those are the main factors, IMO.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;352903That is meant to show the contrast between the foolish evil civilized man who cannot be in harmony with nature, and the Navi who are.

If, by harmony with nature, you mean beating the shit out of nature and wrestling it to the ground.

From the BBC:

QuoteIs blue the new black? Why some people think Avatar is racist

Mark Mardell | 22:36 UK time, Sunday, 3 January 2010

I am back after the holidays. Christmas day was bracketed by breaking news on health care on Christmas Eve and the underpants bomber on Boxing Day, but for the last few days I have been enjoying some time with the family.

One of the best things we did was see Avatar. Stupendous. Exhilarating. Extraordinary. I never thought 3D could work. The technology is stunning. I admit I am something of a science fiction buff, but I think most people are going to be blown away by this film. Predictably, columnists who live to attack whatever is successful and put the counter-intuitive point of view are having a field day.

But the criticism that has intrigued me is the charge that the film is racist.

I have tried in writing this not to blow the plot, but inevitably there are some spoilers. For those who don't know already, the story centres on a conflict between greedy corporate human invaders and the planet's inhabitants, 10-foot tall, blue-skinned people with rather feline features and tails. One of many such blogs argues that "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."

With a certain accuracy critics have pointed out that all the "human" characters are played by white actors and all the blue, cat-like Na'vi are played by non-whites. With a degree of American insularity they also say that because they use bows and arrows and wear feathers they are "really" native Americans. This ignores tribal indigenous people from New Guinea to Brazil, so deliberately misses a wider point.

The debate in the US is conditioned by the long-running argument among sci-fi writers and fans about the "magical negro". It is a term coined by black critics who noted white authors often featured non-white characters possessed of a certain sort of natural wisdom, mystic powers, who play sidekick to the white hero and often sacrifice themselves for the central character. They are a variant on the much-older ideal of the "noble savage".

If I have understood correctly, the critics say this is demeaning because the character, who need not actually be black, but native American or some other ethnic group, acts only to help the whites central to the story, and isn't part of a racial group, doesn't have a back story, or a fully developed character but is essentially a plot device. I'd note that American fiction has quite often featured a "magic janitor" and I think the key is what the author perceives on a very basic level as otherness as much as race.

The term surfaced in the political arena during the last presidential elections when in the LA times David Ehrenstein suggested Barack Obama was a magical negro: "Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes."

It is a thoughtful article, disturbing for its unspoken assumption that Obama is a self-constructed stereotype, not a real person and that "authentic" black people behave in a certain way.

In any case the term was gleefully taken up by Obama's opponents and set to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. You might guess their purpose was not to advance post-structuralist criticism but to earn the licence to repeat the naughty word "negro" and make fun of the candidate.

Thank the powers, of whatever race, that no-one has suggested that any character in Avatar is "really" the president. Although I thought I spotted Donald Rumsfeld on the big screen. The criticism of Avatar is an extension of the "magical Negro" idea. Indeed at one level it is an inversion of it: "the magical Caucasian" who turns out to be an even nobler savage than the common and garden, bred-to-it variety. Tarzan, Lord of Greystokes, Lord of the Jungle has to be top of the tree in this game. The central complaint is that in Avatar it takes a white hero to lead the natives.

This seems to miss two points. The first is simply about the way narrative works. The critics' version of the film would be very dull. Bad people land on planet. Good people defeat them - virtuous but not much of a story arc. An emotional journey, learning and changing are better narrative. Raising age-old questions about whether it is better to be true to your values and your friends rather than your country (species) is more thought-provoking than most Hollywood blockbusters manage.

My second objection is more profound. I strongly believe the racial divide has been the driving force in American history, and continues to play a huge, and often under-discussed role in its politics. I am not one to underestimate its power.

But that doesn't mean everything is about that debate. One of the reasons I like sci-fi, apart from the escapism, is the way it explores political ideas, old and new. The film is actually a rather old-fashioned, liberal, morality tale. As in many futures imagined by authors over the last several decades the company has replaced the state as the agent of colonialism and greedy conquest. Then there is the mainstay of Hollywood morality, the underdog mounting a ferocious fight-back. Added to the mix is a healthy dose of new age Gaia-ism (Pandoraism?). The idea of weaker opponents fighting back against a military force with an apparently overwhelming technological superiority, aided by the enemy within, surely echoes not only Vietnam but conflicts much closer to us in time and space. Perhaps it is easier for American critics to think it is about race.

Oddly enough I read a rather subtler take on the idea of technology versus nature just a few days after seeing the film. My wife bought me Peter F Hamilton's Fallen Dragon for Christmas. It is much more compact and better written than his past sprawling space operas but equally packed with ideas. One chapter sees the company's military defeated in a way very familiar to viewers of Avatar. The twist is, the planetary defenders of Santa Chico are not aboriginal but come from elsewhere, post-humans genetically mutated into a state of harmony with the local flora and fauna, which are themselves itself genetically uplifted into a state of scientifically ennobled post savagery. The natives are originally from California. I always thought the West Coast was magic.

Quote from: David R;352915Except decadence does not mean Savagery. America could be considered decadent at this moment but this does not make it "savage" or in need of "saving" nor does it take away from the fact that it continues to play a vital role in the World. One could argue that Imperialism is a symptom of decadence but again, this would not make the Imperialist, savages. I of course disagee with your assesment that India was decadent it was merely ripe for outright conquest after numerous skirmishes with the British Empire.

Actually, the entire western world is falling into decadence. The abandonment of all previous moral standpoints, and the rise in anti-civilization movements (including the incredible success and blind acceptance by average people of the premises in this film) is a clear sign of that, as one of the first steps of the decadence of a civilization is that people stop actually believing in the worth of civilization.

So while the west is not quite reduced to savagery yet (that takes time), I do think it is very much DESPERATELY in need of "saving".

QuoteHow so ? Your point is that India was a Savage in need of saving. You changed the tone of your argument to India being decadent.  :

Well, actually, way back when, you will recall I was talking about the Gauls, Iberians and Britons under the Romans, who were much better examples of real Savagery; but then you insisted on changing the topic into being about the British empire and India, probably because this allows you to conflate the issue with accusations of racism, and because its a much messier example.

QuoteAgain, this merely means they were already Civilizations.

You're making this whole line of argument, only it sounds from other elements of your debating that you don't actually believe that there's such a thing as any culture without civilization?  Do you believe that everything is just civilization, and equally good? Do you think that people wearing a leather thong, shitting in the field and ritually cannibalizing their neighbours are identical in value as a civilization that built the Louvre, the Statue of Liberty or wrote War and Peace or invented the internet? Just checking...

QuoteI doubt very much (and you would know more about this) that Europe was clawing it's way out of barbarism. It seems to me, that the Middle East and India learnt a lot from Europe too. I think it was a two way street.

I presumed that when you say Europe learned a lot of lessons from the Middle East, that you are talking about the period shortly before, during, and shortly after the Renaissance. At this point, Europe had lost almost all of the remnants of the Roman Civiliization; which granted being the greatest civilization that had ever existed up to that point, left behind a lot of remnants, but essentially the Europeans at that time had fallen into a kind of barbarism.  In 1000 AD, when there were street lights and running water in the muslim city of Cordoba, in rome the population had been reduced to a pathetic 20000 living among the rubble of what had once been the greatest testament to humanity of all time, Paris had about the same population and there wasn't even a sewer system, never mind running water. People shat on the streets and it festered there. Europeans had lost some of the most basic concepts of mathematics, medicine, art, philosophy, music, architecture; they had to relearn ALL of these things from the middle-east. So yes, at that time, the muslim world was civilized, and the European world was barbaric.

QuoteI disagree with this charatization but again, your main point is that Western Imperialism brought civilization , which is certainly not the case with India and many other countries.

Which others? What other countries that were colonized by the west can you claim were on-par with India as a civilization?

RPGPundit

I wouldn't delve too much in the alleged message of the movie, as it is just an enormous crock of stupid shit, IMO. I'm sad that I wasted 12 € in that crap.

Quote from: RPGPundit;352988Actually, the entire western world is falling into decadence. The abandonment of all previous moral standpoints, and the rise in anti-civilization movements (including the incredible success and blind acceptance by average people of the premises in this film) is a clear sign of that, as one of the first steps of the decadence of a civilization is that people stop actually believing in the worth of civilization.

Um, you do understand that the main reason why the film is so popular is because of it’s special effects and the fact it’s a very populist genre. You do know this, right ? And if some do agree with the premises of the film, it’s not because they think Cameron is anti civilization and anti humanist (and if anyone is interested in what I think of this film and Cameron’s films in general, just let me know) I disagree with your assessment as to why the West is falling into decadence but it’s not a discussion I want to have.

QuoteWell, actually, way back when, you will recall I was talking about the Gauls, Iberians and Britons under the Romans, who were much better examples of real Savagery; but then you insisted on changing the topic into being about the British empire and India, probably because this allows you to conflate the issue with accusations of racism, and because its a much messier example.

Well of course your examples were more convenient and less messy. We were talking about spreading civilization (amongst other goals) by force, in other words Imperialism. Real world examples other than yours needed to be introduced. If you believe that Imperialism brought civilization to the savages, then why are you bothered by the examples of the British Empire in India or the Dutch in Indonasia or the French in Vietnam. Apparently you think they were savages (even though they had civilizations of their own) and needed to be saved. Of course there was racism was involved. The Imperialists certainly made it clear that they felt the natives were inferior.

QuoteYou're making this whole line of argument, only it sounds from other elements of your debating that you don't actually believe that there's such a thing as any culture without civilization?  Do you believe that everything is just civilization, and equally good? Do you think that people wearing a leather thong, shitting in the field and ritually cannibalizing their neighbours are identical in value as a civilization that built the Louvre, the Statue of Liberty or wrote War and Peace or invented the internet? Just checking...

What a bizarre reading of my replies. Do you think it’s just and fair for a so-called civilized Nation to invade another country, steal their resources, treat the natives worse than animals, carve up territories , create racial strife, introduce religion as a means of control, create territorial boundaries where none existed before, use the colonies as proxies in wars with other so-called civilized Nations, all of this under the cloak of altruism and the expansion of their superior civilization ? Just checking….

QuoteWhich others? What other countries that were colonized by the west can you claim were on-par with India as a civilization?

Nice try. Anyone reading my posts would understand (hopefully) I don’t perceive countries or civilizations as superior or inferior. I understand what you are trying to do here. Show how these countires were Savages (not on par with India….which was apparently decadent) and this makes it ok for them to be colonized (and let's not dwell on the messy aspects of Imperialism). Well I promised a shout out to some of my other Asian brothers and sisters in two countries, so I would say Indonasia and Vietnam, the latter which went through it’s Civilizational process ( which should make you happy) by China, if I’m not mistaken.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;353003Um, you do understand that the main reason why the film is so popular is because of it's special effects and the fact it's a very populist genre. You do know this, right ? And if some do agree with the premises of the film, it's not because they think Cameron is anti civilization and anti humanist (and if anyone is interested in what I think of this film and Cameron's films in general, just let me know) I disagree with your assessment as to why the West is falling into decadence but it's not a discussion I want to have.

I do absolutely understand what you're saying here; the vast majority of people who are watching this film and enjoying it are not doing so because they're thinking "This film is awesome because its anti-humanity!! Woo!", and when they cheer as human soldiers are massacred, they aren't doing it because they think "shit, I hate humanity" or "civilization sucks ass!".
The place where I think that the response (or rather, LACK of response) to this film highlights the decadence of our civilization is in the way that people are doing this, and NOT asking questions about those underlying messages the film sends. The fact that they don't even consider the question of whether savagery is a better, "purer" state than civilized development, but tend to just take it as a given part of the post-modernist paradigm of society is what disturbs me so much.   If this movie's reception was more controversial, I'd be much less disturbed.

 

QuoteWell of course your examples were more convenient and less messy. We were talking about spreading civilization (amongst other goals) by force, in other words Imperialism. Real world examples other than yours needed to be introduced.

Are you suggesting that the expansion of Roman Civilization, which was, after all, the beginning of the Western World, was not real?
I mean, I understand that just as it is inconvenient for my argument to have to deal with racism-tinged 19th century colonialism, it is it utterly and totally inconvenient for you to have to deal with other examples where the stain of racism cannot be transplanted into the debate as a way to de-legitimize my argument.  But that really is just a weak spot in your argument, isn't it? I mean, you can try to argue that all efforts to expand civlization are racist; but then you pretty much have to talk about the Romans. Or you can try to argue about the point itself without bringing racism into things, but then you're playing with a far weaker hand.
Either way it kind of sucks for you, but that's the reality of what you face. I don't see why I have to tie my own hands by playing by your rules and not talking about the Romans.

QuoteIf you believe that Imperialism brought civilization to the savages, then why are you bothered by the examples of the British Empire in India or the Dutch in Indonasia or the French in Vietnam. Apparently you think they were savages (even though they had civilizations of their own) and needed to be saved. Of course there was racism was involved. The Imperialists certainly made it clear that they felt the natives were inferior.

Well, I'm completely willing to stipulate to the position that 19th century european colonialism was tainted by racism inherent in european culture of the times. And that really sucks.
But really, now what? Let's agree that just about ANYTHING when it gets tainted by racism, from baby showers to basketball games, ends up getting fucked up and complicated. But that doesn't really do anything to win an argument about baby showers themselves being evil, does it?

QuoteWhat a bizarre reading of my replies. Do you think it's just and fair for a so-called civilized Nation to invade another country, steal their resources, treat the natives worse than animals, carve up territories , create racial strife, introduce religion as a means of control, create territorial boundaries where none existed before, use the colonies as proxies in wars with other so-called civilized Nations, all of this under the cloak of altruism and the expansion of their superior civilization ? Just checking....

No. No I don't. And that's not what I'm talking about. Using the sharing of civilization as an excuse to commit atrocities is bad; which does not make civilization itself or the effort to bring civilization to savage peoples bad.
There; I answered your question, now you please answer mine: "Do you believe that everything is just civilization, and equally good? Do you think that people wearing a leather thong, shitting in the field and ritually cannibalizing their neighbours are identical in value as a civilization that built the Louvre, the Statue of Liberty or wrote War and Peace or invented the internet?"

QuoteNice try. Anyone reading my posts would understand (hopefully) I don't perceive countries or civilizations as superior or inferior. I understand what you are trying to do here. Show how these countires were Savages (not on par with India....which was apparently decadent) and this makes it ok for them to be colonized (and let's not dwell on the messy aspects of Imperialism). Well I promised a shout out to some of my other Asian brothers and sisters in two countries, so I would say Indonasia and Vietnam, the latter which went through it's Civilizational process ( which should make you happy) by China, if I'm not mistaken.

Hmm. That's curious. So first you say that you don't believe that any civilization is superior or inferior to any other. But now you've named three particular peoples: India, Indonesia and Vietnam. That would imply that all the other nations which the European nations colonized were in fact not in the same class as those three, which would imply that in fact, despite your attempt at PC-ness, you DO in fact believe that some civilizations were inferior to others.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Imperator;352998I wouldn't delve too much in the alleged message of the movie, as it is just an enormous crock of stupid shit, IMO. I'm sad that I wasted 12 € in that crap.

Hmm. Interesting; what was it that you didn't like about the movie then?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;353106The place where I think that the response (or rather, LACK of response) to this film highlights the decadence of our civilization is in the way that people are doing this, and NOT asking questions about those underlying messages the film sends. The fact that they don't even consider the question of whether savagery is a better, "purer" state than civilized development, but tend to just take it as a given part of the post-modernist paradigm of society is what disturbs me so much.   If this movie's reception was more controversial, I'd be much less disturbed.

Well I don’t get this civilization vs savagery nonsense of yours at all. I don’t think they question if savagery is better because they know savagery sucks. The major themes are the environment , Imperialism, greed and heroism. Cameron has often placed warriors in a position where they save or redeem humanity. In Aliens they defied their corporate overlords and destroyed an alien race. Here, they defy their corporate overlords and save an alien race. The Abyss, his best film IMO, kind of muddies the water. Of course saving or redeeming sometimes means going against your own. I keep thinking of that line in T2, where Arnold goes, “it’s in your nature to destroy yourselves” Humans fighting humans. At the end of the day, it's not really anticivilization but rather about the kind of civilization you want.

QuoteAre you suggesting that the expansion of Roman Civilization, which was, after all, the beginning of the Western World, was not real?

Now you are just being silly. I specifically said “real world examples other than yours need to be introduced”.

QuoteI mean, I understand that just as it is inconvenient for my argument to have to deal with racism-tinged 19th century colonialism, it is it utterly and totally inconvenient for you to have to deal with other examples where the stain of racism cannot be transplanted into the debate as a way to de-legitimize my argument.

Again your reading of my replies is bizarre. Every country I mentioned, I acknowledged went through a process of “civilization”. India with it’s various invaders, Vietnam with the Chinese, Malaya with India and China. The “process” sometimes were not as violent as your Roman example but I did recognize them in my replies to you.

QuoteBut that really is just a weak spot in your argument, isn't it? I mean, you can try to argue that all efforts to expand civlization are racist; but then you pretty much have to talk about the Romans. Or you can try to argue about the point itself without bringing racism into things, but then you're playing with a far weaker hand.
Either way it kind of sucks for you, but that's the reality of what you face. I don't see why I have to tie my own hands by playing by your rules and not talking about the Romans.

Brother, talk about the Romans all you like. But the reason why you are having a problem in this discussion is that your Roman example relies on the conquered being savages and the Romans bestowing civilization on them. But the reality of 19th Century Imperialism, is much different. You can’t go around claiming that the Imperialist were bringing civilization to savages because they weren’t. These socalled savages had thriving civilizations of their own. That’s what you get when you argue 19th century Imperialism was merely bringing light to the dark world of savages.

QuoteWell, I'm completely willing to stipulate to the position that 19th century european colonialism was tainted by racism inherent in european culture of the times. And that really sucks.
But really, now what? Let's agree that just about ANYTHING when it gets tainted by racism, from baby showers to basketball games, ends up getting fucked up and complicated. But that doesn't really do anything to win an argument about baby showers themselves being evil, does it?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. C'mon, you made the claim that 19th century Imperilism brought civilization to the savages. I disagreed and gave my reasons. You can either concede that your claim was wrong or carry on presenting arguments as to why I am wrong.  

QuoteNo. No I don't. And that's not what I'm talking about. Using the sharing of civilization as an excuse to commit atrocities is bad; which does not make civilization itself or the effort to bring civilization to savage peoples bad.

I never once argued that civilization was bad or that it was wrong to bring civilization to anyone. In fact I talked about how China and India brought and enhanced the culture/civilization of early Malaya. What I disagreed with, was your contention that the countries that the Imperialists conquered were nations of savages in need of saving.

QuoteThere; I answered your question, now you please answer mine: "Do you believe that everything is just civilization, and equally good? Do you think that people wearing a leather thong, shitting in the field and ritually cannibalizing their neighbours are identical in value as a civilization that built the Louvre, the Statue of Liberty or wrote War and Peace or invented the internet?"

No. I think some civilizations contribute more to the world in terms of technology, the arts and the progress of humanity. Now before I answer the second part.... who are these thong wearing cannibalistic field shitters ? Are they the savages of your Roman times ? Or do you mean, a native of wherever, living an agragrian lifesytyle and looking after her family is of equal value to some yuppie working the mean streets Hong Kong ? If it's the latter, then yes, I think they are of equal value.

QuoteHmm. That's curious. So first you say that you don't believe that any civilization is superior or inferior to any other. But now you've named three particular peoples: India, Indonesia and Vietnam. That would imply that all the other nations which the European nations colonized were in fact not in the same class as those three, which would imply that in fact, despite your attempt at PC-ness, you DO in fact believe that some civilizations were inferior to others.

Brother, didn’t I say, this was your cunning plan ? Didn’t you just say everything I said you would say ? Am I good or what? Look, these three countries that I named had the most influence in terms of culture/history in my country. See, unlike you, I don’t need to read about this shit from history books. I can go around my country and see how other civilizations have influence my homeland. I could have just avoided your obvious trap, but what the hell, you need to be reminded that those colonized countries were not a bunch of savages.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;353107Hmm. Interesting; what was it that you didn't like about the movie then?

RPGPundit

The short answer:

I liked the 3D, I think it was convincing and well done. Design and visuals were excellent. I enjoyed the soundtrack. That's about it, and beyond that there's simply nothing. It's just a big balloon full of vapid air.

The story is so trite that it becomes simply nonexistent. Avatar should have been a documentary on a fictional world, that way it would have been half the length and I would have praised Cameron as a great creator. But then they try to tell you the story, and it fucking sucks.

The movie was so predictable that I found myself correctly guessing every line of dialogue for the most part of the movie. Every. Fucking. Line. Dialogues are also not only predictable, but retarded, and acting is wooden. CGI people acts as well as real life actors.

There are many things that make no sense at all. Why did the Na'vi develop a verbal language if they're able to interface via the USB port in their fucking ponytails?
Why do they have to hunt at all? Because the food could just be ordered to allow them to eat it, if everyone's so connected.
If the planet is a sentient entity who can crush so easily the human expedition, why didn't it do it the first time humans started shooting aliens around?
Why the fuck is that shitty mineral so important?
Why are there flying mountains that magically interfere with bad guy's radars?
Why the hell the combat robots carry around giant combat knifes, maybe that way they will be able to make giant salami slices or what?

It was annoying. And it was even more annoying to think that Cameron spent 13 years to develop this retarded film. One incoherent thing after other, all wrapped in the nicest visuals ever seen, I admit it. But a big pile of shit at the end of the day.

If you want the long answer, as you can read Spanish, you can read it here.

Quote from: Imperator;353130But then they try to tell you the story, and it sucks.

The movie was so predictable that I found myself correctly guessing every line of dialogue for the most part of the movie.

Ok, rewrite the script then. Make sure it has a convoluted plot so no one can anticipate the outcome in advance. What would such a movie look like? More importantly, Who exactly would like it, and what percentage of the actual moviegoing population does that represent?

Quote from: Imperator;353130There are many things that make no sense at all. Why did the Na'vi develop a verbal language if they're able to interface via the USB port in their fucking ponytails?

This is a perfect example of cultural bias, In this case presuming that the biocommunications technology of the aliens is in any way similar to what serves us today as information systems technology. This bias interrupts the comprehension of, and understanding of, the Ehwha civilization.

Quote from: Imperator;353130Why do they have to hunt at all? Because the food could just be ordered to allow them to eat it, if everyone's so connected.

And again, presuming that the shared emotional and spiritual values of the various alien subraces is the same thing as a fully conscious mindlink.
 

Quote from: Imperator;353130If the planet is a sentient entity who can crush so easily the human expedition, why didn't it do it the first time humans started shooting aliens around?

This is an extremely good question that can easily be applied to our own planet and our existence now. If you consider any planet as a sentient entity there's the matter of scale and time to consider. Just like our bodies have developed millions and millions of specialized cells to fight off infections and diseases so too planets have specialized micro-defenses to protect the planet, but it takes time to adapt to the new disease. If it can't adapt it dies. People get fevers, where their temperatures run high when they are fighting off an infection (An invasion of hostile micro organisms.) Perhaps planets do as well. (Global warming anyone?)  

Quote from: Imperator;353130Why the fuck is that shitty mineral so important?

There is a reference about this, but it's not directly stated until nearly the end of the movie. Humanity has killed all the plant life on Earth and stripped the resources. Unobtanium is the magical mineral that earthlings use to synthesize and maintain their high tech civilized lifestyle.

Quote from: Imperator;353130Why are there flying mountains that magically interfere with bad guy's radars?

Scientifically speaking, if Pandora is not particulary dense as moons go, then it could easily have flying mountains of rock that orbit the Gas Giant core, just like the rings of Saturn are chunks of rock orbiting Saturn with some very large mountain sized rocks that react in a complex manner, so too with Pandora.

I would expect that the gravitional pull of various other rocks would jostle the rocks about grinding them up into each other, but the plant life anchors them big rocks into fixed locations allowing them to slowly aggregate. Eventually I would expect the rocks to grow larger and larger and eventually sink down to, and become one with Pandora, but that process could take Millenia, even eons. And then again, maybe not, depending on how the tidal forces of the Gas Giant and other orbital bodies affect Pandora.

Reference:
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/04/06/how-prometheus-pulls-on-saturns-f-ring/  

FWIW: Pandora is one of Saturns moons.

The Interference part was not caused by the mountains, it was clearly explained as a side effect of the Ehwa Biolife node which the natives considered a sacred site.

Quote from: Imperator;353130Why the hell the combat robots carry around giant combat knifes, maybe that way they will be able to make giant salami slices or what?

I'd call it a pure Intimidation factor. Then again, maybe the colonists had an irrational Na'vi Bow envy, after all, the natives arrows were actually spear sized projectiles.

Hey, excellent post Now, let me add a detail.

Quote from: GameDaddy;353147Ok, rewrite the script then. Make sure it has a convoluted plot so no one can anticipate the outcome in advance. What would such a movie look like? More importantly, Who exactly would like it, and what percentage of the actual moviegoing population does that represent?

See, I'm not asking for a movie so convoluted that no one but a few chosen could be able to understand it. It's not a black or white question: see, in Willow you find a really typical story, that's been told a thousand times, with a cast of archetypal characters. But I found the dialogue to be quite witty, characters were nicely portrayed, and best of all, you are not correctly guessing where is the camera going to point now, and what will be the next line of dialogue down to the last word. And the prophecy has a fun and unexpected way of getting solved, which is cool.

Is Willow the greatest masterpiece in the fantasy genre? Probably no, but it's a fun movie, really well done, that plays well the strong points of a classic story and manages to surprise you from time to time. IMO, Avatar does nothing of that, apart from the really stunning visuals (that are really really similar to Ferngully, by the way, and the story is almost the same).

The rest of explanations you provide are simply awesome, but the movie doesn't provide them. If someone had explained that during the movie, I would have found it far more interesting. Even the Bow Envy. Well done, sir.

Quote from: David R;353122Well I don't get this civilization vs savagery nonsense of yours at all. I don't think they question if savagery is better because they know savagery sucks. The major themes are the environment , Imperialism, greed and heroism. Cameron has often placed warriors in a position where they save or redeem humanity. In Aliens they defied their corporate overlords and destroyed an alien race. Here, they defy their corporate overlords and save an alien race. The Abyss, his best film IMO, kind of muddies the water. Of course saving or redeeming sometimes means going against your own. I keep thinking of that line in T2, where Arnold goes, "it's in your nature to destroy yourselves" Humans fighting humans. At the end of the day, it's not really anticivilization but rather about the kind of civilization you want.

And yet, there are some people living in civilization who (at least, in their in their claims) do not want civilization at all.

QuoteAgain your reading of my replies is bizarre. Every country I mentioned, I acknowledged went through a process of "civilization". India with it's various invaders, Vietnam with the Chinese, Malaya with India and China. The "process" sometimes were not as violent as your Roman example but I did recognize them in my replies to you.

Well then, I'd just have to say what the fuck are you arguing with me about? If you recognize the value of civilization, and your recognize the value of the civilizing process, and I am in agreement with you that racism sucks and fucks up that process just as it would fuck up any other process, then where exactly is your point of disagreement with me?

QuoteBrother, talk about the Romans all you like. But the reason why you are having a problem in this discussion is that your Roman example relies on the conquered being savages and the Romans bestowing civilization on them. But the reality of 19th Century Imperialism, is much different. You can't go around claiming that the Imperialist were bringing civilization to savages because they weren't. These socalled savages had thriving civilizations of their own. That's what you get when you argue 19th century Imperialism was merely bringing light to the dark world of savages.

And I think you're making a bit of a blanket statement there. To be fair, I did too earlier on in the discussion, so I can't exactly blame you for that now. But the reality of the thing is a bit more complex than that. Some areas that were colonized were already influenced by (or in India's case, initiator of) previous civilizations. But of course, many other areas (particularly sub-saharan africa) were not. You've highlighted India, Indonesia, and Vietnam as places that had previous civilizations.
What I am arguing is that western european civilization had certain concepts, knowledge and values that were very much worth transmitting to these nations as well as to the primitive cultures they colonized, and that the world on the whole is much better off for it than if they hadn't bothered.
I have enormous respect for India's accomplishments prior to the time of European imperialism; as eastern religion is one of my areas of specialty I'm very familiar with some of them, and they are deeply impressive. And for the record, I would so much rather have seen a colonialism where Britain welcomed India and its people into a true commonwealth, where you'd have that British Empire still around today, where Delhi benefited as much as Liverpool, where everyone was an equal citizen with equal rights, common currency and freedom to travel and to work in any part of 30% (or more) of the globe, and the honorable MPs from Toronto and Allahabad and Aden and Pune sat next to the MP from Manchester or Cardiff.
But we got what we got, and despite its flaws I'm still completely convinced that it was better than if the whole thing hadn't been attempted in the first place. For all those who suffered in various ways, there are untold millions in the colonies themselves who continue benefiting from what european civlization brought, and who's lives would be worse and not better in comparison had that been absent.

QuoteI never once argued that civilization was bad or that it was wrong to bring civilization to anyone. In fact I talked about how China and India brought and enhanced the culture/civilization of early Malaya. What I disagreed with, was your contention that the countries that the Imperialists conquered were nations of savages in need of saving.

The countries that were colonized all benefited from european civilization's spread. Those that benefited the least are those who threw out the most of those benefits in ill-considered acts of anti-colonial zeal or marxist social experiments. Many of the places that were colonized were essentially savage, some had always been so others had fallen back into barbarism after previous civilization. Some had extant civilizations that were not as developed as western civilization in many respects (though they might have been equally or more developed in a minority of respects). That is my position.
Now feel free to try to address that position again, ideally by arguing the position itself and not peripherals that don't actually make my position any less sound.

QuoteNo. I think some civilizations contribute more to the world in terms of technology, the arts and the progress of humanity. Now before I answer the second part.... who are these thong wearing cannibalistic field shitters ? Are they the savages of your Roman times ? Or do you mean, a native of wherever, living an agragrian lifesytyle and looking after her family is of equal value to some yuppie working the mean streets Hong Kong ? If it's the latter, then yes, I think they are of equal value.

Individuals are of equal value as human beings, but societies are not of equal value. The life of an agrarian-society farmer or even a cannibal (like the ones that were present in oceania and in africa in the time of western expansion, to answer your question), is equal in worth as a human individual to that of Thomas Jefferson; but the value of a civilization that can produce a Thomas Jefferson is greater than that of a society that cannot, where someone of equal talents would be doomed to a life of field-shitting and brain-eating.

QuoteBrother, didn't I say, this was your cunning plan ? Didn't you just say everything I said you would say ? Am I good or what?

The fact that you could see the flaws in your own statements and predict that I would point them out doesn't make them any less flawed.

QuoteLook, these three countries that I named had the most influence in terms of culture/history in my country. See, unlike you, I don't need to read about this shit from history books. I can go around my country and see how other civilizations have influence my homeland. I could have just avoided your obvious trap, but what the hell, you need to be reminded that those colonized countries were not a bunch of savages.

Ok, now what about my point? What about all those other societies? You are still basically admitting here that some civilizations and societies are in fact inferior to others.

RPGPundit

To take a little break from my ongoing debate with David; over on a thread in another forum, someone quoted Cameron as saying this about his own story:

Quote"the Na'vi represent something that is our higher selves, or our aspirational selves, what we would like to think we are" and that even though there are good humans within the film, the humans "represent what we know to be the parts of ourselves that are trashing our world and maybe condemning ourselves to a grim future".

That pretty much proves that I was spot on in my analysis of the message he was trying to impart.

RPGPundit