Thursday, January 14, 2010

Avatar = Racist!?

I invited the featured blogger in the article to debate with me, but he hasn't I've decided to just update it with a piece. It's a shame that it didn't turn out how I wanted it to.


Read before continuing: Toronto Star: "Is Avatar Weighed Down By The White Mans Burden?"

This crap is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that after the release of Titanic, James Cameron spent 15 years a-brewin' about the best way to oppress the black man through the use of film. Even if he did intend for it to be what? It's a work of fiction, and it's a work of literature.

Unless people are prepared to criticize books in the same way that movies are, then I can't take this crap seriously. This, people, is what happens when you put a movie in front of a bunch of people who are too sensitive - they discern and infer things that were probably not even implied. This is what happens when people become too sensitive.

One of the key issues in this is that the Natives are unable to save themselves, which apparently = racism. They talk about how the white man is the one that has to come save the day.

Well, if that's the case, then I, as an asian am offended that Hollywood barely puts out any movies with asians saving the day. And if an asian DOES save the day, then he does it with kung-fu, with ninja stars, and with incoherent English grammar. This is an outrage!

Or's a thought: maybe hollywood's full of white people and caters more to the white demographic! It's all making sense. I don't give a shit. A good movie's a good movie. I personally don't give a shit who saves the day - regardless of whether the movie's thought-provoking or just a shoot 'em up.

Let's talk about The Last Samurai. What if a Samurai from the American army came to save the enemy (the Samurai), then how the hell would that even make sense? Let's take it a notch lower, then: what if a Japanese soldier from the American army came to save the enemy (the Samurai)? Unlikely, not as heart-warming, but still possible - but would the movie be as great? I highly doubt it.

How about Pocahontas! The racist movies of all racist movies! *eye-rolling smiley*. What if an Indian saved the Indians!? It wouldn't be the same movie! I hope I'm driving my point here... 'cause all of this crap's absurd. If people are that angry about movies like this, then why don't you re-write the damn movie and make a new one, then tell everyone that it's the same movie, except politically correct to appease the whiners.

What's next? People saying the Handmaid's Tale is sexist because it's told from a woman's point of view?

I long for the day when political correctness has no part in our society, and people learn to stop being so damn sensitive. But that's wishful thinking, and most likely never going to happen.

Until then, get out of here with that weak shit. Seriously.


- knowledge


  1. Don't forget to leave a name when you comment!

  2. ahaha! when I was reading the article I totally pictured these people actually saying the quoted lines and I wanted to laugh so hard. Of all the ignorance. I still say regardless of the fact that sam worthington is white, the primary reason he was chossen for the role is for the budget. A.K.A. he's cheap labour. (How Sweatshoppy of them is that racist too?) Second he was right for the part. What I don't understand about these complainers is how they are actors and yet they do not understand the concept of finding the right actor for the role. I'm looking at this at the point of view casting directors, I doubt they intended and specifically wrote on the script that it had to be a white 'australian btw' man, it just so happens that these people auditioned and they were right for the role. I'm pretty sure that if a black, south-east asian, south asian, middle easyern, medditteranean, african, african-american, carrbibean man or something auditioned for the role and they met the qualifications or is "right" for the part then they would've been hired instead of sam worthington.

    What they are saying, is that its wrong to cast a white man for a saviour, every color should have equal opportunities for a role. Which is effing ridiculous, because imagine the color purple having a white lead! Just because people should have equal opportunity on screen so it's not a racist movie. But the color purple is about the life of a black woman in 1930's in the US. Shouldn't people be outraged that the whole cast of the play/movie/novel is black? Isn't that racist! Psshh.. It just doesn't make sense to me. Stories are stories, there's a purpose to the actors that bring these stories to life, not because of hidden agenda's regarding racism but because of the art and the topic of the story. I don't even know if it makes any sense what I said but I guess what I'm getting at is that, art is never racist it is something that expresses one's self whether it be to tell a story with a white man as saviour. I swear to God, aren't they the one's being racist to white people?




settlement loans

dreamweaver website templates