Domination and Rape in Avatar: This Is “Respect” for Animals?
Avatar is many things. It is popular. It is beautiful. It is raking in the big bucks. But what it isn’t is a film that advocates respect for nonhuman animals, despite the fact that some, including some mainstream animal advocacy groups, have argued it does. As stunning as the film is visually, it also reinforces the idea that humans have the right and the duty to dominate, “tame,” and make use of animals — that nonhuman animals are resources and tools – and I’m troubled to see it praised as “respectful” of those animals when it simply is not. In one jarring scene, that domination of animals even resembles rape so much that the longer I’ve thought about it, the more horrified I’ve become.
I saw the film opening weekend and spent the duration feverishly scribbling notes in the dark for a post that, in typical Stephanie fashion, I’m just now writing a couple months later, so I almost feel like I need to go see it again before commenting on it; I can’t even make out half my notes. But bear with me here because I’m going to write the post anyway.
I will not argue that there aren’t some good messages embedded within the film — there are, and who I was 10 years ago, with a less critical eye and less awareness, would have had mostly adulation for it. From an environmentalist, “respecting nature” perspective, there is good in Avatar, the same good I saw, as a kid and in later years, in the remarkably similar FernGully (see the add-on at the end of this post for my FernGully-Avatar commentary).
But a lot of the good is superficial. And there are problems. Big ones.
Others out there have explored the issues of racism and sexism (and more) in Avatar, so I’ll stay more narrowly focused here while recommending that you do read those posts when you come across them; for starters, check out “When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like ‘Avatar’?” and “Dances with Discrimination: On ‘Avatar,’ Racism, Misogyny, and Disabled Prejudice.”
On the nonhuman animal front, the first moment in the film that likely strikes many as being “respectful” of animals comes when Neytiri, the native female protagonist, mourns over the animal she was just forced to kill in order to protect intruding white-guy Jake Sully and angrily admonishes him that this animal’s death (i.e., at this time, in these circumstances, for this reason) was unnecessary and was nothing to celebrate. Similarly, she later teaches Jake to “respect” and thank/pray over the animals they hunt down for food. These scenes actually would have had my approval once upon a time; my path to where I am now included a stopover at the “respect the animals who die for you” mindset. But I’m grateful that I long ago realized the meaninglessness of those thoughts and expressions of respect in the context of my causing totally unnecessary harm, harm that wasn’t somehow lessened by my supposed respect.
There is certainly a difference between indigenous cultures’ hunting-for-survival and our mainstream society’s choice to kill (and pay for killing) not out of necessity but for taste, to fulfill selfish “I like it” desires; I’m not criticizing the former here. But absurd is the idea that if we just partially appropriate indigenous rituals and express “respect” for and pray over the animals we’re killing (or paying to have killed), we’re somehow absolved for the unnecessary, brutal taking of lives — and this seems to be the troubling message many people take from such films. (Please see item #6 on Mary’s post “On Indigenous People and Animals” at Animal Person. See also I, Bonobo’s delightfully angry recent take on privileged Westerners’ attempt to use the “native/aboriginal defense of meat eating.”)
But the starkest example of domination of animals in the film — and, if you ask me, a scene that is chillingly reminiscent of a rape scene — came with the ikrans (or banshees), the enormous bird-like animals resembling pterodactyls. Neytiri takes Jake to where the ikrans are gathered, in their home, and tells him that to become a complete Na’vi warrior – a “real man,” if you will — he must choose one of them as his own. He will know the ikran he is meant to bond with on sight — and he will know that the ikran chooses him too if the ikran fights back and tries to kill him (“no means yes” and “she’ll fight you, but you know she really wants it,” anyone?). It is Jake’s duty, while the animal fights him off, to “bond” with the animal by overpowering him, tying him up, climbing on top of him, and inserting a part of his body into the body of the animal while his victim desperately fights him off.
Once he has done that, once he has successfully dominated the animal and physically inserted himself into his conquest, the ikran is defeated; the ikran goes still and quiet, and Jake wins. “That’s right–you’re mine!” Jake boasts. The animal has been successfully dominated, his will and spirit broken – and the defeated being now belongs to Jake. The animal has been transformed into a mere tool, a being with no right or ability to refuse Jake’s wishes. And now that Jake is both physically and mentally inside his victim, he must immediately fly (“ride”?) the animal to “seal the bond.” (Note: The ikran Jake dominates in the film is referred to by Jake and Neytiri as a “he,” before Jake has even “chosen” an ikran, though we don’t learn or see — as far as I can recall — how Jake knows which ones are female and which are male. What’s relevant is that the ikran was the other, the lesser being in comparison to the human male, the being to be dominated, but still, try rereading these preceding two paragraphs with female pronouns in place of male pronouns and “the ikran/animal” if you don’t yet see how starkly this mirrors a rape scene.)
I’ve read and heard people refer to what happened between Jake and the ikran in this scene as “bonding” and to their post-”bonding” relationship as one of linked partnership, even symbiosis. And that’s rubbish. This was not a scenario in which each party sought out the other, for mutual benefit. The being in power dominated/raped the “lesser” being while the victim fought him off — and that we (and Jake) were essentially told, “if your victim fights you off, it means he wants it” was beyond sickening for me. It far too closely parallels the “you know you want it” mindset and words of real-world rapists. And the relationship between the two following the domination/rape scene was not a symbiotic one. The ikran became subject to Jake’s will; the ikran got nothing out of their “relationship.”
So — respecting animals? Celebrating our interconnectedness? Hardly. Whether you see this scene as more reminiscent of a horse being “broken” or a woman being raped, or you see elements of both in it and see both brutal acts as stemming from the same problem, mindset, and system (as I do), domination is the theme. When I read that PETA had awarded Avatar for reflecting the “importance of treating all living beings, no matter how ‘strange’ or ‘alien,’ with respect and dignity,” I wanted to punch a wall. Should we also give awards to rodeos because their organizers and participants express “respect” for the bulls, calves, and horses they torment, dominate, endanger, and kill? To the man who guns down deer every winter but “respects” the animals’ beauty? To the woman in the dairy industry who “loves” cows but who routinely restrains them and shoves her arm deep inside her fellow females’ rectums as part of the repeated insemination-rape all dairy cows must endure (yes, rectum: arm up the rectum to manipulate the cervix from the inside, syringe up the vagina)?
Animals in Avatar are viewed just like animals are viewed in our real world. We kill them if we want to eat and wear them; we break, manipulate, and dominate them, in the most brutal and despicable of ways, if we want to use them. And even if the entirety of the rest of the film had promoted some notions of real respect for nonhuman animals, that wouldn’t have made up for the negatives. The events and implications of this one scene alone were disgusting enough to make me scoff at the idea that James Cameron, down deep, whatever his conscious intentions were, sees nonhuman animals — and oppression, domination, and violence in general — any differently from the average person on the street.
Avatar‘s hero succeeded in “saving” the poor, defenseless natives; in wooing the indigenous female protagonist; in not only becoming one of the natives with astonishing speed and ease, but even becoming their best warrior/leader in generations; and even in dominating Pandora’s most independent and fierce animal. The list of problematic victories goes on. Avatar has broken technological ground, but the themes it features and the values and views it reinforces? Status quo. Status quo dressed up gorgeously to seem like something else, but status quo nonetheless.
—
The FernGully connections, if you’re interested:
FernGully came out when I was in fifth grade, the same year I had a remarkable teacher who taught and encouraged environmentalism and respect for nature, and the lessons from both the film and the teacher stayed with me. Once upon a time, I had the movie all but memorized. So no small part of my attempt to scribble notes in the dark theater included taking note of the many — and specific — similarities to that beloved childhood movie. Here are just some of them:
- The outside human from the industrial world who comes to this stunning, magical forest world with intentions of helping exploit it
- The other-worldly native inhabitants in touch with this place — its trees, water, beings, spirit
- The outside white human becoming one of them in appearance (as a Na’vi-looking avatar in the current film and still as a human but one shrunken down to fairy size in FernGully), so as to experience their world
- The romantic pairing of male outsider and wise, in-touch-with-nature female native
- The scenes where she teaches him to feel the trees’ pain (this was one of the moments in Avatar that led me to jab the person next to me to whisper-shout, ”Ferngully!”)
- The Home Tree in Pandora and similar tree in FernGully
- The moments when the romantic pair go running through the nighttime, bioluminescent forest, and whatever they tap lights up with color
- The scene in which the male-outsider protagonist starts physically beating against the smoke-spewing machine (“the leveler” in FernGully), whose mission he was once a part of, that has come to destroy the forested world he now loves
You’d have a tough time convincing me that someone or multiple someones among James Cameron and his team hadn’t watched FernGully, many, many times. I’ve seen repeated references to the similarities to Dances with Wolves too, but here’s my confession: I’ve never actually seen it.
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
I loved the film for one. But a few things I keep noticing in all criticisms is that people keep treating the N’avi as if they are humans. They are not. They are nonhuman animals. I assumed in the film that their killing of animals was because they were cat-like, likely omnivores close to carnivores or carnivores and were killing because they needed to.
The domestication stuff did irk me slightly but I appreciated it as a bond rather than a breaking (except for the bird-like animals which were “broken”. That part I took issue with).
But the N’avi were other animals which is why this is an animal liberation film. They were also part of an ecosystem as they did not pretend to be “top of the food chain” like humans. While they preyed on some animals, they were also prey for others (Turuk Makto or however you spell it).
I understand the white male supremacy thing as well. However, the male in there was basically molded by strong female characters. He would have been dead a thousand times had it not been for Sigourney and the female members of the tribe. The female shaman also pretty much ruled the tribe even though they had a male “leader”.
I don’t know. Hollywood is always racist, sexist, etc. But James Cameron made Aliens, with Ellen Ripley, one of the greatest female movie characters ever.
There are definitely issues with this film but I want to keep the focus on the fact that both it and District 9 had different SPECIES being exploited, not different races. While it may make for good racial allegory, don’t lose the species message. ;-)
I wrote about it here real quick but didn’t do as decent and indepth analysis as you. http://arphilosophia.blogspot.com/2010/01/district-9-avatar-missed-messages-of.html
I suppose we disagree on a fundamental point — that we’re supposed to see the Na’vi as nonhuman animals. They’re not human, no, but they’re humanoid. I think we’re absolutely meant to relate to them as the human-types of Pandora, as much as another race as another species, as our counterparts. And as I more or less said in the post, I wouldn’t condemn real-life Na’vi for their ways of living (and eating), but my concern is the way we look at such depictions and then try to appropriate bits and pieces of that for ourselves (on this point, I defer to Mary’s commentary in that post I linked to).
More later on the other points — am heading out the door. :)
Yeah I hear you there. My idea has been to redirect people to see them as another species. But I definitely agree with most of your post, the white romanticism of indigenous folks, and so on.
But James Cameron made Aliens, with Ellen Ripley, one of the greatest female movie characters ever.
Oooh, oooh, huge Alien fan here! Ditto: Cameron’s T2. (Linda Hamilton’s biceps, hello!)
I’ve long heard Cameron criticized for sexism, but never really bought it because his female characters are usually so strong and powerful. But re: Ripley, in Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley, authors Gallardo & Smith argue that Aliens is actually the least progressive film of the quadrilogy. It’s a complex, nuanced analysis, but basically, in Aliens, Ripley is given license to act like a badass because it’s in the role of a protective mother. Newt and Hicks fill the roles of Ripley’s daughter and husband, forming a pseudo nuclear family which must be protected at all costs. Set against the backdrop of the “Reagan-era,” feminist-backlash ’80s, it’s an interesting take on the film. I highly recommend the book!
We must be about the same age–I loved FernGully! My 5th-grade science teacher showed it to us to raise our budding environmental awareness. :) I haven’t seen Avatar yet, and don’t really feel a strong urge to, but I’m really glad to have everyone’s perspectives on it. It can be so hard to separate the hype from what’s really there.
I saw Avatar only once, and the “domination” scene was so blatantly mirrored on rape that I was highly uncomfortable with it. There are many other issues I have with the film’s stereotypes and questionable messages, but you’ve hit the one that I think disturbed me the most.
I am interested to see your thoughts on the following,it doesn’t have to do with Avatar directly and I would have written you an email but I couldn’t find a contact info..
Ironically PETA is who gave me the info to become Vegan 10 years ago when I was 16.However the more I educated myself the more I discovered PETA does that is against the animal rights movement.For one they feel all pit bulls should be killed.A few years ago when there was a intense Pit Bull Holocaust happening I contacted Ingrid Newkirk with a direct certified letter as I thought surely she and PETA would start a campaign in support of protecting Pit Bulls as it is the mentally disturbed “care takers” who abuse and train the dogs to abuse that should be punished not the dogs.PETA write back that they feel Pit Bulls, all pit bulls should be “euthanized”aka murdered.
A plethora of disturbing actions on PETA’s behalf came to light from starting a bizarre campaign of asking society to call fish kittens in a weird attempt to get people to associate one animal they find cute with another & when my husband and I pointed out that is like asking society to call African Americans dark light people, we also began to see how many of the poster people for PETA are not only not Vegan but in many areas openly and actively wear fur, many are porn stars ,promote tested on animal products and love to talk about eating meat however all that supports their constant talk of go vegetarian (not vegan) which promotes an equal amount of murder and torture to all the animals killed for dairy.The worst aspect of PETA that we found very dangerous is their promotion of kill shelters and constantly putting down the no kill movement often posting one sided rare cases where things had gone wrong at a particular no kill shelter and claiming that this was how all no kill shelters are run.They also wrote us that the best solution for all the homeless animals is not to set up properly run no kill shelters or educate humans on animal appreciation and liberation or help provide low cost spay and fixing but to KILL all homeless animals and we found many respected animal groups who spoke out about PETA contacting them to offer to help place animals and than killing them at PETA.When we contacted PETA about all this they avoided direct answers and gave vague cut and paste response emails and letters that were full of shallow excuses or did not answer at all as they have ignored the following:
I am beyond disgusted to discover the facts about Ingrid Newkirk and her support of bestiality
THIS is the woman who runs PETA?my god..she need her head examined.This is the last straw. I am not only dropping my support of PETA but boycotting them.Ingrid Newkirk is Vile.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfi
le.asp?indid=2072
Inspired by ethics professor Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation, Newkirk and fellow animal activist Alex Pacheco founded PETA in 1980. Echoing Singer’s defense of bestiality, Newkirk states:
“If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it’s great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong.”
and someone who PETA supports greatly Peter Singer who wrote an entire disgusting article in which he attempts to speak of the molestation , violation and rape of animals as normal:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001—-.htm
furthermore I saw this letter from Ingrid :
There is almost nothing as shocking as a man forcing himself sexually upon an animal (“PETA, Perverts and Horses,” 21 July). As a cruelty officer, I prosecuted cases in which men took small dogs and chickens into alleyways or elsewhere and raped them, often rupturing the animals’ organs in the process. When I was working with the Washington Humane Society, there was one case that I was unable to find a way to prosecute, which will always haunt me. It involved a sex club run by men who, we had reason to believe, were sexually assaulting cats in a private home.
It is almost as shocking to read my comments about non-assaultive sexual contact as some endorsement by me or PETA of sexual assault on animals. Let me be clear—as the writer was shamefully not—that PETA and I are totally opposed to any exploitation and all bestiality. Philosophical musings on whether there is cruelty when a girl experiences sexual pleasure from riding a horse who is oblivious to that fact or when someone allows a dog to hump their leg are a far cry from an endorsement of bestiality. Bestiality is cruelty to animals and PETA pushes for laws to outlaw it and prosecution when it occurs.
Please correct the hideously false impression that Alexander Rubin gave in his guest column.ð
Very truly yours,
Ingrid E. Newkirk
President
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
However in reply to her letter I state these points :
1.firstly humans should not be riding horses as it is a form of slavery eg: stop!go!faster! it is a human being controlling another being’s freedom of movement for their own selfish fulfillment-because they enjoy riding a horse.Leather straps pulling on the sides of their sensitive cheeks and a metal bit are incredibly uncomfortable if not painful.
2.If a human is getting aroused or climaxing by an activity with non human animals they should not do that activity.Same as if a human was getting aroused or climaxing by an activity with an infant or child they too should not do activities with an infant or child.
3.Ingrid’s excuse that if an non human animal is enjoying a sexual exchange with a human than maybe it is not wrong is disgusting, horrendous and irresponsible.A human baby or child may seem to enjoy a sexual interaction with human adult or older human but the mere reaction of their enjoyment does not make it moral or ethical.If a child or infant is attempting to engage or responding in a sexual way to anyone they should be told that it is not okay.Basing weather a sexual act is wrong or not on weather the non human animal or human baby or child is enjoying the act is vile and a mentally disturbed way of thinking.
I am and will always be a Vegan as I will always peak up and out for animals and though PETA does some good, they also do equally a lot of harmful and warped actions.As the so called largest animal rights organization I can not support or stand beside them.
Main message was that everything connects in the world. I personaly didn’t like the idea of them killing animals as well. But you can’t convert everyone to vegetarian at once, since a humongous percent of people are not vegans OR even vegetarians. I think James Cameron threw in a riddle for people, that animals shouldn’t be massively murdered and skinned alive, and should be at least killed as most “humanely” as possible and in less quantities. As wrong as it sounds, it’s still better than what we have today. Also they shamed the humanity for being so unaware, agressive and stupid. Think in steps people, in steps.
Also there’s a hidden message. Research Esoterism.
there is no such thing as “humanely” murdering
just as there is no such thing as humanely raping, or humanely molesting or humanely torturing..what all these actions have in common is they are violations
and unnecessarily inflicted damage, pain and or death
murdering non human animals in 2010 to eat, to wear, to test on or use as entertainment is inexcusable.
non of us live in an igloo or remote tribal village
we all live in modern cities
the facts about how healthy. moral and ethical being Vegan is is at anyone’s fingertips.
Thank you for sharing these interesting points, which I should have caught on to but instead I was sold by the special effects and interesting storyline. I appreciate you shedding light on this and for all that you do for animals :)
Thank you. Now I don’t have to watch the movie. It drives me nuts when people claim something is so different, thought-provoking, and whatnot when it’s the same crap all over. Nothing new.
Just from your description of it, I definitely think that was a rape scene. Ugh! That whole no-means-yes thing is sickening.
“Avatar has broken technological ground, but the themes it features and the values and views it reinforces? Status quo.”
I’m actually really surprised that people (I guess a lot of people..?) actually considered the plot “groundbreaking”.
I liked Avatar (though also agree with the issues) – but one of the first things I said when I got out of the theater was that it was a very classic/familiar story that had been done well; that it was a totally blockbuster, hollywood movie that was remarkable for being enjoyable despite that, and how it was cool it that it happened to promote a couple good concepts inadvertently while entertaining people.
I mean, it would’ve been awesome if it’d actually HAD a pro animal rights message instead..
We should work on one! It is not impossible!
It would be awesome indeed
Sunny,
I too was surprised about the “groundbreaking” rumor. Maybe when folks were touting uniqueness they were referring to technology and also to the idea of the avatars. But the story (outside of the avatar concept)? Tiresome, insulting, offensive, and not groundbreaking.
I’ve read and heard people refer to what happened between Jake and the ikran in this scene as “bonding” and to their post-”bonding” relationship as one of linked partnership, even symbiosis.
If by “bonding” you mean “Stockholm syndrome.” Snort!
Awesome review, Stephanie!
Stephanie,
I have been wanting to thank you for this site and for your clear, eloquent, and powerful commentary for some time. So, thank you!
The visual feast of Avatar mesmerized me. At the same time, I watched in disbelief and disappointment when the message I was hoping for did not materialize. “Same old, same old”, albeit beautifully packaged.
As to indigenous subsistence hunting; what is true subsistence? And, what is respectful and dignified treatment of other species? The Inuit shamelessly champion the Canadian commercial seal slaughter because any bans on importing the skins of seals makes it more difficult for them to sell to fur markets. They claim that the bans threaten their communities’ “survival”. The Nuu-Chah-Nulth claim that they have the right to slaughter sea otters for ceremonial purposes, so that their traditions may “survive”. Natives sell their bear hunting licenses to trophy and “sport” hunters and work as hunting guides. The Nunavut government and Canada’s Inuit actively oppose attempts to place the polar bear on the endangered species list, for obvious and self-serving reasons.
I have stopped buying into the myth that indigenous peoples treat the land and other species with respect, as they continually claim to do. When it comes to the use of nonhumans for pleasure, profit, or human benefit, no one is exempt from my condemnation, no matter how politically incorrect that may be seen to be.
Stephanie,
I have not seen the movie as I knew I would dislike very much the “pray for the animals you kill” message.
You are an insightful thinker and an incredible writer..I love this blog.
You are an avatar… in the sense you represent what a fully realized animal rights person should….could be. All of you here…
Thank you!!!
Philip
First of all, I think you’re all smoking something. I saw the entire film as gorgeous and beautiful. Certainly not some white man’s infiltration of native society, blaspheming upon indigenous belief systems. The so-called rape scene you refer to was nothing but exhilarating and interesting. I AM A RAPE VICTIM. It was a horrid experience that I’ve brought with me my entire life, and casually using some scene in a beautiful film to push a political/controversial hot button in the name of rape is absurd and down right demeaning. I didn’t see the scene that way at all. On the contrary, I simply watched as an outsider sharing into the secret world of the people of Pandora. We can’t possibly understand their meanings, methods or reasons for doing things…just like the white invaders of America or slave traders in Africa. The way the people of Pandora interacted with the environment, plants and animals was nothing but beautiful naturalism at it’s finest. A lesson we all should learn. Your angry review of the film sounds creepily similar to the complaints by fundamentalist christians of the film that it is a blatant anti-christian film…which is also incorrect and ridiculous. When people are challenged with their own poor behavior, they look for someone else to blame ALWAYS. Sad.
I’ll be glad to respond to this later when I have more time, anonymommy, even though I find it totally obnoxious to use an anonymous pseudonym to come to a site and start a comment with “you’re all smoking something.” Very adult of you.
Like I said, more later, but for now, just saying something was “nothing but exhilarating and interesting” without actual analysis and without counters to my own points and analysis is less than convincing. And maybe, just maybe, considering that you obviously don’t know me or apparently my motivations, you shouldn’t assume that I’m “casually” using rape “to push a … hot button.”
I enjoyed Avatar, but yes, quite a few cultural trances were employed.
“The religious/spiritual magic is real!”
Perhaps for the Na’vi, but for us Earthlings, it’s all nonsense. If Sigourney Weaver’s character could produce half as much credible data for human religions it might add some legitimacy to religion.
“Using animals, so long as we treat them well, is nature’s way!”
I disagree for the reasons already stated. Praying for the slain animal spirits? Please. It may be meaningful on Pandora, but on planet Earth it’s twaddle. But, but, we can’t hate primitive peoples can we? They are, like, in touch with nature and spiritual energy man! That falls flat when people have an overabundance of plant food at our local supermarket.
Meh, as far as that stuff went during the film I just put it aside as metaphorical messaging that we should be more environmentally conscious. My mind was bent on metanylasis of how the audience was watching this environmental message with lush jungle landscapes but the movie was almost completely digital requiring an astonishing amount of technology and computer computations so that an audience could sit in a dark room watching a screen with 3-D glasses and positional audio.
Really though, the humans were only at fault with the Na’vi because if they were going to slaughter them, they should at least have said a prayer. Or eat them.
Rita Laws offers another perspective on the appropriation of Native American’s as our archetype spiritual hunters.
http://www.ivu.org/history/native_americans.html
Great interview archived at Animal Voices”
http://www.animalvoices.ca/node/35
Telepathy and mind reading is a common Sci-Fi theme. In Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, you get the new age “we are all one with the universe so how can the universe hurt itself” concept from the Man from Mars who has telepathic abilities with everything including grass. He stands on the grass because he grass doesn’t mind and that’s the purpose of grass and he’s fine with eating meat for the same reason, that’s why livestock exists… right?
On the other hand, Star Trek’s Vulcan science officer, Mr. Spock, communicates with non-humanoid sentient life and Vulcans are vegetarian, most likely vegan. However, Star Trek’s “sentience” implies intelligence (sapience – wise, to judge), not feeling (senti – to feel), but the Horta was a rock creature with no discernable eyes, mouth or anything humanoid really, without a mind meld it would have been impossible to communicate with her. During the mind-meld, Spock could feel her pain as she struggled to protect her eggs from reckless human miners. It’s a nice touch that Vulcan’s are not only vegan, but also intelligent and logical; not irrational like brash humans.
Fast forward to Star Trek the Next Generation and humanity has finally caught on to reason when William Riker boldly states, “We no longer enslave animals for food purposes.”
Haven’t seen Avatar, mostly because the first moment someone described it to me, it sounded like the ‘noble savage’ crap that does us nearly as much harm as aboriginal peoples as being called savages.
Anyway, you linked to some interesting blog posts but I did want to bring the following quote up from I, Bonobo, as comments on that blog were closed.
“Do inuits living in igloos hunting seals have internet access? No. Do tribes living in the bush have internet access? No. People in dire circumstances, people in remote areas, people who live where there are no plants DO NOT HAVE FUCKING INTERNET ACCESS!”
I just wanted to point out that people who can be very good at seeing stereotypes and not buying into them can also have their blind spots. I think the above quote highlights this well. Inuit do not live in igloos any more than my own people live in tipis. Shockingly enough, we do in fact have internet access in isolated northern or bush communities. We also retain our strong ties to the land despite the ‘western influence’ of said internet.
My only point in bringing this to your attention is…it’s good to check one’s perceptions from time to time, because those stereotypes we expect others to be more consciously aware of can creep up on us unaware from time time time as well…
ok, you people are pretty sad. one its just a movie, two this crap about rape is pretty rediculous to me i mean if the ikran wanted to it could have flown away like every other ikran did but it choose to fight him, so he defended himself by capturing the ikran and then bonding with it. now if truly the ikran had no freedom do you think they would have let him/her go free and wonder in the tree, no they would have caged it and let him sit there to rot until the master decided to come back and ride him/her again. also when jake sully got back into the avatar body and was alone after the home tree had been destroyed who was to come back for him but is loved ikran. so if you see what im saying the ikran still has freedom and was definatly not raped.