WeeklyWorker

08.09.2010

The noble savage and colonialism

Films like Avatar represent a racist ideological assault, writes James Devine

“We’re all familiar with the image of the Noble Indian, especially in North America. He - and it is usually a he - lived an innocent life in a golden world of nature. He was peaceful and carefree. He was eloquent. And, as the Ecological Indian, he was protective of the living world.”[1]

It is a statement such as this that summates the overall character of a Euro-American understanding of indigenous peoples and their ways of life. While groundless; invented traditions such as the ecological Indian are pervasive in western media, whether it be the corporate commercial arena or mainstream popular media.[2] In particular, Disney’s Pocahontas and James Cameron’s Avatar are both emblematic of the ecological Indian.

In regards to methodology, there is a foundational understanding necessary to analyse such ‘milestones’ in western media. The basis of this critique is that media contributions to the western mainstream like Avatar are not simply films, but are an ideological assault that perpetrates the racist, individualist ideologies embodied in a western capitalist worldview. As any ideology, it has limitations; and analysing these limitations is the approach taken by this article.

Reification and racism

One of the methods deployed by Cameron is to reify the ecological Indian in the form of the Na’vi humanoids in Avatar. The Na’vi is the form of life indigenous to the planet Pandora and among other qualities have the ability to biologically jack in to the world around them. By representing the ecological Indian through the Na’vi, Cameron has reduced identity (which is a matter of praxis) down to the internal contents of those individuals. Put simply, it comes down to the container metaphor:

“The container metaphor posits “(1) that a human being consists of a combination of (a) physical or biological body, along with (b) various psychological, social, and/or mystical contents of that body (thus dualism is enforced), and (2) that real, scientific explanation of phenomena about human beings must provide an account in terms of what individuals think, choose and do.”[3]

According to Cameron, to be indigenous is limited to biology. To promote the survival of indigenous/non-capitalist ways of life, language and worldview, then, is just a matter of procreation? I think not. This is simply a distraction to smokescreen the genocidal relations between an occupying state and the indigenous peoples holding title to those lands. This method is also pervasive in many non-fictional political systems, notably the Canadian government’s legislation of Indian identity. Identity is then reduced down to the bureaucratic qualification of a people. This qualification relies on a system that was created to disqualify indigenous peoples. For a capitalist state that actively indoctrinates its citizens to view nature as a commodity, it is in its material interest to remove any title held by the original inhabitants of the land. In western countries, the container metaphor manifests as Locke’s Tally Model.

This model follows reductionism, which in this case is to take a way of life and reduce it down to a specific, prioritised set/list of characteristics. For the Canadian government and Cameron that list might look like the following:
(a) Skin colour
(b) Eye colour
(c) Hair colour
(d) Height
(e) Environmental responsibility/connection
(f) Self-sacrifice
(g) Honour
(h) Et cetera

According to this criterion, anyone could become an Indian and in Avatar they do. The concept behind the movie is that with the proper characteristics you can appropriate the identity of indigenous peoples. Through the fictional Avatar programme, our American hero character, Jake, assumes a Na’vi identity. At first it is a steep learning curve in order to become proficient in the language, way of life, world view and technical skills of the Na’vi - all managed in just a few months! But with the proper acquired biology and an all-knowing anthropologist, the American Jake would go on to not only become a Na’vi himself, but also assume a position of leadership. Allow us to critique this story.

Firstly, the tally model is self-serving, for it allows the coloniser to control and dictate the identity of indigenous peoples. Secondly, it is a divide and conquer tactic deployed to assimilate indigenous peoples into the states conception of who they should be (and to support Indians fighting each other for that privilege). Thirdly, by founding identity in the bedrock of a personal, individual and internal explanation, it allows the state to not only profit from their ‘personal expertise’ at those internal processes, but to then indoctrinate Indians into that individualist paradigm. Fifthly, the assumption that an anthropologist can achieve a godlike, all-knowing status is insulting and consistent with the western arrogance that pervades this film. Sixthly, this explanation is racist: “A model that supposes that a people’s way of life is hardwired into their being is a racist ideology that demands a physical intervention, such as shooting and gassing them”.[4] The Na’vi represent how western racism views Indians; as a people whose ‘cultural traits’ and ‘ecological responsibilities’ are hardwired into their biology.

A methodological individualist model posits a personal, internal and individual explanation for the transmission of traditional environmental knowledge/responsibility. Three such explanations are: genetic, taught and divine intervention. Already explained is how our hero character, Jake, embodied the first two explanations, but the divine intervention must also be addressed. According to Cameron’s Avatar, the Na’vi not only have a biological reason for respecting nature, but a theological one as well. The ecological Indian possessing a transcendental, mystical connection to the land is expressed through their religious relationship with the goddess Eywa. Basically, another check on the Indian tally list; respect for ancestors, physically manifests as the Tree of Souls, where the Na’vi can physically jack in to listen to their past relations. As if this was not troubling enough, it is our hero character, Jake, who at the end of the film is Indian enough to summon the power of Eywa and bring nature down upon the invading humans.

As the ecological Indian rears its ugly head again, let us with finality sever this myth from reality. Suggesting that a people are inherently environmentally sensitive is a metaphysical statement and far removed from any scientific or biological explanation. Unlike the individualist model that Sheppard Krech, his supporters and their opponents fall into; a historical-materialist approach critiques the political, historical and economic conditions that have given rise to the current situation: “If an Indian has a responsibility to their surrounding environment, it has nothing to do with something physically hardwired into the individual”.[5]

In a non-capitalist society, organising one’s world communally not only made sense, but survival depended on it. Sharing ones resources and taking responsibility for one’s community and the surrounding environment meant the continuation of that form of life. Culture is praxis; how you did things and how well you did them determined your role in society. Indigenous peoples are generalists, whose life requires a wide-range of knowledge, unlike the tokenistic archery and animal riding shown in Avatar. This film, similar to the role played by the ‘all-knowing anthropologist’, is a reflection of western idealism and not a reflection of any indigenous forms of life.

Pocahontas digitally remastered

“In the historical American mind only two kinds of Indians existed - Noble Savages and Bloodthirsty Savages. Noble Savages resisted American expansion in their attempt to preserve their lands and ways of life. That Walt Disney would select Pocahontas, the ultimate Noble Savagess/Indian Princess, for the big screen only proves that the racist ideas of manifest destiny, Euro-American superiority and aboriginal inferiority are alive and well in 1995.”[6]

In fact, western racism is alive and well in the 21st century. With better graphics and more sophisticated technology, James Cameron has essentially created the highest grossing Indian princess story in history. Avatar has all the elements: a white hero who turns on his fellow soldiers, a self-sacrificing indigenous princess, militia men acting as cowboys on the galactic frontier, a proudly naive indigenous leader committed to violence and a romantic union of the white hero and the Indian princess. “What is Pocahontas but a feminised version of the cowboy and Indian fantasy - the cowboy always wins and gets the princess.”[7]

At this point, the question that must be considered is: how are these two films different? Using the above analysis, the answer is they are not. Both films are fabricated stories, grounded in western idealism that effectively appropriates the history and/or culture of indigenous peoples. Our hero character, Jake, is nothing more than another John Smith, except this time he decided not to return to Earth/Europe. He is portrayed as the classical avenger and protector of indigenous peoples, while Neytiri, the Na’vi princess, is his rescuer. The Avatar programme itself is simply a collection of conquistadors with blue skin.

Conclusion

Many of the arguments put forward by self-proclaimed critical thinkers consistently follow bad thinking. Like the positions of Krech and anti-Krech advocates, these discussions spawn multiple heads on a hydra they do not understand. By buying into these positions, one continues the fabrication of confusion apparent in methodological individualist and reductionist programmes. These discussions of supposed ‘anti-war’ themes in the film Avatar, like the heads of a hydra, draw our attention away from what needs to be addressed: the ideological package that Avatar presents to its viewers.[8]

By failing to understand the ideological message this movie conveys, one simply flails about instead of intellectually reaching an understanding of the roots of this racist, sexist, colonial piece of propaganda. If we are to actually defeat this western idealist monster, we must understand this film to be an ideological assault and wholeheartedly refute it on those grounds. To do otherwise, is to not understand the whole picture.

“Draw a lion incompletely and it will look like a dog” - Chinese proverb.

Notes

  1. S Krech, ‘Playing with fire’ New Scientist October 23 1999.
  2. Iron Eyes Cody, an Italian American, was hired by Hollywood and other entities in the American media industry to portray indigenous peoples. A relevant example was his crying Indian debut in the public service announcement, ‘Keep America beautiful’, aired in the 1970s.
  3. R Bhargava Individualism in social sciences: forms and limits of a methodology Oxford 1992. Also see T Wasacase The empty mirror: western theories of identity and the attack on indigenous peoples Interdisciplinary studies thesis, St Thomas University, April 26 2003.
  4. R Chrisjohn, director of native studies, lecture, St Thomas University, February 11 2010.
  5. R Chrisjohn, lecture, April 6 2010.
  6. W Stevenson, Winona Dreamspeaker: Pocahontas gets a thumbs down: www.inac.gc.ca/pubs/dreams/fall95.pocha.html
  7. Ibid.
  8. An example of an author who missed the point: “In fact, Cameron revealed in an interview with PBS that he deliberately drew parallels with the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and colonial America” - S Ataogul, ‘Avatar: an anti-imperialist fairy tale’, US Socialist Worker January 2010.