Advertisement
BBC BLOGS - Mark Mardell's America

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

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

Comments (63)

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.

All over bar (a lot of) shouting?

Mark Mardell | 12:57 UK time, Thursday, 24 December 2009

Comments (832)

It was the first time for more than 100 years that the US Senate had voted on Christmas Eve. This is not the end, but it is the furthest such a bill on healthcare reform has ever got in the US. As President Obama has pointed out, it was Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party which first campaigned on the issue in 1912.

The Republicans will continue to fight it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that when senators got home for the first time since Thanksgiving, they would "get an earful" because of the "widespread opposition to this monstrosity."

The tension was punctured a little when the man who has been driving this whole process, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, voted the wrong way. Laughter rippled through the chamber and he put his head in his hands before changing his vote. He has said that when it is over he is going home to Nevada to "watch my rabbits eat my cactus". The strain is beginning to show.

But it is not over yet. Now the Democratic members of the House of Representatives will have their say. This bill has to be merged with the one that they passed in early November.

The House bill includes the public option and a different way of paying for the changes. Some are making it clear that they think the Senate should be made to go back to the drawing board.

My feeling is that President Obama will make sure that doesn't happen. He wants a victory, and he wants this over.

I suspect that the compromises and deals that went into the making of the Senate bill are like some complex child's toy, where if you remove one element the whole thing collapses. So there will be some minor tinkering with the bill but the essential elements won't change.

This is merely a hunch. If left-wing Democrats really want to play hard ball, if they really feel that the bill is so awful that it is not worth having, then they could still bring the whole thing crashing to the ground. I suspect it is all over bar the shouting, but there will be an awful lot of shouting before we're done.


Healthcare and the 'dance of politics'

Mark Mardell | 01:00 UK time, Thursday, 24 December 2009

Comments (56)

Nurses and ambulance men cluster around an elderly man complaining of pain in his chest, asking about his medication and other symptoms. Howard University Hospital seems a model of its kind, smart and modern, with a very good reputation. But that's a triumph over adversity and what many here regard as a perverse system.


Howard is in Washington's north-west, U Street and Shaw, an area that is predominantly black. It has seen very high unemployment, although it is now becoming more middle class, the latest area of the capital to be gradually gentrified. Still 80% of the patients are on Medicare, Medicaid or DC's own local version of these government-funded schemes. Many of the staff and patients here were enthusiastic supporters of President Obama and ecstatic about his victory.

The president has said in a PBS interview that he's "very satisfied" with the Senate bill and that it's not a half a loaf but "nine-tenths of a loaf". I've been down to Howard University Hospital to see what people think.

Evet Hill, an outpatient returning after surgery, tells me: "Everybody should have it as a right. They should have insurance because go to a hospital today, and you don't have it, whatever the sickness they're going to turn you down."

In fact no hospital, and certainly not one dedicated to "serving the under-served", will turn away an emergency patient. But getting follow-up treatment can be a problem, paying for the drugs needed being just too expensive. One of the down sides is that people put off treatment until it is just about too late. I am told a horrific story about a breast cancer allowed to go on so long that it breaks through the skin in what is called "a fungal mass". One surgeon who's been treating cancer for six years had never seen a case. When he came to this hospital he treated 18 instances within 21 months.


Another patient in the waiting room, Kayna Curry, says the president should allowed to get on with it. "Let him do what needs to be done to provide health insurance for everyone. He's come across a lot of roadblocks: just let him do his job and he'll do fine."

I have to keep reminding myself that these roadblocks have been erected by senators from the president's own party. All the deals, all the money, all the compromise, has not brought round one Republican senator. It was all about getting Democratic senators to vote for their own policy.

Dr Kevin Scott Smith, the head of the obstetrics and gynaecology division, says he is excited but seems less than happy with the shenanigans on the Hill. "In the purest form healthcare reform is definitely something I espouse, I think most physicians espouse, and this country definitely wants to offer all of its citizens healthcare. What seems to be happening is that there is the dance of politics changing it from its most pure form to" he pauses for a beat "politics".

After this vote, this is not over. This Senate bill has to be squared with one from the House which does include the public option. Some Democrats will argue that without this the bill is pointless. Dr Patricia O'Neill who specialises in sickle-cell anaemia and leukaemia, is not sure.
"I think it is a step in the right direction because I am hoping there is at least some fight left for a public option." I ask if it is worth having without that. With a laugh she says: "I am still trying to decide, I don't know, I really don't know, a part of me is saying yes, a part is saying "no". I am just trying to fathom how you are going to cover these patients who remain uninsured."

The big fear of some doctors I speak to is that the bill will make people take out insurance, while not providing a cheap way of doing it. In an election year that should worry elected politicians who support the bill: and delight their opponents. But the view from Howard, taken as a whole, is that they trust the president, but not some of his colleagues on the Hill.

Explore the BBC

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy