Film, as one of the dominant expressions of our cultural conversation, expresses what we think about ourselves. And in this particular (American) film, we have a tired storyline about a white man who "saves" a native people by using the same old methods of violence and aggression that are used by the oppressors. Nothing new is added to our cultural conversation here. The war is the same (only flashier thanks to CGI) and the racism is the same (only broader and multispecies) and the end result is the same.
In Avatar, the entire 15-year struggle of the indigenous people of Pandora is solved in three months by one knucklehead-with-a-heart-of-gold ex-Marine who is able to bring the considerable power and technology of his destructive, warmongering race to the aid of an oppressed people (by teaching them bigger, better ways to make war). Tada, in less than 3 hours we have a happy ending, and a cross-species love story to boot.
This is a lovely fantasy, except that life doesn't really work this way. Let's imagine the sequel, based on how we know these things really go. After they win back Pandora for the people, the tribes begin to battle among themselves for dominance and access to the "sky people's" superior technology. Sully teaches 'his' own small tribe how to build bigger, better guns than the other tribes, and they win control of the planet by destroying the other tribes. See? The story just goes on and on and on. It never ends. There is never peace on this route. After a few generations, the "sky people" come back for another try, with better weapons this time, and they eliminate the people of the planet altogether with the excuse that "they're fighting among themselves anyway."
Meemee, you may be right about people with power who help those without power.
This is often true because people without power don't have access to the resources they need to help themselves, because the people with power took those resources away from them to begin with. So some good-hearted people, once they realize this, have to go back and try to make things right. But they never completely abdicate their own power and supremacy in doing so. They "help" people, sure, if they're good hearted, but they keep their power and wealth in the process. If Bill Gates' fortune was threatened by his philanthropy, you can bet he'd think twice about all his "good works." The protagonist in this film, in the end, "becomes" part of the people - physically speaking - but he retains the class privilege he brought to the story in the first place. He ends the story as the military leader of the people; no way can the white man enter this story and end it on the fringes of the society he's joined, right?
A white person with an education, if they are a responsible person, can go to bat for poor people of color, or indigenous people, and do some excellent good on their behalf. No argument there, meemee. I would venture to say that any white person with an education who is NOT doing work on behalf of the oppressed people of the world is actually perpetuating that oppression. Our white privilege (including our access to education) is facilitated by the oppression of others. It isn't "good-heartedness" to work for the oppressed, in this context - it is a debt we are responsible for paying. We don't help the poor because we're nice people, we help the poor because their poverty has enabled our wealth and we are responsible for restoring that balance as much as we can. And most of us fall short. I do, all the time.
I think it's like the title of Ralph Nader's new book, Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us. Don't we all wish that the people who have the most money and power would come to the aid of the people with the least money and power, because that would solve a whole lot of problems right quick!!! Unfortunately, this book, like the film Avatar, deals more in fantasy than in real life. It's too bad - because real life could use a bit of help from the creative imaginations of our time.
