I think some of what he said needs to be addressed, so here it goes.

David Brooks claims,

“It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic.”

Not all of the people who were invading were white, nor were all the humans who decided to help the Na’vi. I think Brooks is confusing a culture with a race.

Since strong female characters have been a recurring theme in James Cameron’s films (Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, etc) it would have been great to see that continued in Avatar, or expanded upon by having a strong Latino or Black woman be the main character, but I don’t think it’s rational to call the movie racist just because Sam Worthington (a white man) was chosen for the role. Worthington was living in his car before auditioning for Avatar, so it’s nice that Hollywood’s money isn’t going to only rich people all the time.

I personally would have liked Avatar better if the hero of the story was one of the natives (that’s why I loved “Apocalypto”) but Cameron wanted to make a movie about self maturation and acceptance, so he had to use a human as the main character; because, if he had used a native then he/she would have already had the correct set of beliefs (environmentalist, non-corporatist) and there wouldn’t have been a process of maturation.

Cameron’s choice to use a human as the main character also helps the majority of the audience members relate to the story better, so they can understand the error in Jake’s original way of thinking, and can then arrive at the correct set of beliefs themselves. This may be less creative than using a native as the main character, but it helps to make the movie much more popular since more people can relate to it.

Also, by the end of Avatar it’s pretty clear that the mother/daughter pair are the Na’vi leaders and that the Humans who switched sides aren’t “saviors” but were just correcting the situations they had actually set into motion. Jake had obviously become very influential, but it is usually the case with popular action movies that things turn out well for the protagonist so the audience can feel triumphant through the lead character.

David Brooks goes on to say,

“It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades.”

The movie doesn’t display the natives as being helpless. They benefit from Jake joining them because he knows more about their enemy than they do (because he was one). Any side of a conflict could benefit from knowing more about their enemy, no matter what their culture or race happens to be.

Brooks claims,

“It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace.”

Of all the beautiful qualities that various tribal cultures have, Brooks decided to cherry-pick this particular aspect, totally ignoring the fact that tribal cultures often have very advanced sign-language and oral forms of communication (or in this case, a freaking global neural network) that more than make up for their illiteracy. Brooks is being completely ethnocentric here.

He continues,

“It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration.”

He’s using the word “imperialists” interchangeably with the word “whites”, implying that “white” people are one homogeneous culture throughout the world that are inherently imperialistic. He’s conveniently ignoring that there have been non-imperialistic European cultures.

Yes, the last several hundred years of imperialist crimes have been committed almost entirely by nations ruled by white people. This has nothing to do with anything inherent in “white” behavior, and everything to do with the historical events leading up to European colonial expansion; most notably the death of Ogedei Khan, preventing the conquest of Europe. If you don’t have time to read about that in an encyclopedia, then there’s a comedic summary in the middle of this article: (Link)

So, if Avatar isn’t about white “self-admiration” as Mr. Brooks claims it is, then what is it about?

Here’s just a few of the themes:
It was against corporate greed, it was against destroying the environment, it was against imperialism, it was against violating people’s rights, it was against ethnocentrism. It actually portrayed tribal cultures as being positive instead of pretending that they’re all barbaric cavemen.

With all these themes that go against the status quo, of course there are going to be people who dislike this movie, especially self-proclaimed pro-war Republicans such as David Brooks.

As a liberal, I’m getting dismayed at the Nobel Committee. Henry Kissinger a war criminal, responsible for the deaths of umpteen number of cambodians and vietnamese got the nobel peace prize. While not quite on the same scale, Obama is hemming and hawing while Iraqis and Afghans die needlessly by US troop presence. Even more, his hesitance at holding accountable those who engaged in torture at Gitmo or other secret camps makes this award dubious and questionable.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Looks like I accidentally opened The Onion instead of the New York Times this morning.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

It is indeed a shock that Obama, barely months into office, would win the award. Ironically it comes one day after it was officially acknowledged that he is considering sending more than 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan — bringing the U.S. total to more than 100,000.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

For the continuation of the war in Iraq, for the contemplated expansion of the war in Afghanistan, for the continued detention of the prisoners in Guantanamo, for the continued policy of extraordinary rendition, for the refusal to reinstate the deposed president of Honduras, for the threats against Iran for having nuclear reactors while secretly agreeing to remain silent about Israel’s long-established nuclear bomb program:
We award you, Barack Obama, with the Orwell Peace Prize.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
And today’s guests on Democracy Now! had this to say:

I think it’s quite insulting. I don’t know what kind of political game they’re playing, but I don’t think that the committee has ever been as political as this or as delusional as this, frankly. -Naomi Klein

__________________________________________________________________________________________

They tend to take rhetoric very seriously. And though they deny it, we know that in 1938 they couldn’t decide whether to give the prize to Hitler or to Gandhi. And finally, they gave it to the Nansen International Office of Refugees, which was a much better choice.
It would be worth their while thinking that perhaps they should have a self-denying ordinance. They shouldn’t give the prize to serving heads of state. People still in power, people making war. -Author Tariq Ali

Also, Cindy Sheehan raised some important points today in her essay.

Not only has Obama failed to follow through with any of his campaign promises, as the recent SNL skit points out, but he’s also done the exact opposite of what he said he would do on several crucial issues:

President Obama, Why Did You Pay Blackwater $70 Million in February?

Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq

Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a ‘National Security’ Secret

Obama has Violated International Law

Obama the War Criminal and His Torture Squad

The official Facebook page for Rise Against posted this today:
“We’ve just completed our new video for the song ‘Hero Of War’ off of our record, Appeal To Reason. ‘Hero Of War’ is the story of one soldier, not all soldiers, as he battles not just the war around him, but the war that rages within. Inspired by true events, we were given the choice to either document the tribulations of these times as they unfold around us, or ignore them. To ignore these problems, in our opinion, is letting down the brave men and women who risk everything. ‘Hero Of War’ is our attempt to lift the stigma that surrounds everything from the skyrocketing suicide rate of troops, torture, internal sexual abuse, an under-funded VA, and the growing number of military personnel fighting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as they return home. We hope this song and this video help the simmering dialogue about these problems evolve into a rolling boil. SUPPORT THE TROOPS: END THE WAR”

Hero of War by Rise Against Lyrics:
He said, “Son,
Have you see the world?
Well, what would you say
If I said that you could?
Just carry this gun and you’ll even get paid.”
I said, “That sounds pretty good.”

Black leather boots
Spit-shined so bright
They cut off my hair but it looked alright
We marched and we sang
We all became friends
As we learned how to fight

A hero of war
Yeah that’s what I’ll be
And when I come home
They’ll be damn proud of me
I’ll carry this flag
To the grave if I must
’cause it’s flag that I love
And a flag that I trust

I kicked in the door
I yelled my commands
The children, they cried
But I got my man
We took him away
A bag over his face
From his family and his friends

They took off his clothes
They pissed in his hands
I told them to stop
But then I joined in
We beat him with guns
And batons not just once
But again and again

A hero of war
Yeah that’s what I’ll be
And when I come home
They’ll be damn proud of me
I’ll carry this flag
To the grave if I must
Because it’s flag that I love
And a flag that I trust

She walked through bullets and haze
I asked her to stop
I begged her to stay
But she pressed on
So I lifted my gun
And I fired away

The shells jumped through the smoke
And into the sand
That the blood now had soaked
She collapsed with a flag in her hand
A flag white as snow

A hero of war
Is that what they see
Just medals and scars
So damn proud of me
And I brought home that flag
Now it gathers dust
But it’s a flag that I love
It’s the only flag I trust

He said, “Son, have you seen the world? Well what would you say, if I said that you could?”

Who imagined that in 2009, the world’s governments would be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this, the British Royal Navy – backed by the ships of more than two dozen nations, from the US to China – is sailing into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there is an untold scandal. The people our governments are labeling as “one of the great menaces of our times” have an extraordinary story to tell – and some justice on their side.

Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the “golden age of piracy” – from 1650 to 1730 – the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage Bluebeard that lingers today was created by the British government in a great propaganda heave. Many ordinary people believed it was false: pirates were often saved from the gallows by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we can’t? In his book Villains Of All Nations, the historian Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence.

If you became a merchant or navy sailor then – plucked from the docks of London’s East End, young and hungry – you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked off, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the Cat O’ Nine Tails. If you slacked often, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.

Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied – and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains, and made all their decisions collectively, without torture. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls “one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the eighteenth century”.

They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed “quite clearly – and subversively – that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal Navy.” This is why they were romantic heroes, despite being unproductive thieves.

The words of one pirate from that lost age, a young British man called William Scott, should echo into this new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina, he said: “What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirateing to live.” In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country’s food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: “Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it.” Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to “dispose” of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: “Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention.”

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia’s seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: “If nothing is done, there soon won’t be much fish left in our coastal waters.”

This is the context in which the “pirates” have emerged. Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a “tax” on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia – and ordinary Somalis agree. The independent Somalian news site WardheerNews found 70 per cent “strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence”.

No, this doesn’t make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters – especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But in a telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali: “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas.” William Scott would understand.

Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our toxic waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We won’t act on those crimes – the only sane solution to this problem – but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply, we swiftly send in the gunboats.

The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know “what he meant by keeping possession of the sea.” The pirate smiled, and responded: “What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor.” Once again, our great imperial fleets sail – but who is the robber?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUwQGmMSm0