When will white people stop making movies like Avatar?
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
It's ironic that you can lump together a diverse group of people based on one over generalized and subjective criteria, yet when someone makes the opposite argument it is meant with cries of racism.
"Non-white" people didn't have the opportunity to show off the magnitude of the darker side to their character because they didn't have the mental capacity to create and exploit new technologies the same way white people did.
--
No matter where we turn, humans exploit each other regardless of skin color. No race is immune to that, it is a characteristic that we all share in brotherhood.
Also he said "white race" you erroneously substituted Europeans in your argument. Not all Europeans are from the "white race".
We've seen major empires/kingdoms in other races with superior technology, weapons -differing immunity to disease when compared to Caucasians through out time, yet in the history of mankind we have only seen white empires try to conquer the known world (Rome, Alexander and the Macedonians, Britain, etc.)and pretty much conquer the world (the United States). Also, we've seen this "diverse group" sit back and divy up other races land, and come up with the theory of race (and it's logical cancer: racism -not to be confused with ethnocentrism) to enhance their global imminence among their other sins. If you can give me an example of non-white groups rivaling caucasians in their dominance over almost all other people in the world instituting broad and err-filled ways to categorize, look at and treat people, allying with the ancient enemies of their own race to fuck over other "races", I'll recant my statement.
I haven't seen it, Caucasians have set a precedent in human exploitation... Yes, an arrow will kill me just like an atom bomb, but can we honestly sit back and say an arrow and an a-bomb are the same because of their basic function?
I haven't seen it, Caucasians have set a precedent in human exploitation... Yes, an arrow will kill me just like an atom bomb, but can we honestly sit back and say an arrow and an a-bomb are the same because of their basic function?
Where has Dhadnot typed anything that could be considered as a cry of racism?
Are you being serious or is there some sarcasm in your words? If you're being serious just let me know so I can set you straight on the topic.
But Dhadnot didn't disagree with that. In fact, he said, "...I agree with the latter half of your statement..." so what exactly was he agreeing with again? He was agreeing that, "Raping and pillaging is not unique to the white race, it is not inherently in a white person's character, its just fun to pretend it is."
I really do suggest several of you start reading--critically--instead of typing knee-jerk responses.
Context is everything, sport. Consider the context in which he used the word, you can start by pondering how/why Eurocentrism is worldwide, how/why some view manifest destiny as a "right", etc.
Are you being serious or is there some sarcasm in your words? If you're being serious just let me know so I can set you straight on the topic.
But Dhadnot didn't disagree with that. In fact, he said, "...I agree with the latter half of your statement..." so what exactly was he agreeing with again? He was agreeing that, "Raping and pillaging is not unique to the white race, it is not inherently in a white person's character, its just fun to pretend it is."
I really do suggest several of you start reading--critically--instead of typing knee-jerk responses.
Context is everything, sport. Consider the context in which he used the word, you can start by pondering how/why Eurocentrism is worldwide, how/why some view manifest destiny as a "right", etc.
The Ottoman Empire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Or is it OK to do this sort of thing based on religion, just not race?
What about the Arab Empire when this book (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites) was written?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jah....28Superiority_Of_The_Blacks_To_The_Whites.29
Of course there's always The various Chinese dynasties and the Japanese Empire. None of these existed without a lot of blood being spilled. And if you weren't the same race as the conquering army, you were pretty much fucked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Or is it OK to do this sort of thing based on religion, just not race?
What about the Arab Empire when this book (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites) was written?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jah....28Superiority_Of_The_Blacks_To_The_Whites.29
Of course there's always The various Chinese dynasties and the Japanese Empire. None of these existed without a lot of blood being spilled. And if you weren't the same race as the conquering army, you were pretty much fucked.
Key words being "known world". It's hard to have ambitions of conquering lands that you don't know exist.
They compare because they're both the "known world", even if it was smaller or larger at various times to various groups.
The Asians had been doing that shit centuries before "whites" organized into anything much larger than clans or tribes.
They compare because they're both the "known world", even if it was smaller or larger at various times to various groups.
The Asians had been doing that shit centuries before "whites" organized into anything much larger than clans or tribes.
My comp just went down -on the phone- I'll read your comments out fully at a later date and try to respond in full. The Ethiopian scholar who wrote the superiority of the blacks to the whites, wrote it after years of Arab slave trading and barbarity against the Zheng people and other East, south east Africans. It is reactive propaganda to caucasian Arab-raced based progroms and propaganda in order to benefit off of black bondage.
And the simple fact is I am not arguring against human barbarity, I am arguring for the fact that caucasian people have set the precedent in this area ever since Alexander the Great -although then caucasians were just ethnocentrist and didn't employ their great thinkers in the matters of racial domination and global white supremacy. Now if you can find any "race" as devious and succesful, I will recant as mentioned earlier.
And the simple fact is I am not arguring against human barbarity, I am arguring for the fact that caucasian people have set the precedent in this area ever since Alexander the Great -although then caucasians were just ethnocentrist and didn't employ their great thinkers in the matters of racial domination and global white supremacy. Now if you can find any "race" as devious and succesful, I will recant as mentioned earlier.
So by success do you mean body counts or land acquisition? And if it is land, should it be by actual land mass or the population of that land. I mean conquering Alaska would probably be less significant than conquering New York.
And what definition of Devious should we use?
I mean would the Islamic Empire be less devious because it was supposedly spreading a religion, while the British Empire was supposedly acquiring resources (though actually both did both)? Even though both Empires were built on murder?
Not that it matters, you may very well be correct, though if I were to put money on it I'd bet historically the Asians would have a higher body count and more brutal disregard for human life than Caucasians would. That would include Russia, funny how they're white skinned.
You're giving the impression that Caucasians are somehow the only people on Earth that have the ability (or disability) to conquer other races and treat them as sub-humans and/or property. I'm trying to give some examples that ALL races, when they get strong enough, tend to do shit like this.
Hopefully I'm not giving the impression that I somehow condone any such actions, or that one group's barbarity justifies another group's. I'm just trying to dispel the idea that this is somehow a thing that only Caucasians are capable of.
And what definition of Devious should we use?
I mean would the Islamic Empire be less devious because it was supposedly spreading a religion, while the British Empire was supposedly acquiring resources (though actually both did both)? Even though both Empires were built on murder?
Not that it matters, you may very well be correct, though if I were to put money on it I'd bet historically the Asians would have a higher body count and more brutal disregard for human life than Caucasians would. That would include Russia, funny how they're white skinned.
You're giving the impression that Caucasians are somehow the only people on Earth that have the ability (or disability) to conquer other races and treat them as sub-humans and/or property. I'm trying to give some examples that ALL races, when they get strong enough, tend to do shit like this.
Hopefully I'm not giving the impression that I somehow condone any such actions, or that one group's barbarity justifies another group's. I'm just trying to dispel the idea that this is somehow a thing that only Caucasians are capable of.
One of the other films mentioned in the OP article was District 9. Now, I thought that movie was great. But the thing is, it is only (certain) non-white people who think of these movies in terms of the race of the main character. For all I care, D9 could have starred Chiwetel Ejiofor instead, who is currently one of my favorite actors. The only problem with that choice of casting, for me, is that I can't see him playing the bumbling idiot like the guy in D9, so it would be quite a different movie in that case. But whether the main guy is black or white is meaningless to me. The same goes for Avatar.
Did I mind the main character in Avatar was white, no, this is something I have come to expect -and love the many white main characters of the movies, games, books, comics, etc. I cherish- but will I sit back and say that the constructions of some of these films/media don't propagate a certain belief and stir up certain sub-concious leanings? Of course they do, I studied the shit, I work in it, and i'll continue to talk about it.