I never get tired of watching Avatar.

Before I get into my thoughts on the thoughts of other more scholarly people about Avatar, I first want to talk about two of my own experiences because it provides context for how I interpret the readings for today.

In both my current job and in my personal life, I've organized and hosted several events.  At a few of these events, volunteer attendees often feel free to give unsolicited (and unwanted) commentary.  For example, some friends and I in 2008 organized a few events in light of Governor Lingle's decision to take the "ceded" lands case to the U.S. Supreme Court for review after the Hawaii Supreme Court had ruled that the state could not sell "ceded" lands until it has resolved the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians.  At one event in January 2009 we hosted two discussion panels at the law school.  The first discussion panel had the attorney representing the Hawaiian side and the attorney representing the Governor, (then-state attorney general Mark Bennett).

With the attorneys from the two opposing sides of the legal dispute talking on the same panel, a person could reasonably presume that the discussion is balanced, because it's definitely not one-sided.  Well, as our luck would turn out, one attorney made plans to come to our event (he showed up) and decided that he would repeatedly say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" throughout the time that Mark Bennett would speak because he thought we shouldn't be giving him a so-called platform to speak.  Since we found out about his strategy moments before we were able to resolve that.  But later on, there were two other bruddahs who interrupted our event.  One actually took center-stage, had the microphone and said, "This is a waste of time, we shouldn't be talking about this case, we should be talking about nation-building!  This is a waste of time, I have four kids to take care of at home!.  The other said, "this is wrong!" and insisted we should have done things their way, and that our format did not include a bunch of other issues that they wanted us to cover.

Hello?!  We specifically narrowed the issue to the case at hand, the case that was going to the Supreme Court!  We weren't interested in discussing issues that the court would not take up!

More recently, I co-authored and published a law journal article.  I was approached by the Asian Pacific Law & Policy Journal to specifically respond to a journal article they previously published because they had concerns about the article.  They also thought a response from me, addressing specific areas of concern in the article would help further the dialogue and clarify both issues of fact and relevant issues of U.S. domestic law.  It was a horrible article that dehumanized Native Hawaiians by comparing them to Kona coffee (by likening blood quantum issues with determinations of whether Kona coffee beans are actually Kona coffee beans), and mis-stated U.S. domestic law among other things.

To my surprise, a small number of friends and colleagues expressed strong disappointment that I didn't cite to certain other people within our circle and/or that I didn't raise certain other issues in the article.

What I've learned in my short time on this planet is that some people would rather complain about what I was not doing, rather than simply doing it themselves.  Some will devote energy to complaining about what I am not doing while simultaneously ignoring some of the other things I have done.

I'm tempted to describe the three assigned readings as Native American-centric, but James Clifford apparently isn't Native American.  That doesn't mean the three assigned readings collectively cannot be Native American-centric, but I describe these as such anyway with some reservation.  This centric view may be indicated in Starn's review when he writes, "[m]any commentators have noted how the film recycles a set of shopworn tropes about indigeneity in general, and American Indians in particular."  (Emphasis mine).

I found the "American Indians in particular" comment to be problematic, because, I think there are strong elements of the film rooted in Native Hawaiian culture.  For instance, almost one hour and 5 minutes into the film (1:04:49) after Jake has hunted and killed an animal in the presence of Neytiri, he says in the Na'vi language, "Your spirit goes with Eywa."  Then he says, "Your body stays behind . . . to become part of The People."

In the Hawaiian language we have a similar saying, "ʻo ke aka kā ʻoukou, ʻo ka ʻiʻo kā mākou"  The translation is, "Yours the essence, ours the flesh."  I learned this as meaning the essence belongs to the gods, the substance is ours.   The essence here is the equivalent to spirit as used by Jake.  The flesh refers to the body.  I remember watching this movie back in 2009 and reading that caption on the screen and feeling like, "WOW!! That's us!"  I'm hesitant here or anywhere and anytime to take a strict Hawaiian-centric approach for critiquing this film for several reasons.  First, the director and screenwriter(s) have their own goals, intentions and inspirations for this particular film similar to how I have my own goals, intentions, and inspirations when organizing events or writing articles and commentary.  Second, I think it is more appropriate for critiquing this film in the broadest context possible rather than a narrow one.  Lastly, I think a critical analysis of the film should examine not only what the film supposedly did wrong, but also what the film did right.

STARN

Although his review begins with a discussion on Avatar and describing it as staying true "to the White Messiah formula" often seen in Hollywood films, the article is less of a review on the film and more of a discussion on the past, present and future of anthropology and the relationship of that discipline with Indigenous peoples.  In short, to the extent that Avatar means anything substantive to Starn's commentary, Starn focused more on what Avatar did not include in the story-telling.  This is made clear when Starn writes, "The darker sides of native life -- the old reservation problems of unemployment, alcoholism, tribal infighting, sexual and domestic violence, and now diabetes -- tend to be ignored in anthropology of late, or at least the most widely read recent ethnographies." Within the scope Avatar, I couldn't help but wonder, "is this what Starn wanted James Cameron to include in the film?"  He doesn't say so explicitly, but relevance of of Hollywood depictions of indigeneity and the reliance on anthropology by Hollywood giving rise to those depictions seems to suggest this is what he would like to see.

Unfortunately, we don't get to dictate what people, (film producers or scholars) write about.  Sure, we can complain about it and provide critiques when people to fail to address issues we think they should, but I think that's energy mis-spent.  In my POLS 600 class with Prof. Heyer, Professor Colin Moore came and spoke another week about the "State" and "policy"  While he cited to and spoke a lot about Skocpol.  In the Skocpol reading we had, Skocpol argued (in 1985) for an increased emphasis on the state as an actor in the development of public policy.  A lot has changed since 1985 and when I asked Prof. Moore about other potential "actors" in the development of public policy, he explained to me that his interest and focus did not lie on other actors.  His focus was narrowly on the state.  Prof. Heyer elaborated that when we begin writing our dissertations that we'll need to narrow our focus.

Anthros.
The first time I watched Avatar, I paid really no attention to the anthropologists in the film.  From this class alone, I've noticed that I pay more attention to the existence of anthropologists' narratives.  Anyway, when we consider the different methods of research, it's clear that Jake is a participant observer, although by neither trade nor education is he an anthropologists.  As a participant observer though among the Na'vi, Jake essentially acts as an anthropologists whose video logs serve as his field notes.

With Starn's focus on the relationship between anthropologists and American Indians, I can't meaningfully discuss Starn critique here without pointing out how Jake (as an anthropologist) is distinguishable from the type of anthropologists that Starn writes about.  Unlike the anthropologists that depended on Native Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries Jake is significantly different because, Jake had not one, but three conflicting forces relying on him:

• the corporate military leader
• Grace the lead anthropologist 
• the Na'vi leadership

This unique and destructive dynamic, I'm confident, is not the same dynamic that existed between American Indians and anthropologists (even if this latter dynamic was destructive nonetheless).  The corporate military presence on Pandora relied on Jake to gain acceptance by the Na'vi to help facilitate a removal policy (reminiscent of 19th century American removal policies designed to allow for westward expansion).  Grace the anthropologist used Jake to get back into the good graces of the Na'vi people; Jake became "one-of-them" and was the vehicle for her getting back to them.  Lastly, Neytiri's father, upon learning that Jake was a "warrior" Dreamwalker, unlike previous Dreamwalkers would allow them to learn more about the humans.  So, again, there was an unusual dynamic at play.

CLIFFORD

I had a hard time grappling with Clifford's article.  I remember reading the same David Brooks article on the film.  I could't believe that Clifford was willing to state that the Brooks article, "was pretty much what I might have written myself."  Brooks wrote about the White Messiah formula, but he used that only to promote the message he really wanted to convey.  Brooks is concerned about the perceived anti-military tone of the film.  This is evident when he wrote, "[t]he plotline gives global audiences a chance to see American troops get killed."  The problem with Brooks assessment is that it's not clear that these are real American troops.  First, Jake talks with an Australian accent and this is easily attributed to the fact that the actor playing the character of Jake, Sam Worthington, is Australian.  But, Jake is a former marine so it's implied that these troops are American.  However, at about 5-6 minutes into the film Jake mentions that back on Earth the troops fought for freedom.  He distinguished their past lives on Earth with the current presence on Pandora in which he described them as "hired guns" essentially mercenaries.  In other words, these are not American troops in the sense that they represent the U.S. government.  Instead, they're a private army furthering corporate interests.  So, it bothers me that Clifford would readily identify with Brooks.

I did however appreciate Clifford's summary of The Word for World is Forest.  It was helpful to learn more about a source that Cameron may have relied on in developing Avatar.  Clifford's article though also provides some meaningful insight into Starn's article on the interesting and troubled relationship between anthropologists and American Indians.  

SIMPSON

Audra Simpson seems to have written mostly on settler colonialism and its relevance to Avatar.  In the process however, I think she either ignores or misses other relevant and important parts of the film.  Early-on Simpson writes, "Avatar conflates Indigeneity with an endangered cultural purity, one that is about to be sequestered, removed, and possibly annihilated for territorial possession.  Because of Indigenous endangerment, there is a need for protection, preservation, and leadership by an outside force."

Respectfully, I disagree and I think this comment oversimplifies the complexities of the film and actually more closely speaks to legal issues that American Indian tribes have faced.  I don't think Avatar conflates indigeneity with cultural purity at all.  Instead, I think it better reflects how an indigenous people may respond and adapt to outside forces.  Second, there are some practical matters to consider as well.  Whether you're an individual or a group of people facing annihilation (or a near-annihilation attack) you don't care where your help for protection or preservation comes from, you take it, you appreciate it, and then later when you're safe you think about where that help comes from.

Returning to my first point in regards to Simpson.  The White Messiah formula is not wholly applicable here.  Neytiri saved Jake's life on multiple occasions throughout the film.  In fact, she almost killed him in the beginning with her bow and arrow, but ultimately did not.  She saved Jake from the pack of animals, then saved him again when the Na'vi warriors first encountered Jake, then she impliedly advocated for Jake's safety upon Jake being taken to her dad.  She saved him again when the bulldozer's came and she couldn't wake him up.  She also saved him again near the end of the film.  If it wasn't for Neytiri, Jake would not be alive.  Jake may appear to be the savior on the surface, but below the surface, it was really Neytiri.

Jake did not accept the Na'vi people; the Na'vi people accepted Jake only after a rigorous physical and cultural process.  He didn't just walk into the Na'vi community and became one of them.  He had to be accepted by them.  This is cultural sovereignty; cultural values manifesting themselves in decison-making and sovereignty.  This is also tribal membership.  Today, tribal membership is a big BIG issue among tribes and individual members.  Members are being dis-enrolled for a variety of reasons.  One iteration of the Akaka Bill required a social, civic, or cultural connection to the Hawaiian community.   Having Hawaiian ancestry, according to that one version, was not enough to become a "registered member" there needed to be a cultural or civic connection. In the film, Jake worked on having that cultural and civic connection.

Subsequently, Jake was "disowned" by the Na'vi and this is made clear when upon learning that Jake knew all along what the fate of the Na'vi was, Neytiri says, "You'll never be one of us."  I liken this to a statement made by Dr. Jon Osorio in his book, "Dismembering Lahui" where he conveys the idea that in the multi-ethnic citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom, non-aboriginal Hawaiians may have been "citizens" of the Kingdom with generally equal rights, they were not necessarily a part of the smaller Native Hawaiian community within that larger population.   In Jake's case, he was recognized as being a part of the community, but Neytiri made clear that he didn't necessarily share the kinship.  When he was "disowned" he was effectively banished (even if only momentarily).  Banishment is also a unique attribute of tribal communities.  Banishment is a big deal and is often reserved for gross violations of cultural customs.

Jake's membership may also be a jurisdictional issue as well.  In the 1970s, tribal sovereignty was dealt a devastating blow in the Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe case which held that tribes had no jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservation even if they commit crimes on reservation lands.  Here though, Jake an important part of the Na'vi and implicitly consented to their authority over him.  When tribal governments can exercise authority over non-Indians we are witnessing an expansion of Indigenous sovereignty.

I have to re-iterate my belief that Avatar did not simply "conflate indigeneity with an endangered cultural purity."  Instead, I think it touched on several contemporary and complex issues.

--