I liked the model of freedom and determinism that Sam talked about in class. I am definitely one who did not face many obstacles growing up. My parents pay for my college and I only work during the summer. My parents did not have it as easy, and they were both some of the first in their family to attend college. They worked hard to provide a higher standard for their children than they had growing up. I have had many friends who resented the face that I did not have to have a constant job to support myself. I have also wondered how having more job experience would have changed me, making me more mature, responsible, whatever. But my parents worked hard to provide for me so that I didn't worry about money like they did as they went to college.

Science fiction is a very hard genre to draw audiences to because it is typically unfamiliar. People don't care about things they can't relate to. That's why James Cameron chose this story to make into a visually stunning movie. It's familiar. Brooks makes some valid points, but for the most part I think he is trying too hard. It's true, you can over analyze just about anything, which can be interesting and educational, but at the end of the day the real purpose of the story is to entertain. I feel the most pervasive theme is one of technology vs nature, and I think it is hard to imagine this conflict without thinking of historical examples, such as the colonization of America.

Brooks does bring up some interesting points in his essay, especially the notions of the native blue people being a compilation of cultures and the necessity of a “white leader,” however I am not sure that the aim of the movie is that sinister. The biggest achievement of this movie is the special effects, hands down. The script is pretty lacking. The story is overused. Obviously. James Cameron’s goal was to tell a story in an interesting, new way. Not necessarily to tell a new story. In truth, there are only a handful of stories out there. The “hero’s journey” is one of the oldest and most overused stories out there, but that didn’t stop everyone from loving the original Star Wars movie. In the same way, Cameron’s Avatar hopes to bring a new version of the “white messiah” story.
Are Avatar, Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves, and similar movies racist? Inherently, yes. Are movies like Titanic, Scar Face, Cinderella, Gangs of New York and other movies depicting class struggle bias? Probably, yes. Are horror movies like Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Halloween sexist because the first person to die is the promiscuous girl? You bet. They may be stereotypes, but they provide conflict, which you need in order to have a story. The reason moviemakers rely on these trite conflicts for their inspiration is because they’re familiar. For a person to get involved in a movie they are watching they need to be able to relate to the story. George Lucas modeled his battles in outer space from footage of aerial dogfights during WWII. This allowed everyone watching the movie to understand what was happening, despite the fact that they had never seen a real space battle. James Cameron introduces an alien race that has similarities to cultures that exist on Earth because he doesn’t have an entire movie to establish the customs and culture of an entire society. Exposition needs to be brief so that the audience can get back to the actual story.
Brooks does bring up an interesting point about the natives needing a “white leader” to bring them to victory. Admittedly, I had not even considered this before. Historically speaking, when two groups of people clash, the technologically superior tend to win out, so we are inclined to believe that the natives require outside help to prevail. Jake Sully provides this help. Yes, he is white. Does he NEED to be white? I don’t think so, as long as he comes from the culture of technology. The grand realization that occurs within Jake Sully is that the naturalistic way is more rewarding than the way of technology. But this is hardly a new idea. The Gothic style and its subsequent art movements are based on the notion that the “old way” was better than the “new way,” and stories like Avatar, Pocahontas, and Dances With Wolves provide unique circumstances where a protagonist must choose between the two extremes. I feel like the primary theme in Avatar is one of revering nature over technology, and our over familiarity with this theme immediately reminds us of other examples epitomized by race.
Yes, Brooks is correct in saying that the story of Avatar is “benevolent romanticism” that reinforces racial stereotypes, but does that mean it is a story NOT worth telling? Does it have no other redeeming morals or lessons for us? Furthermore, can the core story even be told without conjuring up these themes? Movies offend. Movies bring up emotions of anger, despair, hope, fear, love, animosity, etc. and that is why we are drawn to them. The emotions they evoke help us to realize the things about ourselves, others, and society that we aren’t content with. Even if Brooks is right about Avatar, its existence has stimulated a discussion we otherwise might not have had, so it can’t be all bad.

It's certainly a tough catch 22. No one wants to discriminate based on religion or faith, but these are dangerous times. I think it is pretty understandable to report suspicious behavior, and I can see myself doing the same in a similar situation. However, did anyone ask him what he was doing? A simple inquiry could quickly reveal that he was not trying to harm anyone, and at that point I feel he should have been released. Overacting is a natural response, but we should be wary of when caution becomes paranoia, and response becomes excessive.

Hey, remember when women were mandated to cover their heads in a Catholic church? And that IS mentioned in the bible, in one of the letters (I'm sorry I forget which). Traditions are extremely hard to remove from social communities. I mean our grandparents went to church and listened to sermons in Latin. My grandfather, when in France during WWII went to a Catholic sermon with some fellow soldiers and were surprised to find that the sermon was in French, not Latin. So it seems France has a bit of a trend towards progressiveness and religion. If you can call it that.
So should the French be able to ban the use of burqas? No. I mean who are they to determine the rules of anothers' religion or cultural tradition. Are the women forced or is in voluntary? Odds are there are many examples of both. Either way it is not up to the French government to decided. As immigrants move to new countries, they bring with them their native culture. As these groups live and grow in their new homeland the tendency of their cultures is to assimilate into the new one. Many old traditions are lost, however some are still kept. My grandmother and mother came over from Sicily for a better life. While my mom and her siblings can all speak Italian, none of the grandchildren have learned. A sad fact really, but the truth is that it wasn't necessary for our family to keep that tradition, that part of our culture. Do we still cook Italian food and have huge family gatherings? You bet. Best food around.
Some cultures and families assimilate faster than others. Some try hard to not assimilate at all. But it happens. That's the tendency at least. Sooner or later certain traditions are bound to fall by the wayside. And hopefully the burqas will as well, or at the very least, it will become an option, not a necessity. After a while people stopped caring about women wearing hats in church. Or the sermon being in Latin. Or teaching their children how to speak Italian. Soon the traditions we all keep are the ones we choose to keep. One day they may choose to wear a burqa to show their heritage or culture. One day I may learn to speak Italian.
But for now, the French government should just let the issue work itself out internally. If the women are tired of wearing burqas they should ban together and rid themselves of their blight. It wouldn't be the first time women have decided for themselves what they wanted. A law wouldn't solve the problem in an appropriate way. If a law was used to solve this problem of oppression there would be no pride in the victory. They would remove their burqas but not the oppression on them. Men or the cultural leaders or whoever else would find new ways to assert their power over these women. Dress codes don't need to change. Mind sets do.

Howdy

It’s people like Pat Robertson that make me ashamed to be a Christian. They are also the reason I stopped going to church. Keith Olbermann is viciously blunt in his response to Pat Robertson, but there is one key component missing in his attack. He’s not talking to Pat Robertson face to face.

I feel like every news show is about something stupid someone else said, and then the commentator providing their opinion on the subject. You know what I miss? Good ol’ fashion debate.

People can get away with anything they say on TV or the Internet, and the problem is no one is ever held accountable. Pat Robertson’s people had enough time to do damage control and come up with some idiotic excuse to his comment before Olbermann, or anyone else, could respond. What the world needs now is accountability. And news shows report on this stupid behavior like it’s actually news. Sure that’s what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do on their shows, with much success; but their shows are on Comedy Central. I watch Comedy Central to laugh. When I watch the news I want actual news. Religion was once the ‘opium of the people.” It is now celebrity that has become that opium, that addiction. And people will say whatever they can to remain in that celebrity.

As far as responding to what Pat Robertson said, it is hard to believe that he ever read the Bible. When Jesus’ disciples asked him what the most important commandments were, he responded, “Love God, and Love your Neighbor.” A fact that I find is often overlooked by those who preach the Word to further their goals of discrimination. How can you remove the splinter from your brother’s eye when you yourself have a plank in your own?

It is important for the Christian community to support and give aid to the crisis in Haiti, which many have already been done or is being done. But it is asinine comments like those of Pat Robertson that hurt the cause and seek to disrupt the process. The most important feature of the story of the “Good Samaritan” is that Samaritans and Jewish people were not friends in the time of this allegory. It is the equivalent of a black man in the south in 1950 helping a white woman who had been beaten and left in a ditch on the side of the road. Think of what this man risks from helping her, he could easily be blamed for her assault. He isn’t even required to stop. Remember that a priest and community official have already passed her without helping. This situation may remind you of “The Green Mile.” Similar situation going on in that movie, with the guy being wrongly accused after trying to help. Why would Pat Robertson try to slander Haiti in such a way with such a bullshit story? According to the Bible they are our neighbors regardless, and we should love them anyway. Must love them anyway.