Postcolonial theory in Avatar

James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) is a science fiction movie set in the year 2154 where the human race has depleted earth's resources and they now look to colonise the moon, Pandora. Pandora is densely forested and inhabited by a species called N’avi; ten feet tall blue skinned human like beings. The humans supposed main purpose for this colonising expedition is to mine the mineral “unobtanium,” which according to Parker (the man in charge of the expedition and the mining company), who says “this is why we're here. Unobtanium. Because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo.”

Jake Sully is a paraplegic marine who is promised the restoration of his legs if he can gather intelligence on the native population. Jake agrees, and uses the the technology of the avatar suit to blend in with the community. Yet over time joins the side of the N’avi, through his love of Neytiri, who also initiates him into their tribe. He later helps them defeat the invading humans (along with active help from mother nature) whom become greedy and try to destroy the native population and then gather the resources.

Throughout the film we see strong themes of postcolonial theory. Firstly the humans mission itself is very colonial. This can be seen when Tyson describes when Europeans first landed in the ‘New World,’ they believed that ““land that wasn't occupied by Christians was considered “empty land” and, therefore, theirs for the taking” (Tyson, 401) Furthermore, they would then send “European missionaries...to Christianize them” (Tyson, 401), which can be reflected in the movie by Jake and Dr. Grace Augustine who assimilate through their avatars into the native population to gather information on them.

As a whole, you could argue that the humans held a “colonialist ideology” (Tyson, 400) when invading Pandora and starting a war as this ideology states that colonizers believe in their “superiority, which they contrasted with the alleged inferiority of the native (indigenous) peoples” (Tyson, 400). In addition to this, the colonists “ignored or swept aside the religions, customs, and codes of behavior of the peoples they subjugated” (Tyson, 400) this is also reflected in the movie as they refused to acknowledge the close relationship the N’avi people shared with nature and their worship of Goddess Eywa. This attitude, in turn, led to their ultimate defeat in their quest for colonisation as nature helped the N’avi people for victory.

Furthermore, because they believe their culture was “civilised, sophisticated...more highly advanced” (Tyson, 400), they defined the native peoples as “savage” meaning they were  “backward...underdeveloped...evil...as well as inferior” (Tyson, 400). We can see this in the movie as both Quartich (Army colonel, arguably the main evil character) and Parker both address the native N’avi as “savages” and then proceed to blindly and ignorantly attack the N’avi.

Tyson also talks of “Cultural imperialism” (Tyson, 410) which consists of the “takeover of one culture by another: the food, clothing, customs, recreation, and values of the economically  dominant culture increasingly replace those of the economically vulnerable culture.” (Tyson, 410) This is observed in the movie when they come to the decision to use violence on the natives rather than peaceful trade and negotiations, as seen below.

Arwen's Double Colonization in The Lord of the Rings

              In the Middle-Earth realm brought to life by The Lord of the Rings books and movies, Arwen and Aragorn are an intriguing couple: the first a lovely, ethereal Elf, the second a rugged, secretly royal human Ranger—both woodland masters. However, not everything about their relationship is perfect—Arwen, as it turns out, is actually a victim of double colonization.

              Double colonization, in referring to the dual oppression that postcolonial women suffer, might seem a surprising description of the plight that Arwen faces in this famous trilogy (Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, Third Edition, by Lois Tyson; page 405). But prevailing colonialist ideology devalues her because of her race and cultural ancestry, despite the fact that Elves are portrayed as graceful, agile, wise, immortal creatures (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Elves). The admirable beauty that her people exhibit is irrelevant; mankind is driving them away from Middle-Earth—settling on Elven lands and seizing natural resources for themselves—and, consequently, the positive traits characterizing Elves counterintuitively represent symbols of oppression (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GS3tt0kIsg). Humans are, in essence, colonizing the Elves’ territories, so much so that nature itself objects to their intervention (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Ents). Further worsening the situation, Arwen, as a result of being female in her world, is subjected to patriarchal ideology—mistreatment based on her sex (Tyson 405). Several scenes from the movies alone illustrate the double colonization that makes her experience rough.

Goals. Except for the colonization and sexism parts that we can just ignore.

              Arwen, not unlike Pocahontas, is romantically involved with one of her oppressors, a man who, although a compassionate and helpful member of his class, is nonetheless a member of the group that is acting discriminatorily toward hers. And yes, he is a human being, in spite of his ability to live for an unusually long time (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/38738/how-do-arwens-mortality-and-her-and-aragorns-lifespans-work-out). Arwen’s father Elrond expresses his frustration with regard to Men’s negative interference in his family’s life when he claims, in response to the wizard Gandalf’s request for his aid in a quest to save the virtuous inhabitants of Middle-Earth, that humankind is, in addition to being unworthy of assistance, unworthy of trust from other races. Rightly, he observes that it is Men who have been responsible for keeping the evil Ring of Power on Middle-Earth whenever the Elves have been willing to destroy it (Elrond’s assertions: http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/fotr/15.html). Still, the Elves remaining on Middle-Earth—the Elves whose environments have not been too extensively damaged, and whose life forces are resilient enough to withstand the growing malice in Middle-Earth due to the strengthening villainy at work thanks to the Ring’s perpetuation and its owner’s sinister maturation—opt to cooperate with Men in a rescue attempt anyway (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Fellowship_of_the_Ring).

              Personally, Arwen finds that her immortality is not sufficiently durable to keep her healthy during the moral crisis that confronts Middle-Earth (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54460/did-arwen-actually-die). Yet she cannot drive herself to abandon Aragorn to his fate and travel to a safe place beyond the landmass that is free of Men and does not include him, so she stays and risks her life. The colonial rules restricting her liberty force her to decide between true love and, granted the well-intended mission Aragorn is contributing to fails and Middle-Earth descends into the chaos of tyranny, death.

              How annoying, then, that Aragorn displays arguably blatant sexism as soon as she is introduced to moviegoers. She encounters Aragorn and several of his defenseless friends in a forest in her debut and, seeing that a precious crime-fighting comrade valued by the enemy is mortally wounded, offers to take him with her on her horse on a rapid flight to her Elf kin nearby (Aragorn and Arwen’s conversation: http://www.tk421.net/lotr/film/fotr/13.html). Aragorn tells her, urgently, that the journey is too difficult. Out of affection, perhaps—and perhaps instead, or partly also, out of a belief that masculinity has a better chance than femininity of getting there faster. Luckily, Arwen is not having it. After informing him that she is, in fact, the superior equestrian, she proves her mettle by sweeping their buddy off to her relatives in record time, just barely faster than the pursuing villains. While colonization may wreak havoc on her quality of life, potentially sexist comments will not—not as long as she can help it. 

She looks so scared and incapable, don't you think? I'm sure that beneath the determined facial expression she is really only a timid pansy.

              It is fascinating that, even in the most touching stories, relationship imbalances can mar what would at first glance appear to be a flawless connection. Arwen and Aragorn, quite possibly the most moving pair in the Lord of the Rings, are unevenly matched: Aragorn is, likely unwittingly, or maybe unwillingly, playing a part in her political and sexual subjugation. Spoiler alert: she becomes a queen at his side once he defeats the bad guys, so ideally she assists him in promoting cultural tolerance and gender equality in the future. 

A Feminist Interpretation of The Silent Partner

Before even discussing The Silent Partner, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps’ background sets up the novel for a feminist interpretation. Phelps was born in Boston in 1844. Her first exposure to women with strong roles and views was with her mother, also Elizabeth Stuart Phelps. Her “mother wrote the Kitty Brown books under the pen name H. Trusta, an anagram of her name which she used frequently throughout her career” (MacLean). After her death in 1852, “her father married her mother's sister, Mary Stuart, who was also a writer” (MacLean). Phelps developed her writing from these influential women, as well as attending an all-girls school. She published books involving a tomboyish female main character, women’s lives after they lost loved one’s in the war, and a series of feminist themes “including social, political, legal and economic” rights of women (MacLean). She later married her friends son, Herbert Dickinson Ward. He was seventeen years younger than her, further showing her belief that women should do what they want, and be with who they want, whether her actions were considered appropriate to society- it didn’t matter.


The Silent Partner, published in 1871, follows Perley Kelso’s journey to becoming the “silent partner” of her father’s factory mill. Perley Kelso has been surrounded by luxury and wealth throughout her life because of her fahter’s ownership of a factory mill. She is characterized as extremely ignorant, but good-hearted. After her father’s death, Perley brings up the idea of her partnership to who she was supposed to marry, Maverick. Maverick thought this idea was amusing and “cute”. Perley meets Sip Garth; a young girl who works in the mills under terrible conditions. Perley is unaware of the dangers and poor conditions of the mill, once again showing her ignorance to lower-class life. At first, Perley has trouble understanding why anyone would want to work in the mills, but comes to find out (because of Sip) that lower-class people really did not have a choice.

The theme for The Silent Partner can be interpreted as a statement towards social reform for the working class, which, it is. But there is also an underlying feminist theme. Considering the profile of the author as well as the relationship and progress between Perley Kelso and Sip Garth, feminist interpreters can see Phelps’s goal was to show that women can be united because of their right to work, regardless of social class. Perley represents the higher class, while Sip represents the lower. The two form a bond and learn from each other with a common goal.


Works Cited:
MacLean, M aggie. “Elizabeth Stuart Phelps.” Civil War Women. 2011.
https://www.civilwarwomenblog.com/elizabeth-stuart-phelps/

Phelps, Elizabeth Stuart. The Silent Partner. First Feminist Press Box, 1983.

Transcending the Other: A postcolonial perspective of Avatar

In the box office breaking and award winning movie, Avatar, director James Cameron tells a science fiction story of colonization in the future. As stated by Lois Tyson (2006), “post-colonial criticism analyzes literature produced by cultures that developed in response to colonial domination.” Through the eyes of human protagonist, Jake Sully, the journey takes place on the planet of Pandora, which is colonized and exploited by human forces for economic interest. The planet is considered hostile, strange, and inhabited by a strange other; the Na’vi people.

As Jake begins the movie by obeying military order to find intel on the natives, he eventually transcends into their way of life. Jake ventures to Pandora, after his twin brother’s passing, to continue his work with the avatar program. Jake eventually earns the trust of the Na’vi people, through his avatar body, and turns against his own kind to defeat colonialization. Jake’s leadership allows the oppressed Na’vi people to fight against their colonizers, indicating an anti-colonial message. While Cameron conveys a message against colonial intentions, he ironically uses racist representations and stereotypes of the other to emulate the oppression of the other.

It is evident throughout the movie that the Na’vi people are characterized as the other. The Na’vi people have blue alien skin and differ from humans. The colonizer, the human forces, dehumanize the Na’va people by referring to them as animals and depicting them as savages. By emphasizing the physical features of the natives, the director creates a focus the racist representation of the natives, which place the Na’vi into the other category.

In order to demonstrate anti-colonial rule, Cameron transcends Jake’s character into the leader and force to attack the human military. Jake’s whiteness, or ability to be superior and normal, does not follow the typical main white characters. However, this transcendence is allowed due to his whiteness.

            Jake begins Avatar as a demoralized, crippled white man in a wheelchair. As a veteran, Jake upholds the obedience to following the white man in charge, but ultimately transforms into a native.

Jake initially follows the Na’vi to gather intel on their land and resources, but soon finds a liking to the life on Pandora. In order to bring balance and end the Na’vis colonization, a white character must transcend into the native to thrive. Cameron presents many conflicting aspects in Avatar, but this transcendence is key. While Cameron focuses the movie on Jake’s moral, physical, and emotional transformation to end the colonizing of Pandora, he still emphasizes the racial implications among the natives. To Cameron, it is only through the rise of the inferior white character, that the native people were able to fight against their colonizers.

To viewers this indicates that in order for there to be real order or justice, a white person must transcend into the native for trust and utilizing their knowledge to conquer the journey. Cameron makes great strides to present a colonized world and it’s later decolonization, however the racist representations and transcendence of a white man into leading the natives complicates that post-colonial perspective.

Sources
Cameron, James, director. Avatar.
Tyson, L. (2006). Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Thor Ragnarok: Revealing the Double Consciousness of the Chaos G-d

Let’s talk about Thor Ragnarok, objectively the best movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Thor trilogy and probably the closest we are ever going to get to a Planet Hulk movie.

Quick recap for anyone who hasn’t seen it:

We meet back up with Thor, who after escaping hell (literally) finds his brother masquerading as Odin, drinking and putting on plays to validate his own supposed heroics. He calls Loki out immediately ruining his fun and drags him away to find the real Odin. They return to Earth finding their father with a little help from Dr. Strange, only for Odin to tell that he’s dying and that when he does his evil daughter, that he never told the two of them about, will come to reclaim Asgard. He dies like a minute later, then Hela appears breaks Mjolnir and reveals Asgard’s imperialist past, before banishing her brothers. They end up on the Grandmaster’s planet and Thor gets captured for the gladiatorial rings there, while Loki consorts with the Grandmaster. Thor is forced to face off against Hulk, who has apparently been the jolly green giant for three years now. Long story short Thor, Loki, Hulk/Bruce, the other gladiators, and this really cool Valkyrie chick escape the Grandmaster's planet and then proceed to a boss battle with Hela in which they blow up Asgard (after getting all plot relevant characters off world) to prevent Hela from establishing a tyrannical govt.

What makes it worth discussing:

While the movie merits praise based on its comedic aspects alone, what really elevates the film is the subversive postcolonial critique it makes within the overall context of the Thor trilogy. Prior to the big reveal of Asgard's Imperialist past as shown by the shattered murals, the Asgardian peoples are indisputably the heroes of the narrative, justified in war by their superior moral status. They are quite literally depicted as the saviors of humanity in the first film, when they defeat the Jotun preventing an ice age on Midgard (aka Earth). The halo-esc discs drawn behind the head of Odin in the remade murals certainly attest to this idea.

History Rewritten in Art; the mural before misconceptions are quite literally shattered.

So when Hela reveals the reality of Asgardian rule and subjugation, the attempts of the Jotun to create a new Jontunheim on Midgard using the Casket of Ancient Winters (think Arc of the Covenant religious significance levels), takes on the aspect of a peoples searching for a way to ensure their own cultural identity continues on even if it means abandoning their ancestral home (an action mirrored by the Asgardians in the newest film). King Laufrey (King of the Jotun) isn't a monster in this context, but a revolutionary put down by a tyrannical ruler. 

A Totalitarian Reality of War and Enslavement

His struggle is silenced by the rewritten history of an empire and the very objective of his last ditch effort towards freedom is spat on as his son last of the royal bloodline is raised by the enemy who subjugated his people. 

Reading Loki as a Colonized Subject:

Colonialist ideology was instilled in Loki early, even as a baby he attempted to mimic the culture in which he was being raised, shifting his appearance magically to appear Asgardian. 

Baby Loki shape-shifting to match his oppressors

For all he knew he was Asgardian, his adopted family had allowed him to live under this misconception and had raised him as if he was such. Maybe he didn't fit all the respected personality traits associated with his culture, but this was his family. He was Asgardian, until of course he wasn't.  

Loki's True Parentage is Revealed

In the above scene from the first Thor movie, he accuses Odin of seeing him as just "another stolen relic", tears in his eyes as the entirety of his worldview is shattered just as thoroughly as the murals will later be. It is in this moment that Loki begins to embody the ideal of Double Consciousness. He is inextricably caught between two cultures, the one he grew up in and the one he was born into, yet he belongs to neither: too much the Asgardian to ever hold standing among the Jotun and too Jotun to ever sit on the throne of Asgard.

Unable to reconcile with this reality, Loki becomes 'unhomed'. He leaves Asgard and denounces his relationship to Odin and Frigga, finalizing his separation in the physical not just psychological realm.

His ensuing character arc follows the story of him rebelling and returning as he attempts to come to terms with the aspects of himself he never before had the luxury to explore and how they fit into the framework of who he once was. The way he goes about this isn't always for the best (referring of course to the disaster in New York), but it is the psychological alienation from the self which ultimately drives his at times incredibly violent and self indulgent actions. 

Conclusion:

Thor Ragnarok in revealing the Imperialist past of Asgard, allows one a unique glimpse into the characterization of Loki as not a villain, but a man inextricably caught between two cultures, whose at time erratic behavior can perhaps be attributed to an unstable sense of self. His title of Chaos G-d a referencing not only to the unrest he acts upon the world, but the unrest within.

Biopolitics and Post-Colonialism and Purple Hibiscus, oh my!

Biopolitics and Post-colonialism: Purple Hibiscus

The colonial period has formed the development of many contemporary countries and territories. The superpowers determined the way of self-esteem and self-evaluation of many peoples. Their world perception was formed by the influence of those countries which were considered to be their owners. The postcolonial period started from the point when former colonies had to continue their development alone. However, they had not start from the very beginning because they had already had the heritage which was brought by the colonizers. The majority of peculiarities are described in the postcolonial literature and criticism. Here, I would like to look through this issue on the example of Black nations and their literature which arose during the postcolonial period.

Postcolonial criticism corresponds to the certain historical period. As stated by Lois Tyson (2006), “postcolonial criticism analyzes literature produced by cultures that developed in response to colonial domination,” from the very beginning to the present times. The main heritage of the colonizers is the English language which became the background for the creation of postcolonial literature. Thus, the writer Adichie, about who I will speak further, argued that  "what we represent is largely the result of colonialism, for example, the fact that I think in English" (Garner, 2004). For many, English was the first language in which they learned to write. The Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe once said concerning this issue: “For me, there is no other choice. I have been given the language, and I intend to use it” (Tyson, 2006). However, lots of pre-colonial cultural heritage have been lost through many generations of colonial domination. Significant attention is paid to the postcolonial feminist critics which are often the central issue of many literature works, such as Purple Hibiscus (2003) by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

The development of the Nigerian literature started from the 1970s. In the 70-80s, the Nigerian novel has a critically realistic tendency connected with unfulfilled hopes for a better life and a comprehension of new negative tendencies in public life (duCille, 1996). The feeling of frustration among writers, an accusatory beginning in their work is a reaction of literature to new phenomena of social life. The novel Purple Hibiscus (2003) is a family novel in which the educational and didactic trend is traced. Most of them are related to the problem of the status of women in modern African society. The author defends the idea of the woman's inner freedom, her right to choose her place in the surrounding reality. The novel is the story of the life of the heroine, her family, where the father traditionally rules, demanding from his wife and children obedience and serving him as a master. These traces were mentioned by Tyson (2006). The novel tells the story of a Nigerian family against the backdrop of events unfolding in the country during the Abacha military regime in the mid-1990s. The inner development of the protagonists demonstrates the historical development of the postcolonial countries.

In such a way, the postcolonialism is brightly reflected in the belles-lettres. The thoughts, expectations, and actions are shown in the texts. The readers see the transformation of heroes which is the allusion to the transformations of the whole peoples. Thus, Kambili and Jaja go through the path from the silent oppressed by their tyrant father of teenagers to the spiritually strengthened young people who are ready to take responsibility for their family and intercede for their unhappy mother. In such a way, Adichie traces the origins of the newest social reality through the destinies of her heroes.

References

Adichie, C. N. (2004). Purple Hibiscus a novel. London: Fourth Estate.

DuCille, A. (1996). Skin Trade. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Garner, C. (2004). Profile of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. London.

Tyson, L. (2006). Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

A Powdered Pocahontas: Pocahontas II and Postcolonialism

Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World is an untimely straight to DVD sequel of Disney’s Pocahontas. And, in all honesty it’s a wreck. It stays true to what actually happened to Pocahontas in real life (kind of) by sending her to London with John Rolf after news of John Smith’s death. However, in real life she did not willingly go and willingly give in to being “civilized” like the Disney movie portrays. In real life, she died three years after arriving in England. But, anyhow, this movie did terrible in the box office, and is riddled with opportunities for Postcolonial Criticism.

For example, she is shown off to the King, but only after a huge makeover in which a character named Mrs. Jenkins sings a song entitled “Wait ‘till he sees you!” During this makeover, Mrs. Jenkins actually puts white powder on her face (changing her skin color to a lighter shade) and sings “He’ll [John Rolf] be so pleased you came down from the trees!” Implying that Pocahontas is a savage, as she and the people of England see her and is finally coming down from “the trees” to be civilized. Before her makeover, she is portrayed as incompetent and uncultured, as she attempts to wear a girdle as a hat etc. There’s a lot wrong with that song, but this part is pretty straightforward.

Yes, that is Pocahontas!

In the cartoon, Pocahontas comes to the England, and is promptly informed that she will be attending a ball during which she will be shown off to the King of England to show hi
m that the people of the New World “can be civilized.” She’s lied to and she thinks she is doing everything for peace between her people and John Rolf’s, but she is only being colonized and forced into a culture she really does not want. She

 After her makeover, both Mrs. Jenkins and John Rolf treat Pocahontas as a different person. She appears to be more “European” and hence, she is better, more civilized. This is a prime example of Eurocentrism, because it is clear that whoever wrote this movie, wanted England’s cultural practices to seem like the ultimate “culture standard to which other cultures are negatively contrasted” (Tyson 401). The King would not even see her until she was powdered up and strapped into a fancy ballgown, hence the Eurocentric way seems to win out.

All the English characters show blunt colonizer ideology too, as they all seem to think that their way is better, especially since they are “civilizing” this “savage Indian.” They just assume their way is better, especially John Rolf and Mrs. Jenkins who give her the makeover in the first place, and always treat her as if she were an ignorant child. Not to mention the way her body guard is portrayed, a Native American Character who does nothing but grunt, and follow Pocahontas around while wearing buffalo hide clothing. Obviously, he is meant to be seen as less than civilized. However, Pocahontas even gives in to these ideas of the colonizers by exhibiting mimicry in her willingness to be changed to a lighter skinned, strangely dressed Native American source of amusement (for much of the movie, she does eventually stand up. Not for herself though but for a bear who has been held captive.) She allows this to happen, and for the first part of the ball, (before saving the bear) she acts and talks just like John Rolf; truly becoming a colonial subject in England and making Mrs. Jenkins shed tears of joy. Furthermore, when John Rolff meets sees her for the first time in her new clothes, she explains to him that what is on her face is “called powder” and he exclaims how beautiful she is. For the first time in the movie, Pocahontas is told she looks beautiful by a man she loves, and in order for that to happen, her face has to be powdered lighter. Again, the colonizers and their ways are obviously portrayed as superior here.

Overall, the film is riddled with colonizer ideology, mimicry on Pocahontas’ part, and Eurocentrism through the way Pocahontas is portrayed and treated, and how she reacts