question of the day: In what ways is ‘Avatar’ -- and now ‘Green Zone’ -- unAmerican?

Isn't the whole point (theoretically, anyway) of America's ideal to call BS when the powers that be are perpetrating (and getting away with) things that are just plain wrong? In that way, I would say these films are then extremely American, rather than anti-anything. Though I haven't seen them so I can only suppose.

But isn't America the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth? Socialist!

As far as I'm aware (and what would I know, I'm a decadent Brit) the term Un-American is a shorthand for "I don't have any facts on which to argue with you but I'm gonna do it any way".

It's the worst of patriotism, disqualifying anyone that dares criticise, when the country itself is based on the notion of free speech.

In fact, calling someone Un-American is Un-American.

And I'll just go vanish in a puff of logic...

I too am a decadent Brit and being patriotic is one of those things that I sort of don't get. I love being English and I'm very fond of England, but I'd be the first to admit that it has it's problems (the fact that there are 59 million people living in a country the size of Wisconsin is the least of our worries - it's no wonder Americans find our homes small!).

Anyway, the concept of something being 'un-American' is just odd to me. Why is it so important to some people that all Americans are seen to think in the same way? Why is criticising some aspects of capitalism such a terrible thing to do? Capitalism & democracy is probably the best model for running a country, but it's not perfect by any means. Surely criticism and learning from mistakes (such as that destruction of other cultures is never good - look at the current sitatuion in ex UK colonies) is a good thing leading to positive growth?

Avatar struck me as anti-American (different meaning from "unAmerican"), and in fact I was on these boards after seeing the movie stating my reasons for feeling as I do.

Put simply, Cameron draws IMO obvious parallels to Iraq/Afghanistan through references of terrorism, infrastructure building, "unobtanium" (oil), and the ham-handedly specific use of the phrase "shock and awe." The final battle pits the evil American mercs against the pure, flawless Na'vi, with the Americans led by a buzzcut R. Lee Ermey clone. We are supposed to root for the Americans to get their comeuppance. Not saying Cameron is suggesting that it's a good thing when American soldiers die, but I found the whole set-up very weird and off-putting, and this is coming from someone who was against the war in Iraq.

Well, considering that I am against rampent capatalistic and militaristic growth, then I guess that makes me un-american to think we have a much better potential that what we are currently striving for. Anti-Science? I didn't see that. I thought the scientists in the movie were portrayed as wanting to learn more about the Navi and the eco-system, and were at odds with the powers that be - which, holy cow, is another uncomfortable but realistic truth.

As for Green Zone, I can't comment completely, but there is nothing wrong with questioning things, and America was built on this principle as a matter of fact. It's only been in the last decade that it has become popular to decry anything that seeks to question our current courses of action as un-american. The right has taken their tendancy of blind faith and re-defined it as blind-nationality and made it populist.

Avatar is certainly anti-colonialism. Given America's colonial roots, it's history of expansion, and some recent history*, it could indirectly be considered anti-American, but that's tenuous at best.

If one is inclined to find a story in which the villains are motivated by the pursuit of wealth to be anti-capitalism and therefore anti-American, well... one is going to be offended by a great deal of the drama and literature of the past 200 years. Similarly if the villains are an army (in Avatar's case, an unaffiliated mercenary army).

I still claim that it's anti-science, but in contradictory and, yes, ironic ways. It's not that Avatar is "technology=bad, naturalism=good". The tech is rather indifferent, especially with the back story of the Earth's environmental destruction excised. It's more that the naturalism is shown as perfect. This idea was tiresome when the Ewoks managed to fight off a legion of Imperial stormtroopers, and it hasn't gotten fresher since.

But that still doesn't make Avatar anti-American. Its lazy, cliche- and allusion-driven style of storytelling isn't sophisticated enough to have a message.

*sorry, stryker, but what is the war in Iraq but some form of postmodern colonialism?

You have to remember that anti-American is often code for anything that dares to suggest that America is not in fact perfect and righteous in it's every decision and choice now and forever. I think we should keep in mind that those soldiers are mercenaries at the hire of a company. The assumption that they must be stand-ins for America is unnecessary. If you identify with the racists, the war-hungry mercenaries, and the greedy company willing to wipe out an entire species for profit, that says more about what you consider explicitly American than what Cameron does, imo. I didn't see myself or my identity reflected in those people and it didn't offend me to see them get their comeuppance.

As for it being anti-science, that's absurd. It is science that ultimately saves the day as had it not been for the Avatars in the first place, none of the events would have been possible. The Na'vi world is considered beautiful by the scientists and what makes it extra-fascinating is that this world is the direct result of co-evolution. It takes a scientific outlook to truly appreciate how amazing this world is. That's why Grace is such an advocate for it's preservation while the guy from the company thinks that it's all "just trees". She can appreciate the complexity of this world because she is a scientist.

Let us say you voted for Bush. If you acknowledged to yourself that 600,000 Iraqis were killed or crippled because of a chain of events that began with mistaken intelligence (which is the charitiable view of what happened), that is a lot of guilt to carry around.

If you acknowledged to yourself that the mess in Afghanistan can be traced back to Bush's post-invasion policies (80% of the foreign aid went straight into American bank accounts, 70% of the rest was earmarked for buying American products, so cheap American food wiped out the local farmers who turned to growing their traditional cash crop, which was opium, and that drug trade is the Taliban's cash cow), then that's more guilt.

If you admitted the cause and effect chain of events that lead from voting for Reaganomics in 1980 to our present economic crisis, how could you hold your head up in public?

If you admitted to yourself that the reason the American family is falling apart is the selfishness of straight Americans and not the vices of homosexuals, you would have to accept responsibility for your own family's problems.

The answers to all the psychological problems? Blame liberals, shoot the messager.

On the other hand, there are a lot dictatorships across the Third World who prop up old fashioned, unworkable ideological structures by blaming America. Yes, the memories of the CIA overthrowing previous, local democracies for being too socialistic casts a long shadow in their psyche, but it isn't an excuse for mistreating their own people. I mention this to point out that we're not dealing with a unique American psychology, but a human tendency. This is why when Truman said, "The buck stops here," that acceptance of responibility gained him respect across political lines. People recognize that as a virtue of emotional strength.