On May 20th, please create your best interpretation of the Muslim profit Muhammad.
This is a show of Solidarity with all artists who dare create their visions of a religious figure.
This is also to speak in a clear voice to Muslim/Religious extremists that threaten violence... and turn those threats against them.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/04/muslim_extremis.php
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
A Review of "Emergency, This book wil...
A Review of "Emergency, This book will save your life.
What I hate about reviews is I have to read them. So, I will get to the point for all the impatiant uber-male types that want the guts without the frills.
Buy the book and read it. Don't put it down when Neil Strauss seems like a spaghetti spine liberal, endure. While he doesn't get it completely at the end, it is a great journey that he lets us in on.
Neil does a great job relating his growth from a person reliant on the system to a person who is self reliant. He discovers via his attempts to have a "bug-out" plan to leave the US in the event of something catostrophic -like a major national disaster, terrorist attack or the total collapse of the US economy- that he doesn't possess any of the knowledge or skills to make it out, or to make it on his own once he is out.
Along the way he dispels a few myths about gun ownership, survivalists and the generally paranoid.
It is well written and ADD-types will appreciate his varietal style and short chapters. People from the rural south will particualarly love this read as it confirms what we already know. Most folks in big cities will be eating each other in 30 days after a real disaster, while we will be growin' tomatoes and brewing ethanol to live on in most of rural America, especially the littler latitudes.
So go. Buy the book.
A letter to Neil Strauss regarding "Emergency".
Neil,
Wow! I couldn't put it down. I read most of the book in one night. And while I loved the book I thought the ending was a bit odd. You realize in the book that the government can't save you, but then suggest the government is going to save us at the end.
Along your journey you figured out what realists/fliesians have always known, that the government no matter its size has limited capabilities and it is us not the government that makes changes on the ground that last and that matter. The residents of New Orleans figured it out the hard way. Yet, in the final chapters you revert to the same error in attribution that started your journey. You allow the government back in. This time in the form of a politician. Barack Obama.
No career politician will lead us out of our current doldrums. Can he inspire. Yes. But that is not what he is doing. And to look to a politician for answers considering where they have lead this country is a dangerous thing.
I am not talking Republican or Democrat here. I am talking over reliance on the US government. More people now are on some type of government assistance than are not on it. That says something. That means that 50% of the country is a Chapter-One Neil Strauss and less than half are Last-Chapter Neil Strauss.
I don't want to seem too political here. That is not my point. But did you ever stop to think about how those that taught you your skills generally vote? I would be willing to bet that most vote Republican. "Republican" means less and less everyday, but my point is they are likely Realists and Conservatives. Or, like it or not... neo-fliesians.
Which is where I would put you at the end of your book. Not so much a fliesian anymore but a realist slash fliesian. There is no way a person who generally sees the world for what it is (yet hopes for what it can be) could ever really think that a President of the US, much less one whose number one credential was his race, would provide a path out of our current problems.
You made it all that way, learning that you can't rely on the government WTSHTF only to end the book in a way that suggests we rely on the government. I just don't get it.
I hope I am not coming off as an anarchist. I am far from it. I believe as C.E.M.P. does. WTSHTF you look to your family first, then your immediate community then your broader community. There is real wisdom there. It is also a maxim for government and how our Founders hoped we would run this country. Smaller more localized governments are best equiped to service their constituency. A broader government is ill equipped to service, but it is better equipped to redistribute wealth on a wide scale, but the smaller states must have control over that redistribution... We no longer do.
When you listed the Federal bueracracy that snaps into "action" when there is an emergency that was a beautiful illustration. That lethargic beast, the Leviathan, can not be relied upon to save any of us. Nor can it be relied upon to fix the problems it has caused. I was hoping all throughout your book you would come to this conclusion. "It is about personal responsibility."
To say something about personal responsibility rather than "hope" from a politician...
Luckily the ending doesn't ruin the book for me. But, it does make your growth in the book suspect. The Psychology Major in me wants to suggest that even after your personal growth from the one likely to be the first eaten or killed to the one prepared to survive you are holding tightly to the biases you held when you started. George Bush, bad. Obama, good. Or Republican, bad. Democrat, good. Or Iraq war, bad. No war, good. When those biases betray you every time because they are based on outmoded paradigms that I hope you no longer subscribe to.
Now I hope you see that Neil is in charge. And that life is not that simple. Eight years of Bush, wasn't all bad. Republicans and Democrats, generally all bad... maybe a few good.
The country that scared you into this journey in 2004 is still here. It is still the Leviathan but it is wearing another teams jersey. THAT is the only difference.
Now is where I try to sell you AMWAY and pass out the kool-aid.
It is obvious you were not a Conservative before the book. You should be now. You should be for personal responsibility, individual rights and State's Rights (Federalism). You should see the US Gov for the Nanny State that it is. Out of control. Running on pure inertia towards implosion due to its own bloat and girth.
Forget the bullshit about Christian-Conservative and Neo-Conservative. Fuck Pat Robertson and Karl Rove. They are not Conservatives. If you ever run into a "Conservative" that hyphenates they are little "c" conservatives that serve two masters. At the end of your journey I would have thought that you would have figured out that Neil is in charge of Neil and no one in the White House can change that. That is Nature's Law and the 10th Amendment. Remember how you grew into a new understanding of the 2nd Amendment and how you now look at it with similar reverance to the 1st amendment? What I am talking about now is the same thing, but now embrace the 10th amendment.
Let go the Chicago-High-Rise/Chapter-One Neil Strauss and give into the Realist Neil that sees the world for what it is and hopes for what it can be. (Said with my best Star Wars Emperor voice.)
If you have made it this far and are not screaming "NO it's not true, I'll never join you"... Let's have coffee.
Benjamin Cook
Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer
What I hate about reviews is I have to read them. So, I will get to the point for all the impatiant uber-male types that want the guts without the frills.
Buy the book and read it. Don't put it down when Neil Strauss seems like a spaghetti spine liberal, endure. While he doesn't get it completely at the end, it is a great journey that he lets us in on.
Neil does a great job relating his growth from a person reliant on the system to a person who is self reliant. He discovers via his attempts to have a "bug-out" plan to leave the US in the event of something catostrophic -like a major national disaster, terrorist attack or the total collapse of the US economy- that he doesn't possess any of the knowledge or skills to make it out, or to make it on his own once he is out.
Along the way he dispels a few myths about gun ownership, survivalists and the generally paranoid.
It is well written and ADD-types will appreciate his varietal style and short chapters. People from the rural south will particualarly love this read as it confirms what we already know. Most folks in big cities will be eating each other in 30 days after a real disaster, while we will be growin' tomatoes and brewing ethanol to live on in most of rural America, especially the littler latitudes.
So go. Buy the book.
A letter to Neil Strauss regarding "Emergency".
Neil,
Wow! I couldn't put it down. I read most of the book in one night. And while I loved the book I thought the ending was a bit odd. You realize in the book that the government can't save you, but then suggest the government is going to save us at the end.
Along your journey you figured out what realists/fliesians have always known, that the government no matter its size has limited capabilities and it is us not the government that makes changes on the ground that last and that matter. The residents of New Orleans figured it out the hard way. Yet, in the final chapters you revert to the same error in attribution that started your journey. You allow the government back in. This time in the form of a politician. Barack Obama.
No career politician will lead us out of our current doldrums. Can he inspire. Yes. But that is not what he is doing. And to look to a politician for answers considering where they have lead this country is a dangerous thing.
I am not talking Republican or Democrat here. I am talking over reliance on the US government. More people now are on some type of government assistance than are not on it. That says something. That means that 50% of the country is a Chapter-One Neil Strauss and less than half are Last-Chapter Neil Strauss.
I don't want to seem too political here. That is not my point. But did you ever stop to think about how those that taught you your skills generally vote? I would be willing to bet that most vote Republican. "Republican" means less and less everyday, but my point is they are likely Realists and Conservatives. Or, like it or not... neo-fliesians.
Which is where I would put you at the end of your book. Not so much a fliesian anymore but a realist slash fliesian. There is no way a person who generally sees the world for what it is (yet hopes for what it can be) could ever really think that a President of the US, much less one whose number one credential was his race, would provide a path out of our current problems.
You made it all that way, learning that you can't rely on the government WTSHTF only to end the book in a way that suggests we rely on the government. I just don't get it.
I hope I am not coming off as an anarchist. I am far from it. I believe as C.E.M.P. does. WTSHTF you look to your family first, then your immediate community then your broader community. There is real wisdom there. It is also a maxim for government and how our Founders hoped we would run this country. Smaller more localized governments are best equiped to service their constituency. A broader government is ill equipped to service, but it is better equipped to redistribute wealth on a wide scale, but the smaller states must have control over that redistribution... We no longer do.
When you listed the Federal bueracracy that snaps into "action" when there is an emergency that was a beautiful illustration. That lethargic beast, the Leviathan, can not be relied upon to save any of us. Nor can it be relied upon to fix the problems it has caused. I was hoping all throughout your book you would come to this conclusion. "It is about personal responsibility."
To say something about personal responsibility rather than "hope" from a politician...
Luckily the ending doesn't ruin the book for me. But, it does make your growth in the book suspect. The Psychology Major in me wants to suggest that even after your personal growth from the one likely to be the first eaten or killed to the one prepared to survive you are holding tightly to the biases you held when you started. George Bush, bad. Obama, good. Or Republican, bad. Democrat, good. Or Iraq war, bad. No war, good. When those biases betray you every time because they are based on outmoded paradigms that I hope you no longer subscribe to.
Now I hope you see that Neil is in charge. And that life is not that simple. Eight years of Bush, wasn't all bad. Republicans and Democrats, generally all bad... maybe a few good.
The country that scared you into this journey in 2004 is still here. It is still the Leviathan but it is wearing another teams jersey. THAT is the only difference.
Now is where I try to sell you AMWAY and pass out the kool-aid.
It is obvious you were not a Conservative before the book. You should be now. You should be for personal responsibility, individual rights and State's Rights (Federalism). You should see the US Gov for the Nanny State that it is. Out of control. Running on pure inertia towards implosion due to its own bloat and girth.
Forget the bullshit about Christian-Conservative and Neo-Conservative. Fuck Pat Robertson and Karl Rove. They are not Conservatives. If you ever run into a "Conservative" that hyphenates they are little "c" conservatives that serve two masters. At the end of your journey I would have thought that you would have figured out that Neil is in charge of Neil and no one in the White House can change that. That is Nature's Law and the 10th Amendment. Remember how you grew into a new understanding of the 2nd Amendment and how you now look at it with similar reverance to the 1st amendment? What I am talking about now is the same thing, but now embrace the 10th amendment.
Let go the Chicago-High-Rise/Chapter-One Neil Strauss and give into the Realist Neil that sees the world for what it is and hopes for what it can be. (Said with my best Star Wars Emperor voice.)
If you have made it this far and are not screaming "NO it's not true, I'll never join you"... Let's have coffee.
Benjamin Cook
Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer
Monday, March 15, 2010
Major General Bob Livingston, says he will not confiscate guns via a federal order.
Major General Bob Livingston fielding the last question from the Palmetto Conservative Show, a blog show, said he would not confiscate firearms even via a federal order. Alluding to the fact that it would violate the Constitution that he as sworn an oath to, the Major General explained that his oath would prevent him and other Constitutionally sworn federal officers from carrying out this hypothetical order.
This interview was on: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cbmedia-network/2010/03/16/the-palmetto-conservative-show
This interview was on: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cbmedia-network/2010/03/16/the-palmetto-conservative-show
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tenets of Conservatism
As I see it:
Limited Government. Conservatives understand that all governments grow. That they have a natural inertia towards growth. Without measures to control that growth we get Hobbes' Leviathan.
Restraint Based Values. Any values system, religious or otherwise, that is based on personal restraint and responsibility is Conservative-friendly.
Personal Responsibility. It is the individuals responsibility to provide for him/herself and for the family. This includes security as well as education and economic concerns.
International Affairs. Conservatives understand that engagement abroad is a necessity. Our way of life must be represented and defended when necessary. Economic disengagement abroad is not an option as economies become more global everyday.
Federalism. State's Rights are not an antiquated part of US History but are a necessary part of our future. Federal over-reach threatens everything that is American. Conservatives believe in a Union of 50 sovereign states. The concept of Federalism is based a basic premise that the smallest government entity able to perform a task will be the most effective, efficient and easiest to hold accountable.
The Enemy of Tyranny. Conservatives are the natural adversary of tyranny. Our core principles stand in direct opposition to all tyrants including and especially Tyrannies of the Majority and the Elite/Elect.
Constitutional Stricture. The Constitution must not be as malleable as clay but rather as iron. Not impossible to cast or to shape, but difficult, time consuming and measured.
Limited Government. Conservatives understand that all governments grow. That they have a natural inertia towards growth. Without measures to control that growth we get Hobbes' Leviathan.
Restraint Based Values. Any values system, religious or otherwise, that is based on personal restraint and responsibility is Conservative-friendly.
Personal Responsibility. It is the individuals responsibility to provide for him/herself and for the family. This includes security as well as education and economic concerns.
International Affairs. Conservatives understand that engagement abroad is a necessity. Our way of life must be represented and defended when necessary. Economic disengagement abroad is not an option as economies become more global everyday.
Federalism. State's Rights are not an antiquated part of US History but are a necessary part of our future. Federal over-reach threatens everything that is American. Conservatives believe in a Union of 50 sovereign states. The concept of Federalism is based a basic premise that the smallest government entity able to perform a task will be the most effective, efficient and easiest to hold accountable.
The Enemy of Tyranny. Conservatives are the natural adversary of tyranny. Our core principles stand in direct opposition to all tyrants including and especially Tyrannies of the Majority and the Elite/Elect.
Constitutional Stricture. The Constitution must not be as malleable as clay but rather as iron. Not impossible to cast or to shape, but difficult, time consuming and measured.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Information Ownership Act
The Information Ownership Act
Recognizing the evolving importance of secure personal information,
Understanding that the collection, dissemination and synthesis of this information has worth,
Understanding that abuse, fraud and government intrusion or over-reach are but a few of the dangers of unsecured personal information,
Confirming that individuals are the best owners, lessors and arbiters of their own property and information,
Introduced is the Information Ownership Act.
1. Any personal information generated or collected via a commercial relationship is owned by the individual citizen and not the commercial entity.
2. The commercial entity possesses the information for the sole purpose of maintaining the commercial relationship between itself and the private individual.
3. At the close of the commercial relationship the commercial entity may keep in its possession a copy of all information generated and use it internally.
4. Any selling or disclosing of information must be done with permission and compensation to the individual owning the personal information.
5. Commercial entities may not, as condition of service, require individuals to waive or amend their rights in regards to their personal information.
6. Commercial entities must disclose in detail any charges or fees associated with maintaining personal information.
7. Commercial entities are liable for negligent use, or loss of personal information.
8. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to personal information created via a commercial relationship.
9. Commercial entities that maintain financial or medical personal information must disclose all policies, fees, procedures and safeguards to the individual via a clear "plain English" disclosure.
10. Commercial entities must immediately provide to owners of personal information, at a reasonable cost, all information created and maintained by the commercial entity upon request.
This Act is clearly designed to cover this non-exhaustive list: mobile phone information including any location data - internet access data including browsing habits and usage between the user and service provider - all medical information - all financial information including credit and commercial reports - any personal information that has worth or is reasonably considered private or valuable.
This Act is clearly NOT designed to cover this non-exhaustive list: simple over the counter transactions - purchases made or commercial relationships created while physically outside the United States - criminal background checks - tax information - personal information generated or exchanged for simple transactions that is not subject to data mining, resale or third party synthesis.
Recognizing the evolving importance of secure personal information,
Understanding that the collection, dissemination and synthesis of this information has worth,
Understanding that abuse, fraud and government intrusion or over-reach are but a few of the dangers of unsecured personal information,
Confirming that individuals are the best owners, lessors and arbiters of their own property and information,
Introduced is the Information Ownership Act.
1. Any personal information generated or collected via a commercial relationship is owned by the individual citizen and not the commercial entity.
2. The commercial entity possesses the information for the sole purpose of maintaining the commercial relationship between itself and the private individual.
3. At the close of the commercial relationship the commercial entity may keep in its possession a copy of all information generated and use it internally.
4. Any selling or disclosing of information must be done with permission and compensation to the individual owning the personal information.
5. Commercial entities may not, as condition of service, require individuals to waive or amend their rights in regards to their personal information.
6. Commercial entities must disclose in detail any charges or fees associated with maintaining personal information.
7. Commercial entities are liable for negligent use, or loss of personal information.
8. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to personal information created via a commercial relationship.
9. Commercial entities that maintain financial or medical personal information must disclose all policies, fees, procedures and safeguards to the individual via a clear "plain English" disclosure.
10. Commercial entities must immediately provide to owners of personal information, at a reasonable cost, all information created and maintained by the commercial entity upon request.
This Act is clearly designed to cover this non-exhaustive list: mobile phone information including any location data - internet access data including browsing habits and usage between the user and service provider - all medical information - all financial information including credit and commercial reports - any personal information that has worth or is reasonably considered private or valuable.
This Act is clearly NOT designed to cover this non-exhaustive list: simple over the counter transactions - purchases made or commercial relationships created while physically outside the United States - criminal background checks - tax information - personal information generated or exchanged for simple transactions that is not subject to data mining, resale or third party synthesis.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Avatar... great movie... childish message.
Hey it's fantasy!
Yeah... that could not be more true. Even the overall tone that at one point seems like a lecture is pure fantasy.
Now, let me quickly say that I plan on giving James Cameron some more of my money as soon as it comes out on DVD. I might even see it again to get the full 3D effect. (Hey, see it in 3D... don't be cheap.) I LOVE this movie. I really do.
But, since Cameron's lecture is sooooo prevalent and the demographic for this movie so willing to be led by the nose... I feel I must respectfully protest it's cultural relativity message.
If you don't know cultural relativity is basically the belief that all cultures have a right to exist and that one shouldn't dominate the another.
WRONG...
It is this kind of Mickey-Mouse Pollyanna thinking that drives me nuts.
My thinking on the meshing of cultures is simple, trade up or you will be engaged in a protracted struggle to survive.
What do I mean by "trade up". Simple. When two cultures meet the less dominant and less modern culture has no choice but to trade up for the dominant culture. The more progressed, more modern, more advanced.
If the less dominant culture chooses to hinder this trade, this inevitable trade, a protracted conflict is possible. The result is that the dominant culture succeeds and the less dominant culture suffers.
Concepts as large as "cultures" survive in a state of nature or every culture for itself, or a completely self-serving agenda. Because of this self-serving nature in which no culture has at any relative time an advantage over another culture this concept is logically and ethically sound.
It is in effect a sort of natural selection for cultures. The ones that work survive, the ones that don't will eventually be taken over by the more dominant selections. Things that "work" in the less dominant cultures survive or assimilate with other working dominant culture aspects. Things that don't "work" are discarded.
This is and always has been the way of things. The victims of this "trade up" system are often dear to the less dominant culture. Languages, traditions, land, resources are lost to the less dominant culture. These are redistributed via the dominant culture's system or discarded. This redistribution and discarding of once important parts of the less dominant culture are quite expectantly painful and hard to cope with. But, the utility of this assimilation is undeniable and fair.
Is it fair in a particular instance? Not always. Can examples of horribly inhuman treatment be found in the history of meshing cultures? Of course. But in a utilitarian, do the most good and the least harm, sense it is the only rational system available, and in fact is the only system available.
Attempts to thwart the "trade up" only result in a delaying of the inevitable and protracted suffering borne mostly by the least dominant culture.
How does this translate to the Na'Vi in Avatar?
First let me say I understand the license taken to make the Na'Vi appear flawless and completely endearing. I get it. But if you are going to have a message it needs to be accurate. This movie could have been just as good and just as successful without the lecture.
A simple but accurate observation of the Na'Vi is that they are of course tribal, yet none of the horrible cultural practices that many "tribal" cultures have exist in the Na'Vi culture. No honor killings, no cannibalism, polygamy, no arranged marriages no female genital mutilation, and no infanticide.
A more advanced culture that doesn't rely on tribal principles to maintain order and predictability shuns these tribal practices because they are no longer needed. Ordered systems of government and civil society replace polygamy, FMJ and other acts we now find horrific or outside the norm. Witchcraft, wizardry and oracles are replaced by the much more reliable and predictable philosophy, scientific method and logic.
Cameron knows this so he had to create a fictional device to over come it. This device is the Na'Vi ability to network with nature. This small but important fictional element actually proves my point. That without this fictional parallel that made the Na'Vi pseudo-modern they were in fact a much less dominant culture. One that could benefit from the human culture in both the painful short term and utilitarian long term.
Emotionally we pull for the Na'Vi. But the bad guy... modernity (the same modernity that allows for this kind of advanced cinematography) has just as much "right" to advance as a culture has to survive. The assumption is that billions or even tens of billions of people need the fictional element Unobtainium that is a metaphor for oil.
If the metaphor is to be complete then this fictional element is literally the second air that the human society needs to breath and survive. Like oil, it touches every part of our lives. Improving it, moving it, saving it, prolonging it. Without it we would not be recognizable as the society we are.
To be clear, if we did not have oil/unobtainium that means you can't go to work, buy goods and services for your family and would have to return to a self-sufficient means of leaving. No, gas. No, markets. No, cheap goods from other parts of the world/universe.
Do your children have the right to be educated? Then quit work and home school because that is your choice without the catalyst that is oil/unobtainium. Want them to be healthy? Tough. We are back to country doctors that can not proscribe modern medicine or treatments. No MRIs, no advanced antibiotics, no cancer treatments.
The assumption and metaphor used in the movie suggests that human life depends on that fictional element. So, while you are ready to cheer for the Na'Vi as I did. Understand also as I did, that the movie is a one of a kind work of fictions to include the poorly thought out and typically leftist lecture on cultural relativity. A lesson that disregards the realities of an upward moving dominant culture and the benefits we enjoy.
And while many of us understandably turn away and prefer a fiction to the reality of the makings of modern society, that reality remains and much be dealt with via an accurate lens that accounts for what will do the most good for all involved or sometimes what will do the least harm. Or to simplify via a common metaphor, many of us don't want to know or see how the sausage is made, we just want to enjoy it.
So enjoy your sausage. Go see Avatar!!! It is a one of a kind masterpiece.
Yeah... that could not be more true. Even the overall tone that at one point seems like a lecture is pure fantasy.
Now, let me quickly say that I plan on giving James Cameron some more of my money as soon as it comes out on DVD. I might even see it again to get the full 3D effect. (Hey, see it in 3D... don't be cheap.) I LOVE this movie. I really do.
But, since Cameron's lecture is sooooo prevalent and the demographic for this movie so willing to be led by the nose... I feel I must respectfully protest it's cultural relativity message.
If you don't know cultural relativity is basically the belief that all cultures have a right to exist and that one shouldn't dominate the another.
WRONG...
It is this kind of Mickey-Mouse Pollyanna thinking that drives me nuts.
My thinking on the meshing of cultures is simple, trade up or you will be engaged in a protracted struggle to survive.
What do I mean by "trade up". Simple. When two cultures meet the less dominant and less modern culture has no choice but to trade up for the dominant culture. The more progressed, more modern, more advanced.
If the less dominant culture chooses to hinder this trade, this inevitable trade, a protracted conflict is possible. The result is that the dominant culture succeeds and the less dominant culture suffers.
Concepts as large as "cultures" survive in a state of nature or every culture for itself, or a completely self-serving agenda. Because of this self-serving nature in which no culture has at any relative time an advantage over another culture this concept is logically and ethically sound.
It is in effect a sort of natural selection for cultures. The ones that work survive, the ones that don't will eventually be taken over by the more dominant selections. Things that "work" in the less dominant cultures survive or assimilate with other working dominant culture aspects. Things that don't "work" are discarded.
This is and always has been the way of things. The victims of this "trade up" system are often dear to the less dominant culture. Languages, traditions, land, resources are lost to the less dominant culture. These are redistributed via the dominant culture's system or discarded. This redistribution and discarding of once important parts of the less dominant culture are quite expectantly painful and hard to cope with. But, the utility of this assimilation is undeniable and fair.
Is it fair in a particular instance? Not always. Can examples of horribly inhuman treatment be found in the history of meshing cultures? Of course. But in a utilitarian, do the most good and the least harm, sense it is the only rational system available, and in fact is the only system available.
Attempts to thwart the "trade up" only result in a delaying of the inevitable and protracted suffering borne mostly by the least dominant culture.
How does this translate to the Na'Vi in Avatar?
First let me say I understand the license taken to make the Na'Vi appear flawless and completely endearing. I get it. But if you are going to have a message it needs to be accurate. This movie could have been just as good and just as successful without the lecture.
A simple but accurate observation of the Na'Vi is that they are of course tribal, yet none of the horrible cultural practices that many "tribal" cultures have exist in the Na'Vi culture. No honor killings, no cannibalism, polygamy, no arranged marriages no female genital mutilation, and no infanticide.
A more advanced culture that doesn't rely on tribal principles to maintain order and predictability shuns these tribal practices because they are no longer needed. Ordered systems of government and civil society replace polygamy, FMJ and other acts we now find horrific or outside the norm. Witchcraft, wizardry and oracles are replaced by the much more reliable and predictable philosophy, scientific method and logic.
Cameron knows this so he had to create a fictional device to over come it. This device is the Na'Vi ability to network with nature. This small but important fictional element actually proves my point. That without this fictional parallel that made the Na'Vi pseudo-modern they were in fact a much less dominant culture. One that could benefit from the human culture in both the painful short term and utilitarian long term.
Emotionally we pull for the Na'Vi. But the bad guy... modernity (the same modernity that allows for this kind of advanced cinematography) has just as much "right" to advance as a culture has to survive. The assumption is that billions or even tens of billions of people need the fictional element Unobtainium that is a metaphor for oil.
If the metaphor is to be complete then this fictional element is literally the second air that the human society needs to breath and survive. Like oil, it touches every part of our lives. Improving it, moving it, saving it, prolonging it. Without it we would not be recognizable as the society we are.
To be clear, if we did not have oil/unobtainium that means you can't go to work, buy goods and services for your family and would have to return to a self-sufficient means of leaving. No, gas. No, markets. No, cheap goods from other parts of the world/universe.
Do your children have the right to be educated? Then quit work and home school because that is your choice without the catalyst that is oil/unobtainium. Want them to be healthy? Tough. We are back to country doctors that can not proscribe modern medicine or treatments. No MRIs, no advanced antibiotics, no cancer treatments.
The assumption and metaphor used in the movie suggests that human life depends on that fictional element. So, while you are ready to cheer for the Na'Vi as I did. Understand also as I did, that the movie is a one of a kind work of fictions to include the poorly thought out and typically leftist lecture on cultural relativity. A lesson that disregards the realities of an upward moving dominant culture and the benefits we enjoy.
And while many of us understandably turn away and prefer a fiction to the reality of the makings of modern society, that reality remains and much be dealt with via an accurate lens that accounts for what will do the most good for all involved or sometimes what will do the least harm. Or to simplify via a common metaphor, many of us don't want to know or see how the sausage is made, we just want to enjoy it.
So enjoy your sausage. Go see Avatar!!! It is a one of a kind masterpiece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
