Is Avatar Racist?

Spoiler Alert -- Do not read if you haven't seen but plan to see Avatar.

I was directed by a tweet to an story in the Japan Times on line saying that a small but vocal minority of people believe that Avatar is racist. First, the phrase "small but vocal" wants to be looked at. What it may mean is that there are two or three people who are extremely talkative who believe this. This article begins

Near the end of the hit film "Avatar," the villain snarls at the hero, Both men are white — although the hero is inhabiting a blue-skinned, 2.75-meter-tall, long-tailed alien. "How does it feel to betray your own race?"

This is funny.  The avatar is no longer an avatar whose brain is being controlled by a white man lying in a device that facilitates this control, but is instead a Na’vi man if someone in a manufactured Na’vi body whose human brain has been transferred into this body can be said to be a Na’vi person. The insulter should have said, "How does it feel to betray your former race?"

One idiot promoting this thesis says

"The ethnic Na'vi," he writes, "need the White man to save them because, as a less developed race, they lack the intelligence and fortitude to overcome their adversaries by themselves."

This is so inaccurate I have to believe the author did not see the movie or is incapable of seeing what is in front of his face. The Na'vi defeated the white devils thanks to Jake's knowledge of the white devil's military hardware and tactics and the intelligence and fortitude of the Na'vi and the assistance of other inhabitants of Pandora. Far from lacking fortitude, the Na'vi threw themselves into battle without regard for their personal safety. Jake's growing understanding of the Pandoran ecosystem played a critical role as well in that he (quite literally) plugged into the ecosystem seeking it to intercede on behalf of the planet. Had he not become an authentic Na'vi in spirit, that intercession would not have worked.

James Cameron set himself up for this criticism by using a white actor to play Jake and a person of color to play the Na'vi princess he fell in love with. Had he simply used an African American or English speaking African our critics would be in a hell of a position. It would no longer be a white man saving the blue-colored people but a person of color saving a person of a different color, but it would still be a human rescuing the people of Avatar. So, at the worst, Cameron's mistake was he cast a White man in the role of Jake.  Casting a white man made economic sense, I suppose, but it isn't just white people who save others in movies.  Will Smith saved the planet in one movie and I understand that Denzel Washington saves the planet in a new movie I haven't yet seen.

I am so tired of people playing the "race card" I want to vomit all over this blog. I got into the civil rights movement back in 1960 when it was a serious business because African Americans were denied most basic human rights in the South, including Texas and Oklahoma, as well as other places. The change over these 50 years has been stunning. And guess what? A lot of white people worked alongside African Americans to make the civil rights revolution happen. The lesson from that time is that when there is injustice everyone is obligated to do his or her part. That is the lesson of Pandora. The three white people who controlled the Avatars as spies all "got religion" and did what they could to help the Na'vi defeat the occupying army.  It is a good thing when people of any color assist people of any color.  The Haitian relief effort is a prime case.  Is that relief effort racist because white people are helping persons of color?

The iTouch and the myTouch

When I first saw a TV advertisement for the myTouch telephone, I thought instantly of the iTouch, which as I understand it, is an iPhone without the phone app (I have never held either in my hands and have only seen the former in anyone else's.)  And having spent a few years working occasionally on the linguistic side of  trademark law, I wondered if Apple did not have a case for trademark infringement.  One of the tests is that the new mark evoke the notion that the product it identifies might have the same origin as the product identified by the earlier mark. If surveys were to demonstrate that a significant proportion of consumers share my perception, Apple would be a major step forward toward proving its case.
A case for infringement would have to consider the similarity of the marks. They are, of course, very similar. We have in the case of “iTouch,” a lower case “i” followed by the word “Touch,” and in the case of “myTouch,” we have a lower case “my” followed by the same word. The letter “i” when capitalized and only when capitalized refers to the person speaking or writing something. Here, though, it is not capitalized. In the case of “my” we have a word that refers to the speaker/writer of something or, in the case, of “myTouch,” the owner/user. One thing is clear, the “i” of “iMac” or“iPod” or “iTunes” or or “iPhone” is normally not intepreted as referring to the owner/user.
In fact, when the iMac was first introduced, Steve Jobs claimed (see the title link)

The iMac comes from the marriage of the excitement of the internet with the simplicity of Macintosh.

He went on to say that it was designed with the fact that the primary use people wanted a personal computer for was to get onto the internet. Jobs cited a set of "i"-words that he wanted to associate with the iMac, namely "internet, individual, instruct, inform, inspire." Therefore, the voice of he creator provides compelling evidence that there is no semantic connection between the “i” of “iTouch” and the “my” of “myTouch.”  When he associates the iMac with these other "i"-words, he severs the relationship between "i" and the owner/user more completely even though one of these words is "individual."  Note  that this word is not equivalent in meaning to "personal."  In fact, the iMac was and is used in environments in which many individuals use a particular machine.
The fact that the lower case prefix”i” is attached to a wide range of products distributed by Apple argues for it having only the meaning “a product distributed by Apple.” Originally, this “i” primarily referred to the internet though Jobs added some other associations. But the iPod breaks this connection. Apple crated iTunes in the hope that people would buy music using iTunes and then downloading it onto their iPods. That would involve internet connectivity. However, one could use an iPod without ever connecting it to a a program that connected to the internet by simply ripping one's own or a friend's music and converting it to a format the iPod could read and downloading it directly.
It is clear that there is a significant morphological similarity between “iTouch” and “myTouch” for they share a morpheme. However, the first has a prefix that refers to the internet primarily but also to other things or just signifies that the product is made by Apple, and the other has a prefix that refers to the owner/user. In addition to the morphological similarity between "iTouch" and "myTouch," thre is an enormous overlap in product function.  In fact the only substantive difference is that the iTouch cannot be used to make calls. So, Apple would find it difficult to keep HTC and T-Moble from using the mark “myTouch.” Nevertheless, as I said, I suspect a survey of consumers aware of the  iTouch, confronted with this new product,  would connect “myTouch” to “iTouch” and thereby to Apple. At the very least, HTC would seem to be ripping off some of Apple's market good will. I am not a trademark lawyer but I think that is a 'no no.”

The More You Spend The More You Save

This evening, I caught the tail end of a Zale's commercial exclaiming,, "The more you spend the more you save."  Contrast that with, "A penny saved is a penny earned."  Neither actually makes any sense except for the fact that if you do save a penny on day 1, then on day 2, it is as if you earned a penny on day 1 though of course you didn't.  The Zale's ad is even stupider, which is troubling for it presumes (as is true for many people I fear) that people will be so seduced by the combination of the gratifying concept of spending -- don't we all love to spend? -- and the comforting concept of saving to rush to Zale's  to buy diamonds.  However, trust me, if you go by Ben Franklin's adage on day 1 you will have more money on day 2 than if you abide by Zale's.

At the Zale's web site linked to the title of this blog, you get a bit different version of this promotional scheme, namely "the more you buy the more you save."  Notice that these two claims are linguistically different.  We spend money to buy things.  However, what the web site offers is savings in proportion to how much you spend, not how many things you buy. 

According to Zale's, if you spend $250-$449, you save $25 dollars.  Clearly the smart shopper would spend just $250 and get thereby a 10% reduction.  If he or she were to spend $449. he or she would get a tiny bit more than 5%.  If he or she spends $500 to $999, he or she wold get $50 back, which offers the same percentage reduction/savings.

Offers scale upward from the lowest level of spending upward to a maximum of $1,000 if you spend $5,000 or more.  Notice that spending $5,000 gets you a savings of 25%.  Wow, what a deal!  The problem is that if you stayed out of Zale's and did not spend $250 there on day 1, you would still have $250 on day 2, but if you spend that $250, you would be down $225.  So, spending money at Zale's doesn't save you money unless you are determined to spend $250 and don't go to a store that gives you a better break.  In short, while a penny saved may not be a penny earned, a penny spent is definitely neither a penny earned nor a penny saved.

I am lucky.  My wife has never demanded or even hinted she wanted diamonds or any other kind of pricey jewelry.  I think I did once buy some pearl stud earrings in a fit of romantic fervor,  but that would have been a long time ago.  I suggest to men that they flee from any woman who really, really wants jewelry, other than, say, an engagement ring.  My wife and I got married with no engagement ring and no wedding rings, but when we went to Scotland for a couple of months the next Summer, we had a craft jeweler make us matching wedding rings.  I suppose that made us legal.  It sure made my mother-in-law happier.  It is possible to spend money on other, probably more sensible things.

Israeli Linguist A Bit Too Full Of Herself

An Israeli linguist seems to think she has turned the linguistic world upside down with her new meaning for the word "most."  A UPN article states

Professor Mira Ariel of Tel Aviv University says her research "is quite shocking for the linguistics world" and proves some of her fellow linguists are wrong in their definition of the word "most."

She claims that we linguists believe that

"most" generally means 51 percent to 99 percent of a group of people or objects.

but that in a survey she and her colleagues did, a number of persons

understood "most" to mean about 80 percent to 95 percent of a group and not the much larger range of 51 percent to 99 percent.

One very serious problem with her claims is that no self-respecting linguist would ever say that "most" means 51 percent to 99 percent of a group or means '80 percent to 95 percent of a group.'  This is just now how we use the word "mean."

Professor Ariel seems not to understand the distinction between "meaning" and "use".  It very well may be that people use "most" in a proposition like "Most Ps are Q" in circumstances in which 80-95% of the relevant Ps have the property Q.  But that is not what it means.  That is how we use it.  I am not sure how to characterize what it means but I am sure that that is not what it means.

If I say, that most Ps are Q and it turns out that 97% of the Ps are Q is what I said false?  Surely not. And if it turns out that 75% of the Ps are Q, is what I said false"?  Again, surely not.  This may not be how people generally use "most" but the meaning of "most," whatever it is, is consistent with these two claims being true and so long as that is true, then we can be sure that Professor Ariel is wrong about what "most" means.

The Right Wing Propaganda Machine

After Obama was inaugurated, he made himself excessively visible.  Anyone in show business knows that you always leave them wanting more.  The problem is that Obama kept himself front and center, shoiwing up on TV virtually every day.  Before we had time to want to see him again, there he was announcing this or that new appointment, putting forth this or that new policy, or giving an interview.  As a result, Obama fatigue has set in and that has left him very vulnerable to the lies being told by the health industry about his and the Democratic Congressional health care bill, Fox News, and whoever else feels animus toward him, including especially those who harbor ill-feeling toward African Americans.

Naturally, the Antis will say they are pure of thought and that their objections to Obama are based on his actions as well as his apparent inaction.  The Rasmussen Reports don't bear them out.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of African-Americans Strongly Approve along with just 19% of white voters (see other recent demographic highlights from the tracking poll).
Among all voters, just 34% now give the President good or excellent marks on his handling of the economy while 47% say he is doing a poor job in that arena. On national security issues, 42% say good or excellent while 41% say poor.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters believe that political correctness kept the military from preventing the Fort Hood shootings. 

So, what we see is a striking division between Blacks and Whites as to how he is doing, which is a bit of a give away that racial attitudes are coloring perceptions.  That sort of thing didn't keep him from being elected but given the continued high unemployment and many other issues, he is guarnteed not to have a second term.  As James Carville famously said, "It's the economy, stupid."

The last of these three items is especially interesting.  It is clear that the military knew that Major Hasan was a Muslim and that he was disgruntled.  Naturally in a country Bush poisoned with his constant drumbeat of "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", "9/11", etc, and given the disposition of people to posit conspiracies wherever they see something they don't understand, right-wingers and various and sundry other nutcases are sure this was part of a terrorist plot.

Conspiracy theories are the refuge of those who have agendas or are laboring in ignorance.  I recall the theories graduate students had about admissions policies in my university department.  Early on we used  a Master's exam to help determine who would be admitted to the Doctoral progrm.   A minority would not be admitted and the theory emerged that we had a quota, never mind that limiting the number of students we admitted actually hurt the department economically.

I first encountered the theory that Major Hasan's actions were the result of a terrorist plot on the Dennis Miller show and that political correctness, the bane of right wing, was in full flower in this case.  I was rather surprised.  Naturally, the military is reluctant to jump to the view that Hasan was acting out of an anti-American or anti-military political stance.  That would be beyond stupid, bordering on being imbecilic.

Not so, the right wing in America tells us.  At Right Pundits we find

Why are we able to so easily label Malik Nadal Hasan a terrorist? The fact speaks for itself. He is just as much a domestic terrorist as Timothy McVeigh was labeled so for his heinous act in Oklahoma City. And while McVeigh perpetuated his act from afar in silence, Malik Nadal Hasan shouted anti-American political views at his victims as he mowed them down with automatic weapons.

 The first thing I learned about Major Hasan is that he really, really, really didn't want to go to Iraq.  The military is not disposed to worry overmuch about where soldiers do and do not want to be posted, but they probably should in some cases.  This would have been one.

The title of this article is "Malik Nadal Hasan: Muslim Terrorist Challenges Obama’s Timidity."  I suppose this could be more misleading but I don't know how.  I seriously doubt that Obama told the military how it should go about its investigation or how it should present the facts to the public.  Nevertheless, Obama is vulnerable to any attack on anything American by any Muslim.  Its a right wing freebie.

Obama neeeds to do the following by next year at this time.

1. Get the health care bill in place.
2.  Somehow get unemployment to turn around.  I can think of some ways -- how about using unemployment benefits as subsidies to businesses who hire the uneployed for a year, say.
3.  Get the hell out of Iraq.
4.  Render Al Queda and the Talliban totally impotent.

If he does 1 and 2, it is possible that he will get a second term.  If he does 1-3, he will get one.  If he gets all four he will be elected President for Life.