Well, let's not lose sight of the fact that this is cultural imperialism (or actual imperialism) at the end of a gun. The question is: do the humans have a right to force the Na'vi to do [anything]? Do they have a right to force them to give up land? Do they have a right to force them at accept new technologies? Do they have the right to force them into a free exchange of ideas?
No matter how many sympathetic elements you pile onto the human side (millions will die, humans technology would make life better, the Na'vi are kind of jerky themselves), I think the basic moral question remains the same, and I can't find much ambiguity. Forcing people to radically alter their lifestyle is not cool, regardless of how stupid you think that lifestyle is.
Now, where some genuine ambiguity could be introduced would be if the humans were from a Galactic U.N., using force to stop the Na'vi from oppressing some other Na'vis. I admit I don't know where I stand on that sort of thing - on the one hand, I want other cultures to be able to continue their traditional ways of life, but on the other hand, I don't want them burning women alive or massacring ethnic minorities. But I think that scenario is an entirely different movie, one where the basic motivations of both sides are completely reversed.
What about a scenario like there is lately where leaders of small low-lying countries (The Comoros, various Pacific atolls) are trying to buy land on higher ground from some country to repatriate their people when global warming covers up their islands?
That's a good one. Do the high-polluting, global-warming-contributing countries have a moral obligation to hand over land when thee countries go underwater?
Well, we don't have the notion of a sacred land either, especially if they can pay. I suppose it would be a problem if they wanted to settle in the Grand Canyon, or on top of the Eiffel Tower or some such, but lots of countries offer asylum for refugees of natural or political disasters and just settle them with the rest of the population. Course, a full scale flood of refugees, like the Palestinians, present real problems when no one wants to let them become part of their country, or they want to continue fighting from the country that took them in.
No matter how many sympathetic elements you pile onto the human side (millions will die, humans technology would make life better, the Na'vi are kind of jerky themselves), I think the basic moral question remains the same, and I can't find much ambiguity. Forcing people to radically alter their lifestyle is not cool, regardless of how stupid you think that lifestyle is.
Now, where some genuine ambiguity could be introduced would be if the humans were from a Galactic U.N., using force to stop the Na'vi from oppressing some other Na'vis. I admit I don't know where I stand on that sort of thing - on the one hand, I want other cultures to be able to continue their traditional ways of life, but on the other hand, I don't want them burning women alive or massacring ethnic minorities. But I think that scenario is an entirely different movie, one where the basic motivations of both sides are completely reversed.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment