Sep 252010
“Avatar” was a thinly veiled allegory for “evil white man vs. noble savage Injun Native American.” Fine. So… do the Na’vi have THIS hiding in their closet?
Crushed leg bones, battered skulls and other mutilated human remains are likely all that’s left of a Native American population destroyed by genocide that took place circa 800 A.D., suggests a new study. … The unearthed bones and artifacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disemboweled, killed and often hacked to bits
Ha-ha! Even the Vikings hadn’t gotten to North America by this time.
Beware dangerous genocidal Native Americans!
3 Responses to “So… will *this* be in “Avatar 2?””
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What would Rousseau say?
I’d really like to hear what my Indian buddies would say. They’d probably try to blame George Bush, and then announce that the murder could be put into perspective by considering the Spanish in South America. And thereby missing the point.
Personally I’m not surprised at all. The “Indians” were humans, and humans have the tendency to be somewhat violent against each other. Heck, take the, who was it, Aztecs or Mayans, with their sacrifices.
Suddenly I’m reminded of this:
THE INDIAN GOSPEL FOR DUMMIES
#1) DESCRIBE THE MAGICAL INNOCENCE
The Indians were infants, sometime violent and incontrollable, but with a magical innocence. They could cut bodies into pieces, rape women, kidnap and murder children, they still are good-looking playboys whose pictures are available everywhere. How about a picture of the Butcher of Minnesota (1,400 civilians murdered), Little Crow (Sioux), in your living-room? So nice!
#2) FIND THE GRIEF
Warning! It is the most important part of the gospel: find the grief. For that purpose, you have a virtual free-hand to seek “answers” through centuries. If Black Kettle’s tribe murdered Clara Blinn, it was probably because they feel angered about the Sand Creek Massacre, four years earlier, or the treaty of Fort Laramie, in 1861, or… well, the arrival of Colombus, in 1492.
#3) STICK TO GENERALITIES
Very important: do not cite names until you have explained the history of the tribe and of all the Indians (and, if you want, even the Aborigines in Australia or Vercingetorix in France). It is very important not to downplay your thesis by saying that only a few characters were involved in the story. Remember that the magical innocence of #1 needs generalities, not specificities. If Black Kettle’s warriors murdered civilians in 1868, call them “Cheyennes”. Or better: “Cheyenne young men”. Or the hit: “angry Cheyenne young men” (hop! you have the link with the grief above.)
#4) REJECT ALL THE REPORTS OF THE ARMY
The prosecutions of your heroic Indians always comes from the army. It is thus very important that you reject their claims with a very natural “of course, the army said that they were guilty!” Because no Indian knew how to write, almost every paper you will find will be written by army officials or the US government. How lovely it is: you can erase all the factual evidence with a few nonchalant words!
#5) MAKE THE INDIAN CUSTOMS THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT
Extremely important: use, and re-use moral relativism and multiculturalism. Make everyone remember that they are Whites and that they cannot – of course! – understand the amazing complexity of these amazing civilizations (do not explain what was amazing about these civilizations, because it will be very hard to find anything gorgeous. Stick to “evident” generalities. “Of course they were amazing!”). Everyone must understand how the tribes worked before “rushing to judgment” (you can also link this “cultural imperative” with the “grief” above). Moreover, you can add that actual American Indians, and nobody else, can understand what the rules are. Make strong conclusions: “If you do not know the rules, how can you condemn them? How can you stick to judeo-christian values when we deal with faaaaaar more complex tribal rules which tolerated mutilations, wife beating, kidnappings or gang rapes?”
#6) DENY ANY KIND OF RESPONSABILITIES
This last argument is linked with the Indian customs above. Deny any kind of individual responsability in any case. More important, deny any collective responsibility. According to the Indian customs, the chiefs could harbor terrorists and be peaceful and feed terrorists and be trustworthy and detain white hostages and be the innocent target of bloodythirsty White men. To get this complete amnesty, the chief just had to claim that he was peaceful. His own words are the most important piece of your defense.
The gospel (finished product):
How could anyone attack a spiritual, good-looking Indian who claimed to be good, who had no responsibilities whatsoever and whose own tribe was attacked by two Spanish sentinels two centuries before ? Gosh, don’t you have any soul?
(C) http://www.custerwest.org
What would Rousseau say?
I’d really like to hear what my Indian buddies would say. They’d probably try to blame George Bush, and then announce that the murder could be put into perspective by considering the Spanish in South America. And thereby missing the point.