Hey, I liked Battlestar Galactica too, but I don't want a religious nut bag running the country based on her crazy visions...
I think the main thing to get out of this article is this:
"many people have reported feelings of suicidal depression after seeing it because when they wake up the next day they realize that reality just doesn’t measure up to Pandora."
Someone make an awesome 3d Avatar video game stat! Apparently the current incarnation isn't enough and is leaving people suicidal!
And, as far as I'm concerned, in this case you're the one being intellectually lazy by making a knee-jerk rejection of the article on purely superficial grounds.
I don't completely buy the argument being put forward here (it certainly doesn't help their case that they at one point admit that they don't even know what "fascism" means), but it's interesting food for thought.
Almost everyone who invokes Godwin's Law has a very reasoned argument why they can connect the Nazi's to Topic X, that is nevertheless fully contrived and meaningless.
I did read the article, thoroughly, and found the classic intellectual laziness associated with Godwinesque arguments. And I quote: "Sontag’s point is that the fascist sympathies and racial preoccupations that guide Reifensthal’s work for the Nazis also can be seen in her photographic work on the Nuba people in Africa. You can uncannily substitute Cameron’s name whenever Sontag mentions Reifensthal and substitute the Na’vi whenever Sontag mentions the Nuba. The entire Sontag article could just as well have been a review of Avatar."
In other words, So-and-so is a Nazi. So-and-so wrote an article. Substitute subject X for A and object Y for B, and it's practically a review of Big New Thing XY. Ergo, Big New Thing is Nazi-Fascist propaganda. QED.
Hogwash. This is an example of the same intellectual ineptitude that equates Obama with Hitler.
This is just too close to Godwin's law to be taken seriously.
"And what is fascism anyway? Good luck finding a concise or clear definition. We are kind of foggy on that. Presently, the word is most commonly used to cast aspersions on a particular political stance or belief. The implication is that if you are fascist you seek to impose a vision of the world on a group of people and that vision generally contains some notion of moral superiority."
What is the point of defining something as X if X can mean anything to anyone?
'Fascism' should mean a militarist, ultra-nationalist and authoritarian political regime within a precise moment in history. If it can mean anything than everything is fascist.
We also lose a useful term if we define it that broadly, though. It's not only an economic system, but a complete political/economic system that comes with a set of aesthetics and a particular focus on nationalism, a strong state, and a strong leader.
Just government control of nominally private enterprises is much more common than fascist regimes; it'd also include the UK in the heydey of the East India Company, modern-day China, and even to some extent modern-day France.
The problem with that definition is that it also defines rather well most available instances of Communist states. So are you saying Fascism=Communism? Or that those states are not exemplars of "real" Communism but are in fact exemplars of Fascism?
You yourself demonstrate nicely that to many, the term is "useful" only as partisan political ammunition, for your "definition" excludes so many of the defining features of fascism (nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism) that it is completely meaningless.
Ah yes, the Na'avi were athletic and the fascists were athletic, therefore the Na'avi might be fascist. The Na'avi were sexual and the fascists liked sex, so the Na'avi must be fascist. And yeah it was really sinister the way they preferred living in harmony with nature rather than turn over their home to be strip mined. Sheesh. I'm so glad he pointed this stuff out.
I think the writer presents interesting, if perhaps over-intellectualized, viewpoints. However, I don't believe him when he says he cannot find a real definition of Fascism. I think that's deliberate, for if he included conventionally accepted definitions, the rest of his article would be non sequitur. I've always understood it to be a confusion on Patriotism, where people align their beliefs behind the _government_ instead of aligning with the principles of their country. Where principles are misunderstood, or rejected, or under attack -- fascism takes hold. The word certainly has nothing to do with athleticism.
In this more conventional meaning, I fail to make the connections that the author makes re: Avatar.
15 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 42.7 ms ] threadI think the main thing to get out of this article is this:
"many people have reported feelings of suicidal depression after seeing it because when they wake up the next day they realize that reality just doesn’t measure up to Pandora."
Someone make an awesome 3d Avatar video game stat! Apparently the current incarnation isn't enough and is leaving people suicidal!
I don't completely buy the argument being put forward here (it certainly doesn't help their case that they at one point admit that they don't even know what "fascism" means), but it's interesting food for thought.
I did read the article, thoroughly, and found the classic intellectual laziness associated with Godwinesque arguments. And I quote: "Sontag’s point is that the fascist sympathies and racial preoccupations that guide Reifensthal’s work for the Nazis also can be seen in her photographic work on the Nuba people in Africa. You can uncannily substitute Cameron’s name whenever Sontag mentions Reifensthal and substitute the Na’vi whenever Sontag mentions the Nuba. The entire Sontag article could just as well have been a review of Avatar."
In other words, So-and-so is a Nazi. So-and-so wrote an article. Substitute subject X for A and object Y for B, and it's practically a review of Big New Thing XY. Ergo, Big New Thing is Nazi-Fascist propaganda. QED.
Hogwash. This is an example of the same intellectual ineptitude that equates Obama with Hitler.
"And what is fascism anyway? Good luck finding a concise or clear definition. We are kind of foggy on that. Presently, the word is most commonly used to cast aspersions on a particular political stance or belief. The implication is that if you are fascist you seek to impose a vision of the world on a group of people and that vision generally contains some notion of moral superiority."
What is the point of defining something as X if X can mean anything to anyone?
'Fascism' should mean a militarist, ultra-nationalist and authoritarian political regime within a precise moment in history. If it can mean anything than everything is fascist.
If fascism is limited to the political regimes within a precise moment in history, we lose a useful term.
Just government control of nominally private enterprises is much more common than fascist regimes; it'd also include the UK in the heydey of the East India Company, modern-day China, and even to some extent modern-day France.
In this more conventional meaning, I fail to make the connections that the author makes re: Avatar.
What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
The word has been so misused as to be parody now.
They may as well amend Goodwin's law.
Pocahontas. In space. In 3D.