Avatar: Upholding Desertion, Treason, and Armed Rebellion
Posted by Mike E on December 22, 2009
“There is an assumption that Avatar is a film ‘about an oppressed people.’ And that assumption is the logical floor for a series of arguments (about how this is ‘once again’ a film about the oppressed made from the point of view of the oppressor.)
“But let’s do a thought experiment. What if we don’t assume this is a film ‘about the Nav’i’ in some simple way. Let’s start with a different assumption: That this is a film about desertion, about abandoning imperialism, about crossing over from complicity to resistance.”
by Nando Sims
First, I want to say that the whole tone and direction of our discussion has almost sidestepped the film itself.Avatar somehow becomes a stand in for the whole superstructure and how it portrays the oppressed.
It needs to be said that this film is a remarkable achievement — artistically and technically. You are taken to a fully imagined world — where (in incredibly creative ways) we are shown the alien and new (in contrast to the rather hatefully familiar machinery of capitalist plunder and death). There is a whole discussion to be had about this film’s view of the environment, of humans in nature, of the right of the indigenous to remain in hunter gatherer states, and more. But really I want to start by saying it was quite mind-blowing — original, irresistible, beautiful, engaging, and something that will touch many people.
How do we judge art? The same way we would an article or theoretical analysis? With its “program” and “message”? I think we need to consider three things:
1) the intention of the artist
2) what the work actually says (literally, textually)
3) what impact the work will have (on the cultural and political terrain).
Each of these is hard to evaluate — though I will clearly give a sense of my impressions below.
Great, but….?
Setting all that aside for the moment, I’d like to address issues raised by Vivid Visionary:
“It’s great to see a film about a white soldier identifying with and siding with the native oppressed. But where are the films where oppressed people themselves, whether that be native, Black, or white, emerge from the oppressed, rather from the oppressor?
These are both important sentences.
First, yes, it is great to see this film — that upholds treason and desertion and armed resistance, at a moment when the U.S. is involved in two distinct colonial wars. Just imagine in your mind the difference between Avatar and the WW2 film “Sands of Iwo Jima” or the Vietnam film “Green Berets.” In part because it is clothed in sci-fi, Avatar literally gets away with CELEBRATING the destruction of corporate military units, by joint teams of Native rebels and deserters — can you even IMAGINE such a film being made during the Korean War or WW2? Can we Imagine such a film being made in the first years after 9/11? Isn’t its emergence a big deal and a very positive sign of where the “war on terrorism” has ended up?
Isn’t it truly remarkable that the most prominent film in the country (and globally) is about “going over to the enemy”? Does anyone want to argue this is not an incredibly radical premise or stand?
I remember how (as a kid in high school during the Vietnam war) we used to whisper (literally whisper) that there were actually American soldiers who had deserted and were fighting for the NLF. One was supposedly called C.G.C. Travis, and the others were rumored to be a “salt and pepper” team (a Black and white pair of GIs who fought together). I have never been able to confirm if those stories were true (if these people actually existed). But my own experience with the rumors shows how the very idea of American GIs fighting for the Vietnamese revolution was shockingly and exciting.
Second, I agree with Vivid Visionary that we should ask:
“But where are the films where oppressed people themselves, whether that be native, Black, or white, emerge from the oppressed, rather from the oppressor?”
It is, as you say, a question to raise about the society itself (not a critique of this film or this filmmaker).
It is frustrating that so many films see radical movements through the eyes of an outside observer (Donald Woods being the main character in the movie Biko!)
And yet, I have to note, that sometimes such films ARE made — more often than is often acknowledged in many discussion. Spike Lee’s X didn’t see Malcolm X through the eyes of some “fly on the wall” white reporter (how could it!? How weird would that have been!) The Indian film about Bhagat Singh is not about “how do the British look at the rebels”, or the Turkish film YOL isn’t about some German tourist learning about Turkey and its problems. I’m sure there ARE Vietnamese films about the Vietnam War, we just don’t see them. Certainly there were Chinese works about the Chinese revolution (including the somewhat circulated “Red Detachment of Women.”
But it is true that there are marketing barriers to making and distributing culture that is not aimed at some plump American demographic. This has changed somewhat with the emergence of Chinese, Indian and Turkish cinema — I recently saw the remarkable period film Red Cliffs, which like so many of those films is rather mainstream Chinese nationalist and not “seen through” the eyes of Europeans at all.
Yes, it is an indictment of this society that there are not more African American filmmakers — or that the history and culture of Native people is almost completely portrayed through the prism of anthropologists and non-Native filmmakers etc.
However, let’s specify more clearly why this get raised in this discussion? Is it a fair indictment of Avatar as a film, or of its filmmakers?
As a simple matter of method, I get a bit impatient with an approach to cultural works that says “I suppose this is a good work of art, but I really wish a different one had been made.” I mean, is that really a far critique to make of a film? or a filmmaker? That they didn’t make this OTHER film you want to see, (which by definition requires some other filmmaker)?
I have read this often in leftist cultural reviews (particularly those by the CPUSA) — where they would not really discuss the actual piece of art being critiqued (they rarely liked anything), but instead they would just discuss at length some other piece of art on this topic that THEY would make if they had the opportunity. (And usually their ruminations left me thinking, thank god they aren’t making films!)
Again VV writes:
“But where are the films where oppressed people themselves, whether that be native, Black, or white, emerge from the oppressed, rather from the oppressor?”
What does this mean “from the oppressor”? Is Cameron “from the oppressor” here? How?
I don’t think Cameron is an oppressor making a film about oppressed people. Perhaps that’s part of the issue here. And I don’t think “white people” are (generically) “the oppressor” in some simple, uniform, cut-and-dried way (not that VV implies this).
And in fact, the desire of many white people (like Cameron) to identify with revolution and rebellion, to desert, to expose…. is itself a vivid and positive example that “white people” as a whole are not “the oppressor.”
There is an assumption that Avatar is a film “about an oppressed people.” And that assumption is the logical floor for a series of arguments (about how this is “once again” a film about the oppressed made from the point of view of the oppressor.)
But let’s just do a thought experiment. What if we don’t assume this is a film “about the Nav’i” in some simple way. Let’s start with a different assumption: That this is a film about desertion, about abandoning imperialism, about crossing over from complicity to resistance.
Is a film that does that without value? Is it so odd that such a film is made through the eyes of the deserter? That it chronicles how he learns the venality and injustice of “his side.” That he has his unschooled mind blown by an immersion in some different culture?
Similarly, the movie “Glory” is not simply “a movie about Black people that typically has major white characters” — it was a film about a military unit (that in actual fact had white officers and black soldiers).
If someone, in the 1960s, had dared make a movie about American GIs fragging their officers in Vietnam, would it have been neccessary to demand indignantly “Why isn’t this a movie more specifically and exclusively about the Vietnamese and made by a Vietnamese director?”
Yes, there could be (perhaps) a film more single-mindedly about the Nav’i (though even then not with a Nav’i filmmaker, for obvious reasons). It would be a different film than Avatar, though perhaps not a better one, or a more shocking one.
Isn’t the film that was actually made here (about deserting the U.S. forces and “going over” to the resitance — released, i repeat, just as the U.S. president has escalated his occupation of Afghanistan! — a movie about an act of revolutionary defeatism and treason) worth making? And quite fine in its own right?
Kyle 486-T said
Nando:
Thanks for this posting.
What I find interesting here is what’s not in your piece, a historical context of racist/colonialist representations of people of color inside and outside of Hollywood. If you do this, Avatar is simply reflecting and reproducing a U.S. white supremacist imaginary, with a long historical trajectory. Its not a shock to me that after reading Eric Ribellarsi’s piece on this site, somebody (Ana Blic) can write: “I saw this film last Saturday. I didn’t “think race” – at all.” How wonderful it is to live in that world, as POC’s living in a colonial world, we die when we think like that.
You suggest that we consider three things: “(1) the intention of the artist (2) what the work actually says (literally, textually) (3) what impact the work will have (on the cultural and political terrain).” Frankly, I find this approach ahistorical with tremendous implications for how we come to understand a unit of analysis. Its not just about understanding “the thing” we are studying, but being aware of the theories and methodologies that we employ in order to analyze and understand phenomenon. How would using your three suggestions account for a long and painful racist/colonialist images and representation of POC’s inside and outside of Hollywood?
Its easy, one simply avoids it. Hence you suggest, “However, let’s specify more clearly why this get raised in this discussion? Is it a fair indictment of Avatar as a film, or of its filmmakers?”
Context comrade.
There are many texts that engage with some of the discussion above within the longue durée of history. A good one is, Daniel Leonard Bernardi “The Birth of Whiteness: Race and the Emergence of United States Cinema” (Rutgers University Press, 1996) and the edited book by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin “America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies” (Blackwell Publishing, 2004).
palante, Kyle.
Andre C said
Very insightful review. I saw this film over the weekend with someone who has contridictory sentiments on approaches towards national sovereignty, and, as I’m sure with many people here, struggled to attempt to connect the dots of the story and find the best moments to show overt emotions in the theater :) .. There were a group of men sitting behind us, not to judge a book by it’s cover, who were laughing when the Nav took up their bows and arrows against armored vehicles. In the final showdown, about a dozen viewers cheered the ending, but I was tentative, perhaps because someone behind me
might toss their slurpee at me, or I would be the only one cheering.. But Nando, you have shown the importance of being a class traitor and standing with all the oppressed, internationally and developing an idealogy to do that. (even I do get slurpee on me in the process).
Koba said
From – http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/12/not_right-wing.php
Cameron explains the anti-imperialist current to John Anderson in a forthcoming N.Y. Times Sunday piece: “I’m…a child of the ’60s. There’s a part of me who wants to put a daisy in the end of the gun barrel. I believe in peace through superior firepower, but on the other hand I abhor the abuse of power and creeping imperialism disguised as patriotism. Some of these things you can’t raise without being called unpatriotic, but I think it’s very patriotic to question a system that needs to be corralled, or it becomes Rome.”
Andre C said
Patiently awaiting Zizek’s review of this film :)
Rodman said
But who decided to desert? It was Ana Lucia from Lost, badass Latino feminist.
spinoza1111 said
Making a movie in our present society means being an oppressor with respect to the people you have to underpay in order to … make the movie.
Making a movie in a capitalist society means bullying people to do things your way. Making a movie under actually existing socialisms meant the same thing.
And note that Avatar (which I haven’t seen) appears to give the male white protagonist the right to have a viewpoint because he “proved” himself by being a Marine, albeit one who had some sort of epiphany. The whole point of my black armband and my work against the Vietnam War was that I didn’t want to have to “prove” myself by fighting a colonial war so that thugs like Cheney wouldn’t have to go.
It’s just more Fascinating Fascism, people (cf the Sontag essay of that name). Save your money and watch YouTube.
Keith said
I am inclined to agree with Nando’s analysis.
The only thing that I would add is a criticism of the way that the left thinks about imperialism. In general we eliminate class from the picture. Most white people in the U.S. are not “oppressors,” most whites in the working class in the U.S. are exploited at exceptionally high levels (if we take Marx’s definition of exploitation — the difference between the necessary part of the working day and the surplus part– then workers using more capital, ie. high tech workers, are exploited at higher rates because there labor is more productive — it produces more value in a given period of time). A country like the United States that has very high levels of capital relative to labor and produces exceptionally high levels of exploitation. In general the left accepts dogmatically Lenin’s thesis that workers in imperialist countries benefit materially from imperialism without any consideration of the ways that imperialism actually enhances the ability of the imperial country to exploit its “own” working class.
U.S. workers, whites especially, are rarely invited by the left to struggle on their own behalf for their own betterment, instead they are invited to struggle on the behalf of others. In general this makes U.S. workers more susceptible to reactionary politics. I saw a brilliant propaganda piece by a Christian fundamentalist artist depicting a white worker (baseball hat, t-shirt, jeans and work boots) collapsing into the arms of Jesus who offered him support. The key is to find a way to really link the struggle against imperialism abroad with the struggle against capital at home.
Avatar is probably the best representation that politics based on joining the struggle of others can muster.
Labor Shall Rule said
Nando:
Yes, it doesn’t seem like there has been much radical organizing with white workers. And the idea that they’ve been ‘bought out’ sounds dubious to me. The reality of white working class racism (and sexism) often made it necessary for oppressed nationality people to form their own organizations (i.e. not wait around for the white left to decide that they were human). But white racism and the oppression of non-whites does not prove that they somehow stand to benefit from the existence of reactionary social and economic structures.
I wonder why? Is it a deliberate tactical mistake in the political work of (predominately white) left organizations? Or are there personal factors involved here – the white “activist”-type is lazy, tends to focus on school, is not attracted to the rural and/or small city setting that is the required living space for any person that wants to reach out to white working people, etc.?
I’m reminded of Sudhir Venkatesh, the author of “Gang Leader for a Day.” He was working on a study on black youth in the inner-city, and decided to impress his professor by doing some “direct observation” in the projects. He ended up bumping into the gang leader of the most violent street gang in Chicago, and was briefly taken prisoner. After reviewing Sudhir’s questions, which included “how do you feel about being young and black in America,” the gang leader asked Sudhir why he didn’t “study his own people” – a question that was of particular interest to me. Why doesn’t the white left focus on it’s own people?
John B. said
Interesting discussion. Another perspective on “Avatar”:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=10759
T said
On the other hand, Avatar cost I think somewhere close a billion dollars to produce….
That is an insane amount of money spent to spend on anything, let alone a film where a mostly white military unit ‘saves’ the naive and noble savages through their epiphany that the utter destruction of a people is a bad thing.
I mean cmon…
Sajjan said
I should stop getting go excited when somebody mentions Bhagat Singh just in passing.
Labor Shall Rule said
Keith* not Nando. Sorry!
medwse said
Cameron wrote a 114 page “scriptment” (narrative description of the script’s proposed treatment of the story) back in 1996. Obviously there have been many changes in the world (and the script) since then. The original document, with his initial vision of the movie is still out there on the internet, and worth reading although harder to find than it once was. There are many detailed descriptions or reviews of it, also. Google scriptment and Cameron and Avatar. It most easily is out there, I believe, as a torrent file. Enuf said…
G said
Just saw the film and was pleasantly surprised. I knew it would be good, politically, but this surpassed my expectations. That is why I was a little surprised to see so many of the criticism, which seem to be based on nationalist reactions. The other main criticism seems to be on the perceived religious aspects of the movie. I disagree with these two points of criticism, but even if we grant them, they are surely secondary and not the principal aspect.
About the religious complaint, I disagree, although I can see how one can have that defensive reaction. However, it misses the point that the film went out of its way to explicitly posit a materialist scientific basis for the phenomenon it purports, and thus completely removes the supernatural. Recall how they make it a point in the film for the scientists to test and explain to the imperialist investor guy that the natives beliefs were not superstitions, based on myths, but actual biological connections with the rest of the life on the planet, and that this was an actual reality, not ‘wishful thinking.’ Even an explicit physical connection as the mechanism for this communication, through what looks like their hair, is established. Thus, the fact that this is not based on the supernatural, but the natural, lends strong support of an interpretation of not supporting religious beliefs, but of an outlook still grounded in science, and a materialist view to uphold, against superstition and mysticism. Simply saying that its not easy to grasp as something that is real for us is not too strong a point since it is not Earth we are talking about. And, in fact such networks of life and communication, including deposits/transfers of memories are entirely plausible.
The other main objection, seems to be nationalist in origin. It’s rather basic that it doesn’t matter what one looks like or where one comes from, no? What matters is the stance one takes, and in whose interest one chooses to align oneself with. In fact, to show someone from the oppressors being traitors, and choosing to side with the oppressed, is in some ways, even more revolutionary and provoking because it adds a challenge to everyone to take the side of humanity no matter the personal costs to you own privilege, even getting his legs back, etc. He did not choose narrow self interest, but a higher calling of what was right, from a basic moral standpoint.
Also, there is nothing too unusual about someone from the oppressor class who comes down to lead the oppressed. I see nothing wrong with that. Its just a question of privilege and access. The former oppressor was materially in a better position to objectively act as leader, knowing the enemy, having access to the technology, etc. What is important is his becoming a traitor and joining with the oppressed. In reality, most revolutions are lead by members who are not the basic people but who had access to the privileges of access to higher education, professional classes, and the intelligencia, who become class traitors, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Engles, Castro, come to mind. Recall how Mao first thought of the peasants as dirty, etc, but then later said he realized that it was the intellectuals who were really dirty.
I also note that there was a process for the hero to actually become one of the people, adopting their culture, and practices and they had to be won over by this actions and stance, and in the end he literally become of of them without even the need of his human body. I think this makes a statement embracing an internationalist outlook (in this case inter-galactic), in that superficial aspects of appearance, of where one comes from, are subordinate to more important and meaningful standards of solidarity and unity based on rejection of oppression and exploitation no matter who you are or where you come from. And, I was glad it was not just him, but others, too, which points to the subversive and liberating notion that even die-hard folks who are trained in the imperialist armed forces can and do go over to the other side and take up arms against their commanders!
Hegemonik said
@G:
The problem Avatar’s “earth mother” New Age religiosity of the Navi isn’t of the objective phenomenon being observed, so much as the method of observance.
To use an argument by analogy: there’s a difference between Pythagoreanism and modern mathematics –even if Pythagoras observed phenomena that would become useful to mathematics, he was really practicing a more advanced numerology.
The Navi similarly take an objective phenomenon and add layers upon layers of obfuscation to it: shamans, dances, personification, etc. While the human science crew (Sigourney Weaver chiefly) seem to understand what is going on in a dispassionate scientific fashion, the Navi themselves seem to explain it only in naive mythology.
What I find is that by doing so, what Cameron is really after is a false contrast between the innocent, pure, and spiritual Navi and the spoiled, unpure, and materialistic humans. And IMHO, that’s where Cameron is really pushing outmoded liberalism: is the point to internationalism and anti-imperialism to obsessively preserve “innocent” cultures from being spoiled by us, or is it that we are opposed to the destruction of any peoples (whether or not we find them “innocent”)?
shanin said
To me, the most interesting part of the storyline was the depiction of the researchers and anthropologists as well meaning (sometimes not so well meaning) frontline forces of imperialism. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been given the book “Three Cups of Tea” in answer to my AI stance on US involvement in Afghanistan. The message is, “Yes, you’re right the war is bad. If we just went in there to build schools and gave them food, they’d do what we want and be on our side.”
Ok. That may or may not be true. But who says the US has any right to get “what they want anyway?” This liberal assumption that the “carrot” is ok but not the “stick” is sickening – and pointed out clearly in this film, which presents a very real depiction of the role of social science research in war. The US has recruited over 400 anthropologists — people who study human cultures, and likely generally consider themselves antiwar — as part of the Human Terrain Systems (HTS) program (see http://www.counterpunch.org/price12012009.html) – embedding anthropologists in military and paramilitary units to enhance “understanding” and to get the US more info on the value systems and organizational structures of local communities. Anthropologists often see that they are doing “good work” because the more the US knows about the people they are invading, the less likely they are to kill them; instead they could harness their needs and desires to accomplish the same ends – using “peace.” Well intended or not, these researchers are essentially spies facilitating imperialism. Bravo to the director for calling this out.
With regard to the prior conversation: I have to say, even as I was impressed by the art and inspired by the depiction of uprising within the empire and rebellion of the people, I am weary of (and weary of trying to overlook) the liberal racist imagery of “oppressed” communities. It is hard to claim that “lack of imagination” is the reason for drawing on same old dull stereotypes of indigenous peoples – this is one of the most imaginative films around. Why resort to that? I have had people tell me that repetition of this “dances with wolves” theme draws on cultural anchors that make the overall message of the film – anti-imperialism – more comprehensible to mainstream viewers. Having an ‘outsider’ (white) hero makes people relate and understand… etc. Perhaps. But, if yes, just what is it that they are comprehending and relating to? Look at the message – “Save” “them” “because they are peaceful, exotic, colorful” – sorry, this is not a useful political line for the rev. I think it wasn’t necessary for the story. And, its right to speak out about the effects of this worn out repetitive bs imagery, even if you uphold the film’s AI message.
DR said
I’ve posted at this site in another thread (Avatar: a story of transformation). I’ve since gone to see “Avatar” for the second time, and I will see it again. It is making a profound statement about something very fundamental.
There are a number of posts which seem to be trying to paste over this movie with some kind of “imperialism/oppressed nation” cut out. It does not work. Though there are very applicable dynamics of that global contradiction, on present day earth, reflected, even powerfully, in the movie.
Again (and as I said in the previous post): “Avatar” is about THE FUTURE, or even if we might continue to have one at all, much less one truly WORTH having. It is about different ways things could be. THIS is what James Cameron has given us. In looking a bit into Cameron, it becomes clear that he believes life on earth has become totally fucked, that very bad forces are threatening life on earth, forces of our own making. Go back to Terminator or Aliens for
some reinforcement on this. And in one discussion he said that he thinks (paraphrasing) that people have brought irreversible doom to the planet, and he’s outraged. This is something that he, as a “child of the 60′s” has been, in essence, railing against, and calling attention to with all his might.
“There is no green…” on earth. “They have killed our mother”. And, in the end, the defeated get sent back to “their dying planet”. Why do people seem to have such a hard time seeing the movie for what it is, and why do people insist on foisting “identity politics” into it? This is a puzzlement to me.
But, while Cameron may have a bleak view of what’s in store for humanity, he also holds out some very powerful hope. You might have to go light years away to see it. Jake Sully did (as did ultimately, Grace, Norm, and the other “traitors”). It is something so very antithetical, so fundamentally opposed to “the driving dynamics” of the modern world which have been carried into the 22nd century in this movie. Cameron is calling out for humanity to learn from the Na’vi. The Na’vi represent and embody Cameron’s efforts to turn humanity’s face to righteousness, and away from self-destruction and the destruction of earth. I don’t know how else to put this.
I think supernatural characterizations are off base, and on that I really like what was said above by “G” (15). I also think that it would not work to return to “primitive communalism”, and that this is what Cameron seems to draw on quite a bit, but with some awesomely re-envisioned perspectives. In a primitive way, or in a basic way, there is a planet of beings who are a conscious collectivity, who are mutually flourishing, who are in that life dance with each other and their planet up front and for real, and with all bullshit stripped away.
So, let’s see this movie for what it is, and judge it on its merits. And I don’t think this is the end of the saga of the Na’vi, Pandora, and Earth. There is at least one more chapter to the story. And it can go either way. My hope is that Cameron goes on to “save Earth” through something like a Na’vi inspired revolution.
But then, we shouldn’t leave Cameron alone to do this, should we?
I’m speaking from the heart of a communist.
saoirse said
I have not gotten an opportunity to write out my thoughts on avatar since seeing the film. My initial feelings are the feel is okay. The film really rests on the shoulders of sam worthington’s character Jake Sully and his character is a total bore. The film only rises above this when JC shifts the focus the the lush world of Pandora or his loving display of the gun tech porn – two sides of the same coin in my view.
Sully’s transformation into a na’vi is effortless and easy. Its all montage and no emotion. In dances w. wolves Costner’s character works hard and earns a connection to native americans in a way Jake Sully never does (and here I am being kind). Further Costner’s alienation from white culture is a pretty well done prologue to the film whereas aside from the brief scene of his brother’s body Sully’s motivates are all told not shown in a really bad voiceover.
I could tear into all the gaping plot holes and poor character development but others have done so already. I think Avatar has some decent politics within a lot of racist assumptions but the film lack of coherency makes it easy to map your own assumptions onto the films weak story.
Hollywood came up with some fantastic intelligent films this year. I am still working on my top ten list. From brilliant animated features like Up and the Fantastic Mr. Fox to dystopian sci fi in Moon and Watchmen. My point being Hollywood is not responsible for all the the shallowness and confused narrative in Avatar.
Here’s a recent article about the original scriptment for the film Now that’s a movie I’d like to have seen. Remake anyone?
http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html
David B. said
After finally seeing the movie, I have really mixed feelings about it.
Some if it is really good from a radical perspective: how it comes out against nationalism (openly saying treason can be a good thing), how it legitimizes armed struggle, how it shows how insanely destructive industrial civilization fundamentally is, etc.
On the other hand, we’re asked to believe that after a mere three months, Jake can rise to the highest level a Na’vi can aspire to, by riding one of those huge flying beasts. And he does so by figuring out they don’t watch above them. We’re apparently supposed to believe a tribal people who have closely observed their environment for millennia never noticed that. The level of racism involved in assuming that nonwhite tribal societies are simply stupid on some level is frankly beyond nauseating.
That’s particularly true considering that in any of the actual struggles between tribal peoples and civilized ones, typically all of the initiative in the struggle comes from the tribal peoples. No Spaniards joined the Puebloans in 1680. No Australians and maybe only one Papuan joined the BRA in the late 1980s.
A more realistic scenario would have shown Jake struggling to finally be accepted by a society understandably very mistrustful of anyone on the side of those willing to destroy their home, and then having to have a long, heartfelt, discussion with the scientists trying to get at least one of them to see his side.