Thanks to Observer for posting this on Christmas eve. William Loren Katz is the author of many works on the African American struggle for liberation. The following is adapted from his book Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage, from which this article is adapted. His website:www.williamlorenkatz.com.
By William Loren Katz
This Christmas Eve marks the 172nd anniversary of a battle for liberty in 1837 on the banks of Lake Okeechobee, Florida, that helped shape the United States of America. An estimated 380 to 480 freedom-fighting African and Indian members of the Seminole nation threw back an advance of more than a thousand US Army and other troops led by Colonel Zachary Taylor, a future President of the United States. The Seminoles so badly mauled the invaders that Taylor ordered his soldiers to fall back, bury their dead, tend to their wounded . . . and ponder the largest single US defeat in decades of Indian warfare. The battle of Lake Okeechobee is not a story you will find in school or college textbooks so it has slipped from the public consciousness. But in a country that cherishes its freedom-fighting heritage, Black and Red Seminoles of Florida sent everyone a message that deserves to be remembered and honored.
Around 1776 the Seminole nation had reconstituted itself as a multicultural nation by aligning itself with escaped Africans who had long lived in the penninsula. Beginning in the early 18th century hundreds of African Americans had fled bondage in Georgia and the Carolinas to find refuge and a productive life in Florida. Though Spain claimed Florida, it was an ungoverned land in which Native Americans roamed freely as did slave runaways, pirates and whites who rejected the limitation established by European invaders.
“This is a great song about women who reject traditional roles. From their fantastic album Live it Out.”
Are we all brides to be?
Are we all designed to be confined
Buy ourselves chastity belts and lock them
Organize our lives and lose the key
Our faces all resemble dying roses
From trying to fix it
When instead we should break it
We’ve got to break it before it breaks us
“Our real enemy is not the ones living in a distant land whose names or policies we don’t understand; The real enemy is a system that wages war when it’s profitable, the CEOs who lay us off our jobs when it’s profitable, the Insurance Companies who deny us Health care when it’s profitable, the Banks who take away our homes when it’s profitable. Our enemies are not several hundred thousands away. They are right here in front of us.”
- Mike Prysner
(Suggested for Kasama by Addriene, and obviously relevant to the whole discussion of Avatar.)
“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?
This first appeared on the FIRE collective’s blog under the title “Avatar: Condescending Racism or a Story of Transformation and Struggle?”
By Eric Ribellarsi
A debate has recently broken out about the new science fiction film Avatar. A popular review appeared on io9 by Annalee Newitz titled When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar? I’d like to try to respond to some of the points in that review and give a different view that defends that movie.
I have to strongly disagree with Annalee Newitz’s review.
Annalee Newitz wrote:
“Jake is so enchanted that he gives up on carrying out his mission, which is to persuade the Na’vi to relocate from their “home tree,” where the humans want to mine the unobtanium. Instead, he focuses on becoming a great warrior who rides giant birds and falls in love with the chief’s daughter. When the inevitable happens and the marines arrive to burn down the Na’vi’s home tree, Jake switches sides. With the help of a few human renegades, he maintains a link with his avatar body in order to lead the Na’vi against the human invaders. Not only has he been assimilated into the native people’s culture, but he has become their leader.”
This review misses key aspects of the story, and even distorts the storyline of the movie to make it fit into a rather dogmatic framework. I found the movie to be a nuanced and beautiful film that told the story of an elitist white soldier for imperialism who goes to exploit and oppress an indigenous nation of aliens (the Na’vi), but is instead transformed by them and won to take up armed struggle against imperialism alongside them.
The Nepali Maoists have been accelerating their forward march on a number of levels:
They are organizing more and more militant marches and strikes in the major cities, they have declared autonomous zones for ending the oppression of minority nationalities, they are publicly “reviving” their structures of popular power in rural areas, and are (apparently) unleashing new movements of peasants seizing feudal land. These developments has been both welcomed and debated on this site. There has been a back and forth about how to evaluate the meaning of these events.
Ka Frank wrote:
“That would be an exciting development and would hold the potential for confronting the police and NA more directly, but it remains to be seen what the UCPN (M) will actually do after these announcements have run their course.”
I replied:
“On one hand, it is true that ‘it remains to be seen…’ That is always true in life. And it is true in this situation…. Yes, the outcome of all this is shrouded by the mists of the future. But what is the point of saying that over and over? What is the point of ending every assessment of the Nepali revolution with a cranky withholding of support? I feel like there is an implication here: It is an assumption that IF they were on the “correct path” to revolution, that things would (somehow) be much more clear and obvious. That there is some ‘other’ path they could be on where we would NOT be forced to say “it remains to be seen” because the actions and statements of the revolutionaries would (in this alternate imagined situation) be much more familiar, unambiguous etc.”
NSPF then said:
“I also want to point out that it is unfair and incorrect to equate any and all disagreements with the line in command of the ucpnm, with withdrawing support for the revolution as Mike has recently formulated.”
I welcome the chance to clarify this, and press forward our discussion.
On Friday, December 18th, James Cameron’s movie, Avatar was released. Set 145 years in the future, the basic plot is that huge corporate interests seek to rape a forest planet for minerals, and send an army of mercenaries to suppress the indigenous humanoid people. An ex-Marine Jake Sully goes among the Na’vi to learn more about them — and comes to appreciate the value of their culture and connection to nature. As the machinery of distruction nears, he finds himself forced to switch sides — he (and several others) desert the side of the invaders and join the war of resistance. Clearly the film is rooted in many analagous experiences on earth, including the genocide against Native peoples all over the world, and colonial invasions from the Philippines to today’s Afghanistan. And it echoes the legacy of soldiers speaking out against unjust wars — from Vietnam veterans in the 1960-70s to U.S. veterans of the Iraq war today
Kasama will post commentaries on the film starting with the following which insists that there is a racist paternalism defining the Avatar plot line. (Thanks to Rawthentic for suggesting the posting of this article which originally appeared on io9.com.)
When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like “Avatar”?
by Annalee Newitz
Critics have called alien epic Avatar a version of Dances With Wolves because it’s about a white guy going native and becoming a great leader. But Avatar is just the latest scifi rehash of an old white guilt fantasy.
Spoilers…
Whether Avatar is racist is a matter for debate. Regardless of where you come down on that question, it’s undeniable that the film – like alien apartheid flick District 9, released earlier this year – is emphatically a fantasy about race. Specifically, it’s a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people. Avatar and scifi films like it give us the opportunity to answer the question: What do white people fantasize about when they fantasize about racial identity?
Take note! Help circulate this widely! The following is an open discussion of a Pinochet moment for Nepal — which would not just be a military coup but also (inevitably) the creation of a death squad regime aimed at the massive decade-old revolutionary upsurge. Such a coup would require Indian and U.S. support — and this article is an ominous “trial balloon.”
Readers outside Nepal, and especially in the U.S., should take this as a warning and a call — to step up our work, to spread knowledge of this revolution, and accelerate work to create a voice against U.S. intervention.
No coup in Nepal! U.S. Hands Off! Victory to the revolution in Nepal!
This originally appeared in My Republica, December 20, 2009
Getting Out Of The Quagmire
by Sukhdev Shah
Sukhdev Shah is Nepal’s former ambassador to the U.S — holding that post from February 2009 until May 2009. He also worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for two decades and holds U.S. citizenship.
As things have evolved over the past three years, Nepal has become a fertile ground for a military takeover of the government, independently or under the shadow of a constitutional authority. Such a possibility has been talked about in a limited circle but been forced open by a delegation of some Nepali Congress (NC) leaders who recently urged President Ram Baran Yadav to consider imposing President’s Rule to help restore peace and enable the Constituent Assembly (CA) to complete writing the constitution before the expiry of deadline in five months. This is not an incredible or inappropriate suggestion, considering the marathon obstructions staged by Maoists to prevent the CA to open for business and carry out its mandate.
14 December 2009. A World to Win News Service. The protests on 7 December, National Student Day, revealed a developing situation in the upsurge in Iran. They included some of the most tactically combative street actions since the current movement arose in the wake of last June’s presidential elections, and involved schools and universities throughout the country, including Iranian Kurdistan. Moreover, they showed a decreased, although still powerful, influence of the “green movement” led by presidential candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, who consider themselves an Islamic loyal opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and many people’s heightened determination to topple the whole Islamic Republic.
A video posted on YouTube shows students at Sharif University chanting, “Death to the oppressor, whether shah or supreme leader!” This is a reference to Ali Khamenei, whose position as both the ultimate religious and political authority is considered the essence of the regime’s Islamic character, and the U.S-backed regime of the Shah that the Islamic Republic replaced.
Marchers in central Tehran burned portraits of Khamenei and carried Iranian flags with the word “Allah” removed.
Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the deal had “the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It’s nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush.”
Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure
John Vidal, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg
The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement in Copenhagen tonight, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come.
After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord “recognises” the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.
The following videos were posted by Neil Horning — showing the powerful protests moving through Nepal’s capital Kathmandu. (Thanks to Addriene for pointing them out.)
We have been reporting for many days the efforts by Nepal’s Maoists to declare autonomous zones for the most significant minority nationalities in Nepal. This is taking place at the same time as reports suggest that the Maoists are intensifying the peasant seizure of land from feudalists.
Ka Frank raised an important question about the recent declaration of autonomous zones:
“Since the Maoists do not control the government, I wonder what the actual effect is of declaring 14 new states.”
Fair enough. Let’s dig into it.
I want to examine two different aspects of this:
First, I think many of us don’t have a sense of why it is so very hotly revolutionary to demand (and carry out) the “federating” of Nepal. Why is a federated Nepal such a radical vision? How does it help end long-standing oppression — and strengthen conditions and alliances for a communist revolution.
Second, I want to dig into the tactical and strategic aspects of declaring autonomous nationality zones — even when the Maoists don’t actually hold central state power.
How Radical is Demanding a Federation? And Communist Republicanism?
Posted nearby is an article about the Nepali Maoists declaring Kathmandu (the country’s capital) to be an autonomous zone of the minority Newa people. This is a major step in many ways — including in the political struggle over the support of people in this highly strategic city.
I want to talk for a moment about the long standing Maoist demands for “republicanism” and “federation.” Nepal’s revolutionary movement has been fighting for a “federal republic” for decades. And, it is often hard for people in other countries to really understand the profoundly radical content of such demands. After all, the U.S. is a federal republic, and so is Germany. And neither of those countries seems so liberated or progressive.
The following report appeared in economictimes.indiatimes.com. For an understanding of the importance of federalism in the strategy of the UCPN[M], see the three posts on Understanding FederalismPart I, Part II and Part III.
Red alert: Maoists seize Kathmandu
KATHMANDU: Maoists on Wednesday announced the seizure of the Nepalese capital Kathmandu declaring it an autonomous region, after storming into heavily guarded Durbar Square, in a development that could trigger a new political confrontation.Waving red flags, 5000 militant cadres forced their way into the Durbar Square city centre where their chief Prachanda declared Kathmandu valley as the Newa Autonomous State. The Maoists, who have already announced formation of parallel governments in nine districts and paid little heed to warnings by the Nepali Congress, to desist from such tactics as it may lead to “biggest political and social confrontation”.
Though the Maoist takeover was more of a symbolic nature, their choice of the capital city sent shock-waves in the ruling CPN-UML-led 22-party alliance. Prachanda lit a traditional lamp to declare Kathmandu as Newa Autonomous State by flying a banner that read “Newa Autonomous State” as hundreds of balloons were let off.
Kasama recently posted a discussion of the ways the internet has undermined the traditional media protection of ruling class figures. It is part of a much needed discussion the new media. Here is a response by Ben Seattle who has described himself as a cyberleninist.
By Ben Seattle
The comments by Mike and Nando are thoughtful and perceptive.
My favorite movie is Spartacus. Near the end, in the final battle scene, the army of slaves is surrounded by three Roman armies. We all know how it ends. No large-scale revolt of slaves in the ancient world ended successfully. The movie had a strong influence on me when I first saw it at a young age. It was my first exposure to class politics and it helped prepare me for the time, later in life, when I decided I was a revolutionary.
If you saw the movie, you will remember this scene. You wanted the slaves to win. I used to fantasize, after watching it as a kid, how things might have been different if the army of slaves, faced with the endless ranks of Roman soldiers marching in precise formations, had possession of a few modern weapons. Maybe a couple of mortars.
The endless rows of Roman soldiers would have fallen down en masse; and what was left would have scattered like so many cockroaches when you turn on the kitchen light in a cheap apartment.
Of course, that is fantasy. We are materialists. We deal with the world as it is, not with dreams of sudden and near-infinite power handed to us at the last minute by god [1]. And, we all know that, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
“These detections indicate that low-mass planets are quite common around nearby stars. The discovery of potentially habitable nearby worlds may be just a few years away,” said Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UCSC.
First Super-Earths Discovered Orbiting Sun-Like Stars
ScienceDaily (Dec. 14, 2009) — An international team of planet hunters has discovered as many as six low-mass planets around two nearby Sun-like stars, including two “super-Earths” with masses 5 and 7.5 times the mass of Earth. The researchers, led by Steven Vogt of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said the two “super-Earths” are the first ones found around Sun-like stars.
“These detections indicate that low-mass planets are quite common around nearby stars. The discovery of potentially habitable nearby worlds may be just a few years away,” said Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UCSC.
The team found the new planet systems by combining data gathered at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) in New South Wales, Australia. Two papers describing the new planets have been accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal.
