The story is began with humans in an advanced society where resources are valued to the point to where the conservation of life is'nt even a deterrent for obtaining these nessesitized resources, an absolutely anthropocentric based society. In the beginning the main character jake sully is seen to follow the excepted master narrative of the human race at the time. The resources the humans are trying to obtain are from an alien world, where the native people have a bond with their ecological environment so strong that they can actually feel each other and can network energy to and from each other. The trouble that obviously arises with a being that is completely anthropocentric and rooted in expansion and colonialism and a being that loves all and its land and the value it holds to them becomes the climax of the movie. The main character, after interacting with the natives develops this "world traveler" sort of view and intern try's at the end of his abilities to defend the society and their prized land because of these developed heroic ethics learned from the realization that the human is not the greatest being and that their is more to think about. which is funny because another leading character, the lead scientist, has religiously been denying the continuation of the human paradigm to continue their degradation of other cultures.
What you see happening is three groups of beings become triangulated by this lack of efort towards this "cross cultural conservation" we talk about, the navii(the natives), mother tree(their home planet and source of their happiness and energy) and the humans(who for the most part just want to obtain recourses to better themselves regardless of the impact elsewhere). the navii love and embrace their land and use it in a way that is respectful and non harmful, the humans see the land as a monetary stepping stone. the gap that i'm making is a tough one to leap but the concept is non the less there.... In gaard the issue of the makah tribe and the ecofeminist conservationalists presents itself in a similar but opposite way to prove the same point. follow close! the humans don't respect the way the navii use whats sacred to them, the conservationalists don't respect the way the makah use what's sacred to them. the humans think the navii are over passive and lack the drive to take advantage of the fiscal value of its most sacred possession. the conservationalists think the makah abuse the use of its sacred being, the whale, and don't let the makah have their sense of "self" intact. at first glance the ideas are completely different but looking deeper the idea that the more powerful society is in disagreement with the lesser community because of the lack of cross cultural conservation, the idea is the same. Gretta Gaard says "The concept of the "truncated narrative" reminds feminists and ecofeminists to ask for the whole ethical narrative, and provides a strategy for avoiding ...essentialism... remember that indigenous cultures are not static, timeless or unchanging, nor are they untainted by internal hierarchy and domination. Finally, feminists and ecofeminist must recognize the difficulty of cross-cultural communication between cultures with power imbalances, and in situations involving matters of cross-cultural justice, we should seek out, build relationships with , and support cultural border crossers who's values and goals coinside..."
What a beautiful way to say, no matter what the issue, if their is a cultural issue between two societies, lets not degrade each other and force one to hide its narrative and self and culture as a whole, instead lets build a cross-cultural bridge to help aid the struggle and enable healthy positive work towards a commonality. Her view point on cross cultural relations could have provided much help to the human and navii issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment