A few days ago, I went to see the movie Avatar in all its 3D glory. I thought that the special effects in the film were first rate. It was an enjoyable picture on many levels. The cinema where I saw the film was sold-out and the audience, which was almost exclusively Japanese, really seemed to enjoy the picture. The film is an allegory about American imperialism and there were some pretty direct allusions to the Iraq War in it. The fighting in the jungle is probably designed to evoke memories of the Vietnam War, or perhaps early American wars against forest-dwelling American Indians. One does not, however, have to be politically aware to enjoy this film. My Japanese in-laws didn`t really pick up on the political message, but they did like the flying lizards and other neat special effects.
The director of this film is Canadian James Cameron. If he is like most Canadians, Cameron has an ambivalent attitude to the United States and is sensitive to the issue of American imperialism. After all, Canada is a country that was built in the face of American imperialism (manifest destiny). Cameron grew up not far from Lundy`s Lane and Queenston Heights, two battlefields where American imperialism was held in check. Cameron lives and works in Hollywood and like most Canadians, is aware that the United States has many positive things to offer as well.
This is a fun film. That being said, I was a bit disturbed by its political message, which appears to be that business interests drive wars: the war with the indigenous blue-skinned people in the film is driven by a greedy big corporation`s desire to mine on a distant world. Although it is manifestly a work of fiction, this film will reinforce the widely held assumption that Big Business likes war. The truth of the matter is that business interests are rarely behind wars. In fact, businessmen generally want to avoid war at all costs. Historically, business has tended to lobby for peace, although the willingness of business leaders to do so has always been limited by their unwillingness to appear patriotic. Political scientists such as Erik Gartze have found that there is strong correlation between a country being capitalist and pacific inclinations. Moreover, the careful research of diplomatic and political historians into the origins of particular conflicts has helped to dispel the old Leninist view that business drives warmongering. A few firms in a few industries (e.g., gunmakers), may tend to a pro-war view, but most firms hate war. Many of the wars in British and American history that have been attributed to business/corporations/financiers have, upon closer examination, turned out to be the product more of trigger-happy army officers and war-hawk politicians intent on proving their masculinity. The U.S. oil industry, which many people blame for the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq was, in fact opposed to the idea of invading that country. Many financiers in the City of London were opposed to the Boer War, the conflict most commonly associated with capitalist greed. The same financiers were aghast when the First World War broke out. Wall Street was generally opposed to the Civil War, not least because New York mercantile houses had many customers in the slave states– in fact, the anti-war “copperheads” in New York spoke about that city`s secession from the Union. Lincoln denounced the financiers of Wall Street for their lack of patriotism. It is possible to multiple the examples. My reading of history is that governments not businesses cause war. Wars are created in the public sector by politicians, diplomats, generals, and other non-businessmen.
The Past Speaks 