Terrorable Coverage

Predictably, the mainstream media continues its characteristic commitment to the two-week-long coverage of one story, rarely offering dynamic and diverse insight or analysis. This time around, the focus seems to be on Umar AbdulMutallab, the young Nigerian man who allegedly attempted to blow up a plane during the Christmas season, and what the Department of Homeland Security has done (or did not do well enough) to protect Americans from similar incidents.

Yes, from the tax-hating, third-rate sarcasam of FOX's staunch conservatives to Rachel Maddow's every witty, ever-liberal stabs at anything anti-Obama, news correspondents and analyzers will not shut up about conterterrorism and what our president has to say on the subject.

But in all honesty, are any of them - or any of us, for that matter - really saying what we need to be saying? How productive do we think we are by expressing the same sentiments, the same dualistic approaches to debate over and over and over again until our mouths quit in exhaustion?

Here's the scoop, as I see it: terrorism, at least, the terrorism we're taught to fear and label here in the United States, is one of the few items in this world still manufactured by Americans.

As I've repeated before, supported by the writings, ideas and arguments of several authors, professors and other individuals who have influenced me, the U.S. can often be held partially responsible for the terrorist attacks it has endured in recent history.

On top of the United States' role in cultivating terrorism, we often react to threats from a well-rehearsed, limited perspective. Every time a potential terrorist threat develops, U.S. citizens, including those covering the news, rely on recycled arguments that typically render tighter security, a greater presence in foreign countries, and the adominshment of either the Republican or Democratic Party (depending on which is the majority in Congress) as appropriate methods toward the reduction and eventual eradication of terrorist attacks.

Of course, it never seems to cross the minds of those who are involved to question the roots of these issues. Rather than trying to figure out why an individual might join al-Qaeda or why an organization such as al-Shabaab emerges and matures in numbers as often and successfully as it does, we adhere to the time-honored falsehood that additional regulation or protection suffices, ignoring what ignites and inspires terrorists in the first place.

And oh yes, aren't we comfortable identifying people as terrorists, albeit their personal circumstances, backgrounds, and motivations may differ profoundly? As Americans seem to see it, terorrists are terrorists, and nothing more - a dangerously pervasive mentality that avoids all other factors and undermines the situation in discussion entirely.

Simultaneously we are inefficient and uncomfortable in discovering the roots of terrorism or how those in charge of the country can begin to replant these roots in foreign policy and international relations. Labeling triumphs learning.

Color-coordinated warnings that indicate levels of potential terrorism, a new person to facilitate security measures, or any other superficial, temprorary modification is not going to convince anyone with strong convictions against America's imperliaistic challenges to turn the other cheek.

It may seem like an idealistic rant, but I wholeheartedly believe what I am writing speaks to some truth. People do not attack the U.S. because our security is not as adept as possible. They attack us for their reasons - reasons to which we do not dedicate enough time and energy into understanding. If we did invest more in the origins of terrorism and anti-Americanism across the globe, our endeavors would likely yield more positive relationships between cultures, countries, and citizens alike.

True, I'm not the most fruitful person myself; I can't change the United States' monstrous behavior with a single blog post. However, I am documenting this not only because it is something for which I am incredibly passionate, but also because I would like to remember how angry, upset, and hurt I am by my country. Perhaps it will serve as a future incentive to galvanize my own politically charged self and do something about this when I have access to the same resources, or at least the valuable help, that many politicians and newsgathering persons do have today and refuse to proactively utilize for the benefit of our national and global communities.

Avatar - Great Film, Controversial Themes on Cross-Cultural Communication

After posting a criticism on the sexist, undeserving Box Office champion from last November known as New Moon, I realized how much I really missed writing film reviews.

Not only that, but I also never really realized how much more meaningful and personal film reviews can be when I write them in a context beyond the scope of plot or essential filmmaking qualities. New Moon's impeccable parallel to the problems with anti-Feminst rhetoric today helped me understand the film on a deeper level - as something that exists not only as one small piece of a mass media puzzle, but also as an indicator of cultural values and tensions.

Accordingly, I have revisisted the same process with the most recent blockbuster toward which I contributed nine bucks: Avatar, James Cameron's latest indulgence in visual effects and action-packed romance.

Avatar generally emulates the plot structure of films about cultures of "The Other," like Disney's Pocohantus: culture with bad intentions invades Other culture that wasn't doing anyhing to them. Boy from culture with bad intentions meets girl from Other culture. Boy learns from this more exoticized, "spiritual," nature-worshipping culture about life. Boy and girl fall in love. Cultural interactions end in tragedy and death for many, with a fairy tale ending for some.

Quite frankly, Avatar is, as most seem to have agreed, an excellent film. It is well paced, hypnotically alluring (with or without the immersive 3-D atmosphere) and overall, successful in its ability to entertain spectators.

However, in addition to talented editing and astonshing technology, there are bundles of profoundly relevant themes one could take away from Avatar that its well-endowed budget could not provide.

Avatar demonstrates how universally destructive interactions with cultures can be. Although many have argued the film illustrates a redundant and recycled theme with no original interpretation, Avatar manages to refresh us with ideas that are so significant, we cannot ignore them.

No, I'm not referring to any war in a distant country in which our nation has diplomatically, economically, and militarily invested. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do indeed exemplify the types of situations to which Avatar alludes; however, they do not afford the full picture of what Cameron's story truly symbolizes.

The scientists in the film who attempt to mimic a culture through physical avatars is equally representative of the problematic ways in which countries invade other areas of the globe without a conscious effort to preserve, understand, or respect the cultures they are studying.

These scientists, portrayed as protaganists, or at the very least, as foils to the antithetically depicted military personell, are just as guilty as their myopic foes, but seem to go unpunished and act unrealized. Why is the military, with their guns and political inferences, painted with such patently nefarious motivations, when their counterparts in the film - scientists encouraging the trivialization of an entire culture by recreating its members' physical apperances - are reduced to a neutral state at which they are neither the heroes nor villains? Don't the scientists require a moral obligation to review their actions, too? Interactions that operate under assumptions of cultural hubris or the "right to study" do not exist within some heirarchy of ethical standards; an invasion is an invasion, whether it's with test tubes or bullets.

To be fair, I think the movie is worth seeing. Still, I do think it's interesting how Avatar incorporates real global issues into its nearly three-hour-long span while escaping some valuable critiques on human history and international relations. So-called "humanitarians" and "peace-keeping" scientists of exorbitantly wealthy nations that lead experiements and research in foreign lands are sometimes brutually unwelcomed and can dismantle cultures as effectively and efficiently as any military or greedy corporation.

Overall, Avatar is a fantastic film. As I said, it strictly follows guidelines for great filmmaking and does not seem to fail in any explicit way. Nevertheless because the cultural understandings and subtle implications of films' conclusions are often left unnoticed, we cannot hold Cameron or the film itself fully accountable for its failure to develop and criticize discourse on cross-cultural communication. It's a part of an extensively muted dialouge, which is why I am pointing it out to you today.