“Books transmit values. They explore our common humanity. What is the message when some children are not represented in those books?” 

Walter Dean Myers

Similar to books, when people, specifically of African American origin are not represented authentically in film, showcase the result of the white savior complex, binary oppositions such as East/West, and historical erasing of non-Westerners. The white savior complex is clearly being utilized in James Cameron’s 2009 film Avatar and Edward Zwick’s  2006 film Blood Diamond when white foreigners come in to try and save the “native” peoples.

Both films employ the use of military as an excuse to further oppress non-Western individuals as an attempt to save them, signifying a difference in power and privilege of “developed” nations and the extent they will go for economic wealth. The depiction of African Americans in both films call into question the primacy of whiteness and its detrimental effects on post-independence Africa through the lens of a eurocentric Hollywood.

The film Avatar, directed by James Cameron, artistically showcases the crime behind white America’s foundational act of genocide, in which entire native tribes and civilizations were wiped out by European immigrants on the American continent. In the film, the viewers see that a group of soldiers and scientists have set a base up on the Pandora verdant moon. The moon’s residents, the Na’vi, are blue, sapient-catlike creatures who look similar to indigenous native Americans. They wear feathers in their dreadlocked hair, paint their faces for war, use tools such as bows and arrows, worship gods, and live in tribes.

Throughout the movie, it is obvious that the Na’vi are alien versions of stereotypical native peoples that has been often seen throughout Hollywood movies for decades. Realtingly, it can be seen that the film is a metaphor for how European settlers in America wiped out the Indians.

The major plot point of the film revolves around a white US Marine, Jake, who comes in to save the Na’vi people. A problem with this is that it perpetuates the “White savior complex” and suggests that non-whites are primitives incapable of helping themselves and rests on the assumption that non-whites need the White savior to lead them.

This is similar to the Sati described in Spivak’s Can the Subaltern Speak. Sati was a practice among the Hindus in which a woman was burnt alive with the pyre of her dead husband.

When the British came to India they outlawed this practice because they thought it saved the lives of women, while also helping the British to secure their rule in India. Spivak states that essentially, “white men saving brown women from brown men.” Similar to that of the Na’vi people, looking at this though a colonial lens, it can be seen that the white savior complex created the idea that Indians are barbarians and British on the other hand are civilized; hence their rules and need for imperialism was justified over the Indians.

Like the Indians, in Avatar, the Na’vi people are looked at and represented as savages. Robinne Lee, a black actress who notable for the film Seven Pounds, criticized Avatar by stating: “Likening the film to Pocahontas – the Indian woman leads the white man into the wilderness, and he learns the way of the people and becomes the savior. It’s really upsetting in many ways. It would be nice if we could save ourselves.”

Furthermore, despite Jack joining the Navi people, in the end he will never truly lose his white privilege. This is due to the fact that Jake never really knows what it’s like to be a Na’vi because he always has the option to switch back into his human mode—a white marine. He will never truly be able to understand the struggles of the Na’vi people because he isn’t an authentic Na’vi himself.

The depiction of Africans and Indians in Avatar call into question the primacy of whiteness by showcasing the historical White fetishization of women of color.

In the film, the Na’vi women are overtly sexualized and can be seen as objects intended for the male gaze. This ties back to Ousmane Sembène’s Black Girl, when a white friend of Diouana’s bosses comments on how he has never kissed a black woman before.

Both of these representations of African and Indian women showcase how they are often times marginalized in society and reinforces the idea that a women’s value is not based on her achievements but rather her appearance and sexuality.

On the other hand,  Blood Diamond, directed by, Edward Zwick, depicts the brutal exploitation of child soldiers, slave labor, and white superiority. Blood Diamond was nominated for five Academy Awards, but creates a problematic depiction of African people and the power of transnationalism. The film describes a somewhat true story about the journey of a young white African mercenary (Archer) and a black fisherman (Soloman).

Through their different backgrounds, they are set on a quest to search for a rare diamond that has the power to change their lives forever.  Similar to Avatar, there is an inherent “white savior complex” associated with the white foreigners wanting to exploit but also save the indigenous peoples. With the help from a white journalist, these two men embark on a dangerous journey to achieve their goal of finding this diamond. The movie’s plot points are obvious that the white people are powerful and control the narrative. Even though the film ends on a positive note to stopping blood diamonds, the main distributor of diamonds still finishes up on top at the end with no serious consequences.

Viewing the film through transnationalism shows us that all the African environments portrayed were compromised by colonialism. In the film, African rebels are wanting to start a civil war. They use slave labor to harvest diamonds to be able to purchase weapons to continue their war effort. However, the weapons that they purchase are actually being sold by the diamond companies themselves. Since purchasing the weapons on the black market is much cheaper than buying the diamonds themselves, the worldly diamond companies try to continue the civil war effort for as long as they can because it is good for their businesses.

The diamond companies are run by white investors and power chairmen at their headquarters in London. They live calmly away from the violence and never actually interact with the blood diamonds directly. This is problematic because of the large distance between London and Africa. None of the lives lost or the problems created in Africa can really affect England since it has its own stable economy and stable population. On the other hand, the decisions being made in London are destroying countries in Africa and their people.

Throughout the film, every African individual is portrayed as a violent killer thinking only about himself. Whether it is rampaging through villages cutting peoples arms off, or shooting African military for interfering with diamond mining, the African people are not shown in the best light. The only people who are spared of their innocence are Africans from small villages when in reality, only a small portion of the people are the rebellious ruthless killers. The film shows many people being shot down for no reason in towns by the rebels. This is true, but only happened in cities near diamond mines that the government was trying to protect. The film depicts Africa as this constant state of warfare where some still use spears as weapons while the white army has the highest military grade weaponry, downsizing African intelligence.

Both Avatar and Blood Diamond are clearly intended for a western audience, reinforcing notions of orientalism and “othering” of indigenous people and appropriation of their culture. These films confirm the stereotypes placed upon “third world” countries, reinforcing the need for white people to follow the “white savior complex” narrative. By homogenizing every African person in Blood Diamond and Na’vi in Avatar (meant to signify indigenous people), these visual choices give room for the “white savior” in both films to stand out from the “other” and please the western audience. 

In order to be authentic and truly inclusive, Hollywood must focus on a non-Eurocentric narrative or they could completely stop making problematic movies and allow indigenous people to tell their own narratives (but will Hollywood even let them though?)