The notion that one disabled character can or is even intended to speak for all disabled people is a bit ridiculous. That's like suggesting that a black main character in a movie is the representative of all black people. That's just not how it works. Sam Worthington's character may, in fact, be intended to speak for a segment of the disabled community or experience. Maybe not. All I can say that the wish to not be in a disabled body, to be in a completely new one is not some movie invention. I experience it almost everyday. That a disabled man would accept the offer to be put in another body, a body that is alien to both him and his species, does not strike me as insulting. For me it's chance to see publicly displayed a feeling with which I wrestle constantly: that I would be happier if I could walk.I basically agree with the argument that no one character should stand in for an entire class of people: tokenism is a huge problem. But I do still think that when pop culture represents a certain class of people extremely infrequently, it's important to interrogate all of those representations, even if ultimately we're okay with them. And I do think it's important to acknowledge that people feel differently about their physical abilities, their blackness, their gayness, their femininity, their masculinity, whatever defines them. I think it's important to make movies to make movies about people who wish they could walk. And I think we'll be in a really good place when we can make a movie about someone like Harriet McBryde Johnson, too, when we are able to avoid automatically assuming anything about what disabled people as a group do and don't want.
Another Perspective On Avatar
I really appreciate this response to my thoughts on Avatar from Evan at Crippled Politics (which is smart, and well-written, and has a logo that cracks me up. Go check it out.):