“And after I walked out of the movie, all I could think was, where’s my little black boy to adopt? I want one!”

I was getting my nails done, a very irregular occurrence for me, and the woman next to me was giving me bite-sized movie reviews of this season’s Oscar nominees. Avatar was a favorite — the love story between the “cute white crippled boy” and the “exotic blue cat girl” was beautiful, apparently — but The Blind Side took the cake, mainly for Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of that heroic woman, Leigh Ann Tuohy.

(The Stranger called her Mrs. Benevolent White Woman, a moniker I find more fitting for the fictionalized version, but I’m not going to be an ass about Tuohy, whom I’m sure is terrific in real life.) After she left the movie, random nail parlor lady was inspired to adopt her own poor, African American future famous football player (and then I’m sure, get a movie made about her). While I was shocked to hear racist paternalism voiced so bluntly, I’m sure there were plenty others who felt the same after seeing The Blind Side.

If Oscar nominations are a barometer of the American psyche, than the recent years must read: Danger, Patronization and Poverty Ahead. Last year’s Slumdog Millionaire was criticized for being third world poverty porn by the Hindi media; in a time when Americans were suffering, why not look to a commonplace vision of Indian slums and drug warfare? (I actually thought Slumdog did so well because it was a classic, American rags to riches story in a time no one wanted to deal with reality, but that’s a different matter.) This year’s Precious has encountered the same critique, especially from African American critics. But Avatar and The Blind Side, the Oscar favorites with the most hype, are stories, again, of benevolent American culture/white people Benevolent Americans helping the poor Na’vi/ black people fight Baaaaaad White People/adversity, respectively. Or in other words, Western Culture swooping in to save the day.

Why is it that, at a time when America is suffering, our most popular stories are about helping people who seemingly couldn’t help themselves before we showed up? The Blind Side is a remarkable narrative, and one worth telling, but it’s not Michael Oher’s and it’s not even really Leigh Ann Tuohy’s. It’ s Sandra Bullock’s.

Avatar would have been no less visually effective if it had been told from the Na’vi’s perspective. It’s not that these films are being hailed, it’s that they’re being told from the solipsistic view of the savior.

But this isn’t a tale about the Oscars. This is a tale, right now, about Haiti — about how we talk about Haiti. This is about the rhetoric of charity.

Giving aid is, no question, the right thing to do — just as helping the Na’vi and taking in Michael Oher were the right things to do. But for every news piece about how awful the conditions in Haiti currently are, there seem to be just as many self-congratulatory ones.

The huge story recently, was about the young boy in England who raised 200,000 pounds for Haiti by riding his bike around; it’s a lovely account, but once again it’s about us helping them. Peeps on the radio tell you to text HAITI in the same breath they promote their nightclub. Even President Skorton’s column on Monday, while a well-articulated summation of Cornell’s responsibility to the relief project, emphasized that Cornell was doing good things, would do more good things and had done good things before. Said Skorton: “Cornell has considerable experience in all of these areas, but particularly in the third. When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, our campus was quick to respond with immediate assistance.”

I want to make it very clear: I’m not accusing President Skorton, or anyone, for that matter, of opportunism. He has a responsibility, not only to promote humanitarian aid at the University, but to tell the outside world — donors, granters, researchers, potential new professors and students — that Aid Happens Here.

It’s a problem of our culture, often one that we accept as irrevocable. Though not all good deeds go unpunished, every good deed is a major PR moment. I don’t know if trying to change that system is possible, or if it’s even worthwhile: positive press from aid is too strong an incentive for giving it. Much as it’s essential that relief projects continue, it’s almost equally essential that we start being transparent about whom we’re heroizing, whom we’re victimizing — even whom, like in Avatar, we’re demonizing — and why. Otherwise the dynamic of power and subordination will never end.

Relief for Haiti benefits will continue over the following weeks. And on March 7, the Oscar will hopefully go to The Hurt Locker, but most likely, will go to Avatar and The Blind Side, via Sandra Bullock. The story will continue being told in a patron-victim dichotomy, from the perspective of the patron with the “patronee” delegated to the supporting role. People may still secretly see Sandra Bullock’s Oscar and think of all the poor little future famous black children they can save. Hopefully 2011 will bring a different story — one told from a less troublesome perspective.

P.S.: Scott Brown has naked action figures! That has nothing to do with anything, but I just discovered this and thought you should know. Also, one of them covers his man niblets with a Biblical leaf.

Julie Block, a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences, is a former Sun Arts and Entertainment Editor. She may be reached at jblock@cornellsun.com. WTF, Mate?! appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.