I think Cameron made it a point to use the large flyer as an analogy for the marine's white ambition. Remember earlier in the film, when he's reporting to the colonel and he tames the first flyer? It was actually kind of disturbing to me because they placed such emphasis on his reaction. "You are mine." But the large flyer he gets towards the end, he uses only to help the Na'vi, and then he gives it up. It's evidence of a pervasive change in him to join a collective rather than evidence of his need to dominate them. He never, in fact, becomes their leader, and moreover never shows any desire to become the leader or to supplant their rulers. His only desire is to be a part of them. Not representative of them.

(The usual response to this goes something like, "Well, maybe not explicitly, but it's obvious he was taking over in reality if not in name!") That makes my problem with articles on this topic twofold.

For one, they cherry pick the parts they want to read into, sometimes against given evidence, because it suits a theory. I'm willing to acknowledge the white fantasy point of view, but if it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of a societal equilibrium, especially in the places where the movie gets it right, then it's a poor base for criticism. (If no movie can get it right, then it reveals the flaw in the argument.)

Secondly, they tend to assume that the average moviegoer is smart enough to understand and latch onto the convenience a movie like this affords them (the choice to be another culture's king) but never smart enough to understand that there is a choice. In other words, it makes the assumption that every man would want to be king, without exception.

I'm sure I'll catch hell for this post, but it seems like a critical dead end any time someone brings this up. Fine for generating discussion, not so much for anything productive or even particularly to do with the film in question. It's like the meta version of Godwin's Law.