but crayons, he was merged genetically with one of the blue faced warriors, given his memories and thoughts. How can you say he was solely white?
Well, partly I was just making a joke. But since you ask, from the way I perceived the film he was a white man's mind in a Nava'i's (sp?) body. That is, yes, they were genetically merged, but the blue genes were all physical and athletic, while the white genes were all cognitive and emotional. Which in itself you might look askance at, if you were sensitive about portrayal of race on film (the white part is the "brains," while the colored part would make a really good basketball player?).
In other words, I do think there is some validity to the criticism of the movie as Hollywood's typical "white man as savior of people of color" theme that we've seen in so many, many movies. At the same time, I can't get too up in arms about it -- for the reasons you mentioned as well as the fact that a) the Nava'i are fictional, b) he actually was, physically, blue and c) the film was so obviously well meaning (simplistic, yes, as you said, but certainly well-intentioned) politically.
On the other hand, almost all of those "white guy as savior" movies are well-meaning. The idea, as I understand it, is that the filmmakes feel that it will be easier to sell the audience on progressive ideas about race if they're presented by a protagonist they can relate to -- i.e., a white one. "Dances with Wolves," "Beyond Rangoon," "Mississippi Burning," "Blood Diamond," "Secret Life of Bees" -- those are a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.