Gibson film angers Mayan groups

[oberliner]

Mel Gibson's film about the Mayan civilisation has come under fire from indigenous members of the culture.

Activists in Guatemala - once home to a large part of the central American Mayan empire - said Apocalypto was unrealistic.

"The director is saying the Mayans are savages," said Lucio Yaxon, a human rights activist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6216414.stm?ls

[whistle]

1. I'm still going to see the movie this weekend

[Radio_Lady]

46. You might want to read my film review, posted early today.

Not trying to change anyone's mind here... just thought I'd let you know where I stand.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Radio_Lady/87

Get(my opinion) while it's hot!

Radio_Lady in Oregon (Local PBS film reviewer and talk show host)

[Irreverend IX]

51. Nice synposis.

An accurate movie on Mayan history would have been much more interesting. Their society was divided into priests (including the emperor), warriors and peasants. Only priests could read the Mayan ideographic writing, and they were the sole custodians of Mayan science and astronomy. Their decline, as I remember reading it, came about when the inbred and incompetent priest class were deposed by the warriors, who began a massive civil war. Eventually the cities were razed and most warriors were killed, and only the peasants were left. I think there were some wars with the early Aztecs that contributed to this. You could tell a great, action-packed story about the destructive effects of militarism against this backdrop, but I guess Gibson doesn't have half the creativity needed for that.

[Radio_Lady]

54. Thanks, Nabeshin. Are you planning to see the film?

My husband is working on moving our Mexican photo collection to digital files. I'm going to try and post that link when he's finished.

Mexican/Indian/Aztec/Spanish history is very complex; thanks for tackling it for me and others on the DU.

This was a $40 million US film. Projections are that it will take in a little over $10 million US this weekend.

I appreciate your comments.

Wishing you a happy holiday season,

Radio_Lady in Oregon

[whistle]

55. Thank you, but I don't recall the movie claiming that the story

....was based on the Mayan civilization did it? No where in the film was this actually stated.

It appeared that the jungle occupants might have been there as either aboriginal tribes or refugees who were driven into the jungles to seek a way to live in peace among themselves. The architecture of the city center did appear that it was based on the Mayan culture, but it was in decay and appeared to be inhabited by either Mayan impostors or some type of degenerated conquerors who had enslaved the local population and were struggling rather unsuccessfully to recreate the past glory and success of the civilization which originally developed that region.

The theocratic power class was using fear, superstition, coercion and terror. The high priest displayed no intellectual understanding of the processes of science and mathematics to explain processes in nature which were affecting and starving these people, but instead capitalized on the opportunities presented by natural catastrophes and the ignorance of it among the masses. The ruling aristocracy as represented by a stoned out king/prince and his useless parasitic family used the entitlements of their position to order what the priest wanted, but were totally impotent against bringing about any change which could benefit the masses over whom they ruled and exploited, i.e. the timing of the total eclipse of the sun was an unforeseen opportunity for the priest who immediately recognized what was taking place and used it to stop the endless blood letting, but it changed nothing for the better in the lives of the masses. The warrior class enforced the will of the ruling class and there appeared to be a bureaucratic class which was corrupt and gave authority to the will of the religious and upper classes.

My conclusion after seeing the film this afternoon was that this was an allegory of what can happen to morally corrupted and decaying civilization if it does not adapt and change for the better of everyone in that society. In the time frame of that Gibson's movie is set, it should be known that the original Mayans had died out several centuries before, but those who were there at the time this film was supposedly taking place in, were just going through the motions. They were not Mayans any longer. So, when the real conquerors came on the scene the apocalypto <new words are invented all the time> would be inevitable. Those perceptive enough <hero and his family> would survive by going deep into the jungles and use the skills which he had learned and had been passed down to him though generations of surviving in that environment, so their way of life would go on and grow and prosper if given the chance to do so.

I see this film as a way of explaining what the world faces now, like those pretenders who try to force a way of life on the rest of us in the persons of Bush/Cheney which is destroying the rest of our civilization, the fundamentalist religions which corrupt, warp and discredit modern science and technology with foolish beliefs based on superstitious faith in things that have no meaning to our survival, corrupt politicians who have the power over our lives and the high technology military which engages in mindless destruction and murder to enforce that power. The lime pits in the film with its exploited slaves are exactly what the corporations today which have no ethical or moral values except greed and capital do in the name of efficiency and outsourcing. The crowded marketplace with the countless merchants making useless goods for the mass consumers and on and on throughout the film.

I believe that this film was not meant to be about an accurate portrayal of the history of a once great civilization. It is about what that brought a final end to great civilizations after they had already decayed from within and what can and will happening in and to our world today.

I think Mel Gibson is onto something. He should follow with even more courageous efforts in future films if given the opportunity and means to do so. I won't go back to see this film in the theaters, but I will buy the DVD when it is released and watch it again. Thanks for reading this.

[Radio_Lady]

58. You know, it's almost as if we saw two different movies.

Radio Lady Ellen in Tulum, Mexico with Mayan girls (1990)

Honestly, Whistle, I don't really soak up the metaphor or allegory vis-a-vis our current world history situation. I didn't think about Bush-Cheney for a minute. I thought about our several trips to Mexico and what we saw there. What is more difficult is that people like my husband and myself, as well as the natives who live there now, feel that a terrible disservice has been done -- by a clearly talented film actor and director who has twisted this story into a simplistic and violent "faux" history.

Another woman has put it more eloquently than I could. I read your review, and I urge you to give her review some time if you want to hear a significantly different voice.

Thank you.

Radio Lady Ellen in Oregon

From: http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/apocalypto.html

Is "Apocalypto" Pornography? On line review from December 5, 2006
by Traci Ardren

A scholar challenges Mel Gibson's use of the ancient Maya culture as a metaphor for his vision of today's world.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

[qazplm]

2. oh good grief

Mayans back then were savages! Then again pretty much all of humanity was in some way or another during those times. But human sacrifice pretty much puts you on the list. Nothing wrong with that, we've all moved past that level, a tiny bit, over time.

[EFerrari]

3. How many people have been killed in Iraq?

[bryant69]

5. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

I don't know you do have to factor in technological improvements since then. We are much better at killing people now.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Recursion]

50. That's Mel's point (remember he's anti-Iraq war)

The Mayans didn't start their sacrifice campaigns until their civilization was majorly in decline -- just like Rome didn't start its bloody sacri-tainment gladiator matches until after it was majorly in decline (the movie opens with a quote about Rome). I think he meant to movie as a warning to America.

[Bridget Burke]

4. No, the Maya were not savages.

They had a complex, literate culture, with fine art & architecture. Yes, they sacrificed humans--although not as many as the later Aztecs.

(My own ancestors strangled their victims & tossed 'em in the bogs.)

Review the last century of European history & then get back to me.

[Beausoir]

7. You are exactly right. That civilisation was rich with science, art, astronomy

and the only thing "we" focus on is a small part of their time frame.

This was a great civilisation.

Just the print ad for Gibson's movie offends the hell out of me.

[REP]

44. Iron-Age (500 BCE) Celts vs 500 CE Mayans?

My people are Celts and Britons as well, but it's a bit of a stretch to compare Iron-Age Celts to Mayan human sacrifice. For one, no one's quite suere if the bog bodies were sacrificed or were merely executed criminals or even murder victims (not all have the three types of wounds).

[KittyWampus]

63. ge doesn't Just cause a priest class had complex scientific knowledmean people as a whole did

As an anthropologist, I dislike the word savage. It has such negative connotations but is still used widely so one has to take that into consideration when the topic of peasant or non-industrial societies comes up.

A very small number of Mayans and Aztecs had higher learning. Most lived the life of a serf or peasant or slave.

I guess one could say then as now that the real savages are the elite at the top who use their learning to dominate those on the bottom ad who refuse to allow the masses to educate themselves or better their environment.

This movie does bring up todays world in America. Where the pool of skilled, educated people seems to shrink in America while a very few people rule at the top and also in the sciences. We see now how those rulers and scientists and religious leaders are linked totally to an industrial machine that cares only about making money and increasing power for its elite.

[Beausoir]

8. Your post is offensive. You have no idea what you are talking about.

What have you done to educate yourself about Mayan people?

[frustrated_lefty]

12. Silly horse-flop.

The Mayans and the Aztecs sense of the spiritual revolved around seasonal change. Ritual sacrifice was performed to tie and synchronize the people with the seasons. If you find that offensive, I find that strange. These were cultures which believed in the act of sacrifice, which included personal sacrifice. The "modern" west, on the other hand, gave us the Crusades. Which is more offensive?

[Beausoir]

20. You deliberately misrepresented my post.

Or, you can't comprehend what you read.

What I find offensive is calling Mayans "savages" and focusing only on one aspect of their civilisation. I just returned from a tour of the Kohunlich zona arqueologica near Costa Maya. Before I went, I held the same "blood-thirsty savage" views that most people do. I learned a great deal, from an inteliigent and passionate Mayan man, on how great his civilisation once was. Yes, I am aware, just like here in the U.S., their were some very savage leaders, but to broadstroke an entire people by calling them savages is offensive to me.
And yes, I do understand that for some Maya, being sacrificed was a spiritual honor. Like roots of the trees, moving up through the trunk, through the leaves and into the beyond.


Clear enough for you this time? Or do I need to type slower?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beausoir]

24. So, you think that human sacrifices...really killing people..is noble and a lost art?

Wow.

Either you are not comprehending what the rest of us are talking about when we talk about human sacrifices, or you are really advocating human sacrifice as a "noble thing".

Ridicule me all you want about my "recent travails", but I actually took the time to learn something about a culture I knew nothing about. Have you? Ever?

If that makes me a "self-righteous pontificating dweeb"...so be it. I'm proud of my open mind and proud of my education.

And..I'm just going out on a limb here...but I bet you are white as the driven snow.

[frustrated_lefty]

48. You misunderstand.

It's cool that you took the time to travel and learn new things about a different culture. What makes you a self-righteous pontificating dweeb is you eagerness to show off.

I used to feel pride in my teaching abilities and my education. Then, Katrina hit and I lost everything. In retrospect, I've learned those things are not a source of pride. They are things to be grateful for.

Yes, I think a willingness to sacrifice oneself can be noble, it can even be the right thing to do. And, before you even ask, yes, I've been in a position where that sacrifice was a very real possibility to keep my children safe and alive. Perhaps I'm stepping out on a limb here....but I bet you haven't ever made a sacrifice to insure another's safety in your self-important little life.

[KittyWampus]

64. And ritual sacrifice became a false method of holding up collapsing empires.

So your rosy picture is nice, but not applicable towards any society in its entire history.

All religions and societies and empires devolve and break apart.

[Recursion]

52. What do you disagree with?

They were a flourishing and sophisticated civilization that got destroyed from within after they became corrupt, violent, and imperialistic and destroyed their environment through bad and greedy policy. Their calendar was more accurate than any Europeans developed until the 1700's. But they destroyed themselves, just like we are doing. Which I think is Mel's point. I learned a lot about the Mayans last year when I was learning how to read their hieroglyphs. I also learned a lot reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Both are worthy undertakings, IMO, because they are an absolutely fascinating culture, and one that passed from the pinnacle of civilization to the depths of barbarity relatively quickly (though, as pointed out above, they didn't go as far down that path as the later Triple League ("aztecs")).

[Marie26]

10. Uh, no

They were one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, far more advanced than Europe.

[WinkyDink]

38. More advanced than the Renaissance and its effects?

Than Galileo, DaVinci, Copernicus, the great explorers, Shakespeare, Bacon, Newton, ...?

The Mayans were brilliant in astronomy and mathematics, for sure, concentrating on these because they feared the effects of Time, knowing about the catastrophic changes wrought by planetary shifts (hence, the human sacrifices), but I can't agree over-all on "more advanced".

[Marie26]

47. Wrong era

You seem to be confusing the Mayans w/the Aztecs, maybe? The Classical Age of Mayan culture stretched from 280 - 500 AD. Mayan culture reached its own "golden age" while Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages - and it definitely was more advanced than the backward European countries. It had already collapsed way before the Spanish came in the 1500's - the Aztecs were the major civilization then.

[Recursion]

53. This movie is set at the nadir of the collapse -- 1500 AD or so

There are already Spaniards on the continent when the movie takes place. The grand cities are not being kept up and the civilization is a shell of its former self.

[pansypoo53219]

13. welllllll

after reading about what the invading OCCUPYING europeans did to the south americans. i would say THEY were the chritosavaes. also more evidence occupancy will get you NOTHING.

[SpiralHawk]

15. The "civilized" European invaders

Indeed. From today's entry, Odyssey of the 8th Fire

http://www.8thfire.net/Day_169.html

Coronado, de Tovar, de Soto, and all the other conquerers of the Americas acted under the express authority of Alexander VI, the Pope. Alexander was part of the infamous Borgia family, and inarguably among the most controversial of Popes owing to his sex orgies, murders, and financial malfeasance.

Immediately after Columbus reported his "discovery" of the new world in 1492, Pope Alexander VI in Rome issued in 1493 a document entitled Papal Bull Inter Caetera,


========

Coronado’s aide then read to the people a requerimiento -- a formal declaration of superiority and sovereignty, and a set of demands. The requerimiento asserted that the Popes -- who claimed to be successors of the god Jesus Christ through his apostle Peter -- and the Popes' allied kings, held authority as rulers over the entire Earth.

Though they were unitelligible to the natives because they were read in Latin, the formal demands essentially said: If you do not surrender completely now and bow down and worship our god, we will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the church and the king. We will take your wives and children, and we will make them slaves…We will take your property…We declare that the deaths and injuries that occur as a result of this would be your fault, not ours…”

(snip)

[whistle]

59. "...the Popes' allied kings, held authority as rulers over the entire Earth"

....pretty much sums up the Bush doctrine and the Cheney/neo-con PNAC.

<snip>
"If you do not surrender completely now and bow down and worship our god, we will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the church and the king. We will take your wives and children, and we will make them slaves…We will take your property…We declare that the deaths and injuries that occur as a result of this would be your fault, not ours…"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. a lot less savage then we are. hiroshima/nagasaki/ vietnam/iraq etc

[Dora]

17. We sacrifice people all the time. It's called "the death penalty."

And as one of your fellow savages, I wish you a hearty, "Have a nice day."

[DBoon]

67. Ancient Romans were apalled by Danish human sacrifice

Mind you the Romans were no shrinking violets when it came to violence

[Ian David]

6. When will someone do a film about how the Australians slaughtered the Aboriginese? n/t

[Kellyiswise]

11. Maybe about the same time they do a film about the truth about Native Americans

and how they were slaughtered by Europeans.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. how about the savagery under British colonial rule in India

(and almost anywhere the BRits were)

[sutz12]

19. Not a docu-epic, but I thought Quigley Down Under kinda captured it.

The main Europinion of the natives, anyway. :)

[Marie26]

9. Not that Gibson cares about Mayan culture

He was just thinking about how he could have another pretentious historical psuedo-religious movie w/a boatload of violence, and thought, Mayans! Human sacrifice! Of course!

[Beausoir]

21. Ding Ding!

Nailed it perfectly!

Misrepresent history and pander to those with a taste for bloodshed.

[frustrated_lefty]

14. Pop-psychology assessment of Gibson

Personally, I think the man presents a jocular face to the world, a laughing, whacko Martin Briggs. He's a practical joker, as many of his cast-mates have attested over the years.

I also think there's a more somber side to the man that he keeps inside, and has begun to show in his work. And, blood and gore aside, I think the question he's trying to find an answer to is "what redeems a man?" Snicker and moan at the bloodshed, but I think...I don't know, but I think....he's asking some very soul-searching questions in a very public forum.

[whistle]

60. You articulate my thinking on Gibson's motives as well....

....So the question now is will Mel Gibson be given the opportunity to complete his soul-searching through a medium <Hollywood films> which demands that he engage in the sensational to assure box office receipts, or will his exploration be cut short, especially if he comes too close to the truth?

Then again, he just might self-destruct from his own personal excesses and character flaws run amok*. He has stirred up a shit-storm of controversy with his last several films, that is for sure.

* Definitions of amok on the Web:

(amok) (-mok¢) a culture-specific syndrome first reported in the Malay people, almost always male, consisting of a sudden outburst of indiscriminate aggressive or homicidal fury provoked by a perceived slight or insult or possibly unprovoked (running amuck). Spelled also amuck.

[Supply Side Jesus]

23. Speaking as a savage....

I am very offended to be compared to Mayans. We savages are nothing like Mayans, culturally and idealistically. We savages would like to be excluded from any future comparisons of people in the future.

[Nikia]

25. I don't think that it benefits anyone to pretend

That some cultures didn't conquer other cultures by force, didn't destroy their environment, and didn't ultimately cause their own downfall. Those who protest that our culture is worse miss the point. The point is that we are not the first culture that has made these mistakes and we can learn from other cultures who have before it is too late.

[RoyGBiv]

26. Reserving judgment ...

I actually have no plans to see the movie in the theater. I'm not seeing it because I dislike Gibson himself, but that says nothing of what I might think of this movie. Similarly, I never saw that movie about this Jesus person in the theater or on DVD because I dislike Mel, and I didn't want to directly help him accumulate wealth. I did see it, eventually, and aside from the supernatural religious underpinnings, I thought it was one of the most realistic portrayals of the times in which the supposed Jesus lived that I have seen. That does not mean it was realistic in a day-to-day "life of the common person" sense, but it did come as close as a movie probably can to showing the true horror that those who were subjected to punishment and torture by Roman authorities faced.

I know nothing of this movie other than what I've accidentally seen via previews for it. But that's really not the point of my commenting. If this movie is offensive, then it is, but the reasons it is offensive I'm seeing some people express are rather ... well, they're wrong-headed. (Not all, mind you, but some.)

Mayan civilization was one of the most advanced civilizations on Earth during its time. Of course so was Greek civilization and so was Roman. That fact does not make them any less violent or any more worthy of emulation. Ritualistic blood-letting, lust for war, human sacrifice: these things were all a part of the culture. So too a part of that Mayan culture was one of the most advanced systems of writing in existence at the time. The art was profound on a level hard to find anywhere else in the world during the age. Their flirtations with science were far advanced of many civilizations that come along later. Regardless, on a typical day, the women were degraded, men were murdered during religious rites, blood was spilled prior to meals as a sacrifice to gods. A Mayan leader would enthrall his followers with a ritual that involved him piercing his own penis, running a rope through the wound, and using both the ritual and the blood produced as a call to his people to war against fellow Mayans. They were like the Greeks in this way. They were bloody and violent and fragmented, yet they developed an advanced civilization that is a thing of wonder, something to be admired in *some* of its aspects.

Some of the commentary I have seen on this matter is nothing but one of moral equivalence. "Well they (or we) did (or do) it too..." Okay, but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things except that we, as humans, can all be pretty horrible while at the same time exhibiting traits that make us something to be studied and admired while at the same time shunned and abhorred. Such is the curse of being human.

FWIW, one of the running theories on the collapse of the Mayan civilization mirrors closely the collapse of Greece as an empire, which makes the Mayans no better or worse than their "Western" counterparts. These are just theories, of course. Other theories also exist, some less damaging to reputation, some more so.

[Beausoir]

27. I very much appreciate your post. But, do you agree that "we" tend to focus on the blood-letting/

sacrificial aspect of the civilisation too much?

There was so much more to these people. A BRILLIANT people. Much more literate and educated and advanced than the typical Republican school child of today. Or, to be fair, Democratic children of today.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this.



The astronomy part alone is astonishing to me.

[RoyGBiv]

28. Yes, I do agree ...

And in that respect I think your comments in this thread are very much on target. (And your comments are one of the reasons I made a point of emphasizing that "some" comments I've seen are wrong-headed, meaning I don't think yours are.) In our culture, "brown people" (to borrow the phrase used by Jared Diamond in _Guns, Germs, and Steel_) are depicted as far more violent than their "Western" (read "white") counterparts. That is one of the reasons I have no plans to see this movie in the theater and one of the reasons I dislike Mel Gibson. A lot of movies and otherwise popular art exist depicting Roman and Greek culture, and only recently did these works even begin to focus on these less savory aspects, or if they did in the past, those movies were labeled pornographic. (See _Caligula_, the unedited version, for instance.) Or, the art was considered "fringe."

We would do well to study those aspects of Mayan culture that are worthy of praise because they truly were *far* advanced. We would also do well to study them for the things they did wrong. The problem with the latter is that we too often discount those negative aspects as "unique" and fail to see how we are following the path that may have played a part in their destruction.

[RoyGBiv]

31. P.S.

I missed this when I first read your posts. I could have edited my response, but I want to give this subject its own brief treatment.

As someone who has studied Central American cultures in an academic contexts, one of the most irritating things I have encountered is strained, at their base illogical, attempts by some historians to link Mayans, Aztecs, etc. to "Western" influences via evidence so thin that it wouldn't even be considered admissible in a kangaroo court. I in fact wrote a paper on this for an ancient civilizations seminar, focusing on the premise that "Western" historians and archaeologists (especially those who study the Greeks) often seem to have this need to see not only history but culture and civilization in general as a thing that radiates outward from the Greek Isles, as though civilization itself could not have existed without the influence of Greek culture. There are those, for example, that claim, in all seriousness, that Egyptian art was the result of some influence by those who lived in what became Greece, even though what we know as Greece didn't even exist at the time. I've talked with some of these people personally, looked in their eyes, and I've seen a vast ocean of willful ignorance surrounded by an fake aura of academic pedigree that truly makes me ill.

The point I'm making here involves your comment about astronomy. They Mayans were far advanced in that respect, and the attempts to link them to Greeks as inspiration are strained at best.

[Beausoir]

37. I would love to hear more from you. You obviously are learned about this...

Mayans are near and dear to my heart, for personal reasons.

Thank you for taking the time to "know" this wonderful civilisation.

[Lipton64]

29. I don't think Gibson is saying all Mayans were savages but.....

any society that cut out the hearts of living human beings and looked upon that as some sort of way to get in touch with God would have disturbed me just a little as well....

[Beausoir]

30. As opposed to W and his policy of bomb the children first and ask questions later?

And he claims he was "chosen" by God to carry out his mission of bloody killing.

Does that disturb you as well?

[Lipton64]

33. Very much so Beausoir......

Looking at pictures of dead soldiers and dead Iraqi families makes my blood boil. I also am very shocked to see American military personel taking the fall for the likes of Dubya, Darth Cheney, and Rumsfailed. It's very sad and disturbing....

[dogday]

49. Maybe that can be Mel's next movie.....

The killing of a Nation by George Bush....

[RoyGBiv]

35. The method is the problem ...

You see the method as barbaric. Okay. That's because the culture in which you were raised never included such a ritual.

We, as "Western" societies, have our own rituals. We put needles into people, fill their veins full of chemicals that cause their lungs to seize and their hearts to stop, and we call it justice.

Are our ideas, the base ideas, of justice that much different, or has the method simply changed. You might consider that the prevailing theory of such rituals suggests that those subjected to such treatment were at least partially willing participants. That doesn't make the ritual morally right by modern standards, but in comparison to similar rituals in the modern world, it is entirely different. Modern people in so-called "civilized" society who are sacrificed in this way are hardly willing.

[Lipton64]

36. re:

"You see the method as barbaric. Okay. That's because the culture in which you were raised never included such a ritual."

I'm sorry but cutting out somebody's heart and then tossing it into a fire isn't exactly what I call an example of an advancing and civilized people. And while it is relative to a point - I think anybody with a sane mind will agree with me.

"We, as "Western" societies, have our own rituals. We pole needles into people, fill their veins full of chemicals that cause their lungs to seize and their hearts to stop, and we call it justice."

No, certain individuals on the right-wing support the death penalty, not me. I don't support the killing or suffering of anybody. Human killing in any form - even in justifiable self-defense - horrors me to no end.

[RoyGBiv]

40. Okay, I accept that ...

You are above the curve.

Do you suggest that no one in Mayan culture was above the curve? If so, how do you know?

The point is that our civilization engages in barbaric rituals and that a majority finds some weird level of comfort in those rituals. The difference between our culture and the Mayan is that the individuals subjected to such rituals in the latter were at least nominally willing participants, and who are we to judge them wrong? I'm not disagreeing with what I believe is your larger point, per se, but a case can be made that society has not advanced much, if at all, beyond these times, and when viewed in comparison, we falter because our reliance on the supernatural, our denial of the value of art, our discounting the value of science puts us in a weaker position than we would very much like to think.

Certainly these rituals are deserving of condemnation, just as our own rituals are. The problem, as pointed out by another poster above, is that we have this tendency to see ourselves as above all this barbaric nonsense, to see our own rituals as somehow moral, while theirs were not. The moral equivalence fallacy works both ways.

[Lipton64]

41. re:

"Do you suggest that no one in Mayan culture was above the curve? If so, how do you know?"

Of course not since I didn't know every single individual who lived in the Mayan Empire but I'd say it's safe to say that any culture that practiced their ceremonies probably had a disproportionate number of fucked-up citizenry. I don't know too many sane peoples who practice human sacrifice. Even most ancient "pagans" in Africa and Asia didn't practice this horrid ritual.

[RoyGBiv]

42. You would be wrong ...

You seem, unfortunately, trapped in your own moral universe, admitting no others, allowing no dissent.

And I have to say, your reference to "sanity" is truly insulting and indicative of a mind that does not seem capable of thinking outside its own frame of reference.

[Tsiyu]

43. Read about British History

Barbarism knows no racial boundaries.

The Crusaders slaughtered people for Jesus (and that would be human sacrifice in my book ;) )

Those civilized Brits drowned people to "prove" they were witches. People's heads (even those of queens) were chopped off in front of enthralled crowds.

No race is free from its past, and every one of those pasts involved "fucked-up citizenry"

[Tansy_Gold]

61. Certainly the "witch hunts"

of the various christian authorities in Europe bear some resemblance to any Maya or Aztec notion of sacrifice to appease/please the gods. And when the public hangings of common criminals were treated as popular entertainment, when the bodies of the executed were left on display, I think there's more resemblance.

I'm no scholar on mesoamerican indigenous cultures, and I've forgotten most of the Quechua phrases taught by my high school Spanish teacher who indeed was a historian, but it just seems to me that using faked history to teach the lessons of history, even allegorical lessons, has a tendency not to work as well as it ought. Either the message gets lost in analysis of the medium, or the wrong message comes through.

But that's just the thoughts of


Tansy Gold

[gulliver]

65. "What's human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"

-- Mel Gibson

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=9211

The soldiers really are partly a form of human sacrifice, IMO. People seem to reason forward and backward. To defend ourselves, we will shed the blood of our soldiers. Ergo, if we are shedding the blood of our soldiers, we must be defending ourselves. The deaths on all sides make people think that something really important, all out, near magical is being done. That's just what they want when they are afraid. The rational and irrational inverse both make them feel better. They just want "something" done. Something extreme.

We aren't so far from the Mayans/Aztecs. They were just more directly irrational. Their illogic is transparent to us. Our own isn't. Many Americans are only now starting to realize that the war in Iraq is not defending them from anything. They'll be very slow to recognize that all the gory deaths we have caused were misguided and accomplished nothing.

You can bet that a whole lot of the Aztecs turned away from the "cardiectomies" in disgust too. The ones who watched it avidly were (and are) the freaks. But a lot of the Aztecs who looked down during the rituals still felt something "might be" being accomplished. Same for a lot of the Fox News viewers who criticized CNN for the graphic war footage...

[Kali]

56. as opposed to worshiping a dead, tortured guy hanging on a stick?

[Cleita]

32. I have read a lot about the Mayans over the years.

The most recent assessment I read was from Jared Diamond. I can't judge their civilization as being anymore brutal than ours or every civilization before us and them.

I can't comment on the movie. I haven't seen it. I'm going to assume it's the usual tension type of story, fighting the system, you know, bad vs. evil, which makes good story telling.

However, I think Hollywood often doesn't get it right. I remember enjoying a lot of movies back in the forties, when I was a kid, about South America. Yet, I knew it was all entertainment crap garbage, Carmen Mirands, Betty Grable, Rita Hayworth type things, the most famous, of course, being "Gilda", which is supposed to take place in Argentina.

My family thoroughly enjoyed the movies even though we knew the reality was mostly crap. So enjoy and then figure out the crap.

[BoneDaddy]

34. ack

whatever

[WinkyDink]

39. I'm tired of ANY group that is offended by some artistic representation.

Mayans, Muslims, Catholics, I don't care. Tired of it.

[REP]

45. I Won't See It for The Same Reason I Avoid Most Movies About Ancient History:

They almost always get it wrong. Just like computer geeks howl at techie things, I howl at history boners to the point where I can't enjoy the movie. Gibson gives me no reason to think he's got it right.

[Radio_Lady]

57. You might want to read this review, from a professor of anthropology --

Is "Apocalypto" Pornography?

December 5, 2006

by Traci Ardren

A scholar challenges Mel Gibson's use of the ancient Maya culture as a metaphor for his vision of today's world.

Traci Ardren, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Miami, knows the Maya well. She has studied Classic Maya society for over 20 years while living in the modern Maya villages of Yaxuna, Chunchucmil, and Espita in the Mexican state of Yucatan. Her credentials include contributing to and editing Ancient Maya Women (2002) and The Social Experience of Childhood in Ancient Mesoamerica (2006). Ardren's reaction to the new film "Apocalypto," follows. Scholars are well aware that some aspects of Maya culture were violent, but Ardren finds fault with what she sees as a pervasive colonial attitude in the film.

This is her review:

With great trepidation I went to an advance screening of "Apocalypto" last night in Miami. No one really expects historical dramas to be accurate, so I was not so much concerned with whether or not the film would accurately represent what we know of Classic period Maya history as I was concerned about the message Mel Gibson wanted to convey through the film. After Jared Diamond's best-selling book Collapse, it has become fashionable to use the so-called Maya collapse as a metaphor for Western society's environmental and political excesses. Setting aside the fact that the Maya lived for more than a thousand years in a fragile tropical environment before their cities were abandoned, while here in the U.S, we have polluted our urban environments in less than 200, I anticipated a heavy-handed cautionary tale wrapped up in Native American costume.

What I saw was much worse than this. The thrill of hearing melodic Yucatec Maya spoken by familiar faces (although the five lead actors are not Yucatec Maya but other talented Native American actors) during the first ten minutes of the movie is swiftly and brutally replaced with stomach churning panic at the graphic Maya-on-Maya violence depicted in a village raid scene of nearly 15 minutes. From then on the entire movie never ceases to utilize every possible excuse to depict more violence. It is unrelenting. Our hero, Jaguar Paw, played by the charismatic Cree actor Rudy Youngblood, has one hellavuh bad couple of days. Captured for sacrifice, forced to march to the putrid city nearby, he endures every tropical jungle attack conceivable and that is after he escapes the relentless brutality of the elites. I am told this part of the movie is completely derivative of the 1966 film "The Naked Prey." Pure action flick, with one ridiculous encounter after another, filmed beautifully in the way that only Hollywood blockbusters can afford, this is the part of the movie that will draw in audiences and demonstrates Gibson's skill as a cinematic storyteller.

But I find the visual appeal of the film one of the most disturbing aspects of "Apocalypto." The jungles of Veracruz and Costa Rica have never looked better, the masked priests on the temple jump right off a Classic Maya vase, and the people are gorgeous. The fact that this film was made in Mexico and filmed in the Yucatec Maya language coupled with its visual appeal makes it all the more dangerous. It looks authentic; viewers will be captivated by the crazy, exotic mess of the city and the howler monkeys in the jungle. And who really cares that the Maya were not living in cities when the Spanish arrived? Yes, Gibson includes the arrival of clearly Christian missionaries (these guys are too clean to be conquistadors) in the last five minutes of the story (in the real world the Spanish arrived 300 years after the last Maya city was abandoned). It is one of the few calm moments in an otherwise aggressively paced film. The message? The end is near and the savior has come. Gibson's efforts at authenticity of location and language might, for some viewers, mask his blatantly colonial message that the Maya needed saving because they were rotten at the core. Using the decline of Classic urbanism as his backdrop, Gibson communicates that there was absolutely nothing redeemable about Maya culture, especially elite culture which is depicted as a disgusting feast of blood and excess.


For more of this article, please go to:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/apocalypto.html

[Neshanic]

62. The next Gibson screen play. Vulcanypto. The future Mel!

He's exhausted all the good big violent end-time/religious stories.

I say his next will combine both in a Vulcan end time religious screen blockbuster with Spock's son getting killed over sixty minutes of screen time in that wierd Spock mating gig. What they don't know is Spock's son is their savior. He will obviously have to hire armies of Vulcans. Oh and the Vulcan language, that will need to be invented. Oh..oh! Mel! What's better than humans being splayed with organs popping out? ALIEN organs!

Go get em O' King of Malibu!

[distantearlywarning]

66. DU sinks to new lows

Now we justify human sacrifice in the name of "culture"?

That's sick. Just sick.

Some of you people really horrify me.

And by the way, just because America or any other Western culture does bad things doesn't give a free pass to any other culture to do bad things. All it means is that we are all crappy people. And this is the same argument the freepers use when they justify any of (insert vile Repuke politician here)'s shortcomings by bringing up Clinton's blow job. It's the argument of little minds.