Skip to comments.SACRIFICE [Professors say Gibson's Apocalypto is biased against Mayan bloodletting]
Posted on 12/05/2006 11:45:28 PM PST by freedomdefender
Let's get right to the point, shall we? About halfway through Mel Gibson's movie "Apocalypto," which opens this week, viewers are treated to a stomach-turning scene of human sacrifice, set in a Mayan city around 1500. It's not revealing too much to say that the movie's hero is captured by a gang of marauders, bound, marched through the jungle, painted blue, and forced to the top of a pyramid where heads roll.
In a smaller version of the outrage and skepticism that preceded the opening of "The Passion of the Christ"is it historically accurate? is it anti-Semitic?scholars who study the ancient Maya are concerned that Gibson's film will distort the great civilization and demean its descendents, six million of whom still live in Central America. Yes, the Maya sacrificed humans to the gods, but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the Maya believed that their bodies, their blood, were created by the gods and that they occasionally needed to repay this debt with human life. "The gods need you," explains David Carrasco, professor of religious history at Harvard. "They depend on human life for their own existence, there's this kind of reciprocity." In sacrifice, he adds, the people are becoming like gods. Based on the trailer, Carrasco believes that Gibson has made the Maya into "Slashers," and their society a "Hypermasculine fantasy."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"Sympathy for the Devil"
LoL... liberals have no shame... (Eddie Murphy laugh)...
Meso-American cultures (yes, even highly advanced ones) also didn't let the protein go to waste -- if you know what I mean. Forensic studies on bones confirm early Spanish descriptions of ritual canibalism.
Could you imagine what this same guy would be saying if ONE Christian Church in the south, say, advocated making a small cut in the palm of your hand to, say, feel sympathy for what Jesus went through when he was nailed to a cross?
He'd hit the roof, demand that their children be taken away from all parents who attended the church, etc.
They captured people from other tribes,
Confined them or use them as labor in their 'public works',
Hauled them up those 'works' in large groups;
AND CUT OUT THEIR HEARTS!
From this I'm supposed to learn how to share?
Alright then. That makes it ok.
I think I'm beginning to get a picture of what makes Gibson tick.
I'm sure the Mayans are deeply offended.
Cannibalism by the Meso_Americans was discussed in this FR thread a while back:
Here is the original article:
"Based on the trailer" is all I need to know. He hasn't seen the film so his opinion of how Mel treats the Mayan culture's about as worthless as they come.
Of course, if the sacrificees are from other tribes and don't believe in the Mayan gods, then they're just sucking...
...Yes, the Maya sacrificed humans to the gods, but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the Maya believed...
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the KKK believed...'
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the Islamic Suicide Bombers believed...'
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the Nazis believed...'
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the Kymer Rouge and Pol Pot believed...'
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the males who threw female virgins into volcanos believed...'
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the U.S. Calvary who killed the Indians at Wounded Knee believed...'
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the American slave owners believed...'
Hmmm...this Logic Flow can take us anywhere. Thanks David Carrasco, professor of religious history at Harvard!
Sounds suspiciously like the Clintons.
"sympathy for the devil" ping...
er, ping, for sympathy...
I want to know everything 'bout these people because I'm working on a CivIII epic. So there.
Anything that you guys come up with I'd like to know 'bout.
Oh...that's rich, too true, and perfectly pithy! Thanks for the smile it put on my face to read your post ;-)
Lets see...'but these rituals were part of a complex worldview: the U.S. Calvary who killed the Indians at Wounded Knee believed...'
It ain't PC, but it's not that bad. One of the biggest lie perpetrated on our history is that we commit "genocide" on the Indians.
BS. They hit us as hard as we hit them. The only difference is technology. This nation would be split in half if they have the same tech we do or vice versa. In fact, I heard that in the first conflict between colonists and indians, they drew first blood.
Did Mayans get 69 virgins too?
It's interesting that the gods always need someone else's blood.
Talking about whoring yourself... This guy felt that what Gibson did (making the movie) was wrong, shallow, and misinforming the audience. Yet, he deliberately took part of the enterprise because he wanted the money.
THe Aztecs were much bigger as far as human sacrifice. It was a way of life for the Aztecs. Mayans did much less and also did child sacrifice (the young virgins)
No, I won't say it... ;-)
Present tense. Rather disturbing. I've known a few people along life's way who've been fascinated with Mayan civilization, and with their bloodletting in particular. Scarey people all.
I'm beginning to wonder if Gibson has the same fascination, and if "The Christ" was more a product of obsession with human sacrifice than of any religious motivation.
And terribly saddened and feeling deeply troubled.
It wasn't ritual cannibalism. The bodies of the sacrificial victims were tossed down the pyramids and then hauled away and consumed like any other meat.
As for Gibson's movie being unnecessarily bloodthirsty one set of sacrifices for a new temple in what became Mexico City went on for 4 days with one human sacrifice about every 30 seconds day and night.
In addition you might want to look into what were known as the Rose Wars where rose screens were used after the sacrifice to screen the royalty's (both sides) feast of human. Both sides also decided how many prisoners would be captured before the battles and who would win (usually the Aztecs). These Rose Wars were on the reasons that the Spanish were able to conquer Mexico City so easily. They had lots of help from the other Meso-Americans were very happy to help the foreigners in overthrowing the blood thirsty and ruthless Aztecs. Of course the Aztecs weren't the only ones in the area that believed in human sacrifice and cannibalism (not ritual cannibalism).
The original Aztecs were landless mercenaries brought in to help when a war. After the victory the Aztecs took the daughter of the the king that had employed then and skinned her alive. They then danced in her skin in front of her father. This kind of ticked off the father and he attacked the Aztecs. Unfortunately for him the Aztecs were better warriors and they conquered the city which is now known as Mexico City. This dancing in the flayed skin of sacrificial victims didn't end there.
This isn't a real popular topic in most of the classes pushing Hispanic studies. They like to key in on the dancing, the math and the astronomy.
it goes back so far in time that who drew first blood gets lost in the mist, but one thing that you don't hear about in today's PC "evil White Man" genocide b/s is how indian warfare allowed for attacking of undefended settlements, capture, torture and killing of innocent non-combatants - the women and children.
This may have been ok for the injuns - but when they came up against a Western Civilization people to whom such "acts" are the most vile atrocities, their number was up.
What you said. The academic is ignoring the obvious. What the Mayans and Aztecs did was horrible. But since they are part of that non/white European world, well that makes it just wonderful and "cultural". Instead of the cruel, barbaric, savage acts they really were. These academics display their ignorance and racism when they set up different moral codes for different cultures. The witch-killing and religious wars of the middle ages in Europe were horrible. As a descendent of white Europeans I have no problem saying that. Why can't these academia nuts do the same?
Ah, so that makes it okay. Silly me.
So, I suppose if they put panties on their heads, that would be okay, too.
Yeah that's my read as well. Since they were "people of color" that makes it all just fine.
Bait and switch sometimes works. On a couple of occasions when the subject has come up, I've "prepared the battlefield" by taking off on the Spaniards. I start with the observation that 16th century Europe was a brutal place but that even there Spanish cruelty was a byword. I toss in a glancing reference to the Inquisition. A multiculti type will be nodding fiercely at this implicit defense of the Indians.
Then I spring the trap by noting that what has to be understood is that, bad as the Spanish were by our standards, the Indians of Mexico horrified even them. The carnage shocked even the scourge of Europe. Game, set, match.
There is no behavior, no evil that cannot be explained by this justifying sentence.
Newsweak is not fir for toilet paper.
I won't watch this movie, nor will I ever watch another new flick by Mel. His never ending mea culpa's after his DUI arrest were laced with Iraq War bashing purely to ingratiate himself with the liberal elites on the left coast. Mel, you've shown your true self to me, and you'll never see another nickle of my money.
Ooooo, I like that. Taking notes.
I thought the Mayans were about as extinct as the passenger pigeon.
Needless to say, blood *was* central to Mayan religious life. Assuming that Gibson explores this accurately, then this film is definitely not for the squeamish.
The Latin American History as taught by the school systems in the 1960's had the Aztec tribe as the poorest and smallest of the tribes of that part of North America. They were landless until one day while wondering through a swamp, they came upon an eagle sitting on a cactus eating a serpent (snake). This was a vision that one of their elders had dreamed of previously. They made that swamp their home and became the great tribe that the Spanish Conquered a few hundred years latter. The eagle on the cactus eating the serpent is the symbol on the Mexican Flag. There is also a book Aztec, by Gary Jennings that is a great read once you get past the sexual descriptions of meaningless fiction.
I was hoping that this movie would destroy the PC whitewashing of the satanic human sacrifices of Mayan civilization.
There's a reason why Mary visited Juan Diego.
1474 An Indian named Quauhtlatoatzin was born in Cuautitlan.
1476 Juan de Zumarraga was born in Spain.
1492 Christopher Columbus landed on an island in the Americas and named it San Salvador.
1514 The first Marian Shrine in the New World was established in the city of Higuey, first to be built on American soil.
1519 Hernan Cortez landed in Mexico.
1521 The capital city of the Aztecs falls under Cortez.
1524 The first 12 Franciscans arrive in Mexico City.
1525 The Indian Quauhtlatoatzin is baptized by a Franciscan priest. He received the Christian name of Juan Diego.
1528 Friar Juan de Zumarraga arrives in the New World.
1529 Juan Diegos wife, Maria, became sick and died.
1531 Year of the apparitions to Juan Diego
1533 The first sanctuary was erected.
1541 Franciscan priest and early historian of New Spain Motolinia writes that some nine million Aztecs had become Christians.
1548 Death of Juan Diego.
I won't be seeing any more of his movies.
What kind of reaction do you get?
I own some of his movies--Braveheart, The Passion, The Patriot.... still thought he was one of the good guys...
..but after reflecting on his rage....and subsequent quotes he made against President Bush...and his predilection toward violent scenes...
...I know I will not see this movie....I don't care about this movie...
..and I don't really care for him anymore.
Well that's not very accurate considering there was a major city the capital of a major empire siting on that island in the swamp. See if you can find LA Capital: The Biography of Mexico Cit by Jonathan Kandell. It starts before the Aztecs took over and goes in to great detail about how they came to power, their religion, eating habits as well as their relations to other tribes. The book is about 700 pages in paperback with about 15% devoted to this topic.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
I know Gibson's movies have always been violent. I am, however, begining to feel that he is obsessed with it, and gets his jollies on luring others into watching it.
First he got a bunch of Republicans to watch "The Patriot."
Then he lured a bunch of Christians into watching "The Passion."
Now, apparently, he is luring multi-cultural kumbaya people into watching "Apocolypto."
And all the while he is laughing at all of us, because we are bankrolling his sick fascination with violence.
Count me out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.