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.
Posted on 12/05/2006 11:45:28 PM PST by freedomdefender
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.
excellent post!
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.