babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Apocalypso.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Apocalypso.
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 08 December 2006 10:29 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought this was going to be a movie about dancing, but was instead subjected to a solid hour of the stuff that nighmares are made out of.

No wonder Mel drinks like he does.

It wasn't all negative though. The remaining four characters had a somewhat happy ending, and there was an additional extra bonus plot twist at the 9/10 point.

Not recommended for the weak of heart. Or dancers.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402

posted 12 December 2006 11:12 AM      Profile for M.Gregus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It was a surprise hit at the box office, emerging as the top movie last weekend.
From: capital region | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 December 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
I thought this was going to be a movie about dancing,...
Maybe because you misread the title. It's Apocalypto - with a "t".

You might want to amend the title of this thread.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 12 December 2006 04:19 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Apocalypso can be the Pixar musical version.

Jaguar Paw could be an ACTUAL Jaquar.

It'd be great.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 12 December 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's Apocolypto. Apololypso sounds like a dance at Caribana.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 December 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
It's Apocolypto.
No, it's Apocalypto.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 12 December 2006 07:56 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Before I saw the trailer, I thought this film might have an environmental theme...?

From the trailer it looks like an action adventure war pic.

But I never suspected dancing...


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 13 December 2006 04:53 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Another Take: Mel Gibson's Apocalypto by Lainad

Not a fan of either Mel Gibson or blood and gore, I avoided Passion of the Christ and his latest film Apocalypto. While it topped this past weekend's box office sales, the film has not incited as much controversy and boycotting that Passion of the Christ did. But it should. The problem is, does anyone care?

snip

The controversy begins with Gibson’s decision to cast non-Maya people with no previous acting experience despite the fact that there are approximately one million Maya who reside in Mexico, where the movie was filmed.

snip

While [Gibson's] press junkets have been geared primarily to Latino and Native American groups and his decision to cast non-Maya actors was because they “looked like you imagined they should," one wonders if Gibson was aware of the racism that exists within Mexico against Maya people and wanted to use actors whose looks where more socially palatable for a wider audience.


Full article at blogher.org


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 13 December 2006 04:55 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the trailer it looks like it could be Atarnajuat, only set in the jungle.

I'm sure that I'll prefer Atarnajuat if I bother to see Apocalypto.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 December 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nobody dies in Atenarjuat. In fact, at one point the main character says: "We must not think violence can settle a dispute."

Mel Gibson won't say that, because he is a right wing thugoid who glorifies power.

So, thousands will have to die. That's no Atenarjuat.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 December 2006 09:52 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeff, as a point of fact that's not true.

There are two murders in Atanarjuat and apparently in the original legend the miscreants get killed as well.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 14 December 2006 05:04 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is from a blog called "NativeVue":

quote:

The most repulsive aspect of the film is that the Maya are "saved" from their self-inflicted "apocalypse" through the arrival of Christians — a historical glitch, because the European, Christian evangelical destruction of indigenous peoples did not begin until 300 years after the movie's setting. That doesn't dissuade Gibson though, who admits that he was making it up as he went along.

snip

Gibson got his ass kicked all around Tinseltown by the Jewish community for his idiotic rant about Jews being responsible for all the wars in the world. "Apocalypto" seems to be Gibson's translation of that lesson from his earlier drunken meltdown as: "it's important only to insult people who you think will not fight back." As indigenous peoples, we'd better not let this one pass — or we deserve exactly what we get from Gibson and Hollywood (in this case Disney Studios). Gibson's admission that he made up most of his invader fallacy, is a practice with which we, as indigenous peoples, are quite familiar, unfortunately. And Gibson's reward for this latest product of total cultural incompetency? The film is getting Academy Award buzz. So, the message is: insult Jews and African-Americans and get publicly rebuked and chastised. Insult indigenous peoples, and get considered for an Oscar!?

snip

Instead of fabricating the histories of indigenous peoples, Gibson would be better served atoning for his own society's brutality and inhumanity. If he is so enthralled with human sacrifice, let him make some films about Euro-American-Australian human sacrifice, beginning with the 300 year-long Spanish Inquisition


Link to blog here


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 14 December 2006 11:37 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The film does not propose that the Mayans were saved by the arrival of the Europeans. Quite to the contrary, the statement is that when a civilization enters a period of decline it is much easier prey for anyone seeking its disruption or destruction. If anything, it provides an accurate analogy for what may be happening to Western civilization today: feeding on its neighbours world-wide to appease its own designs and needs. This is not a story that is the exclusive domain of any one culture. Every empire the world has seen has gone through similar ugly periods of decline and violence.

I don't see any racial malintent in the film. Of course, it is a film for entertainment and not a documentary so it follows that liberties may be taken (as with any historical production), yet nobody seems to be complaining about the absence of cannibalism in the film, even though it is an historical fact.


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 14 December 2006 01:49 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the blog linked above:

quote:

The construction of indigenous peoples' reality by invader (fill in the blank - writers, historians, anthropologists, priests/popes, judges, politicians, filmmakers) dates back to the commencement of the invasion by Columbus. The distorted images of cannibalism and human sacrifice among Native societies are so deeply ingrained in the invader hegemony that now even indigenous people parrot it. Nacona Burgess, Activities Director at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, where a screening of Gibson's disaster was scheduled to be held, reinforced the commonly-held, ignorant and racist stereotypes about Maya and Aztec peoples. "All of our students are adults, and they could've handled the sacrificing scenes because they know that's how it was in the Mayan civilization," Burgess told The Santa Fe New Mexican. That's how it was? Says who, Mel Gibson? We're now going to let Mel Gibson define Maya history and reality? Unbelievable. How about let's ask some Maya people — like the more than six million in Guatemala? Like the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico?

head, conflating Mayans with cannibalism as "historical fact" is racist. Please apologize.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 14 December 2006 02:10 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have just finished reading a book about the Maya and the Mayan calendar. The Mayans and the Olmecs, who came before, were not as violent as the later Aztecs. Sadly much of their culture and most historic documents were destroyed by the Spanish who considered them to be primitives. This included 3000 years of astronomical observations.

Mel always has used artistic license and I gather many of today's Maya are not happy about the movie or its many errors. Like the DaVinci Code, enjoy, but don't consider it accurate.

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: eau ]


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 14 December 2006 02:17 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Every culture goes through spasms of violence when it breaks down; ours will too. Few things through:

The Mayans (a variety of related but different peoples) never had an Empire; just some common culture with competing city states that gradually grew more rigidly hierarchical and 'warlike' --for lack of a better word to describe what's close to a human universal when it comes to neighbouring states. Human sacrifice OTOH was a fairly recent import from a Nahual (Toltec-Aztec-Pipil) intrusion After their first 'classical' period, and it was Never more than an occasional minor feature of their religious culture. Only the Aztecs took it to the extremes we always read about. (perhaps a reaction from their previous low standing among Mexica states, resented by most neighbouring groups)

I've Never heard of the kind of out-of-control butchery potrayed, as most Aboriginal warfare followed certain semi-ritualized codes of conduct (as the Aztecs did) not unlike other known warrior cultures. There was Never any sign of cannibalism in Mayan culture (and very little in others, despite all the primitive Christian folklore) except perhaps what incidents may have occured when famine hit.

I should add that their 'slash and burn' agricultural practices are generally considered more sophisticated and sustainable than most used now, they just lacked certain tools. They used a recycling 'chinampa' system, not unlike that used by the Mexican states, and much of the local jungle was in fact planted by their ancestors. Unfortunately it was no match for poor tropical soils, overpopulation (no reliable birth control back then remember) and recurring droughts. The original population boom could in a way be seen as a sign of their culture's initial success at limiting mortality, though no doubt their elite's grandiose building schemes also played a role in their eventual downfall.

If Gibson was trying to do a modern day parable about out of control societies he should have at least Researched the subject as none of this is exactly unknown, just controversial on a number of academic points. Their sophisticated writing and mathematical systems were quickly destroyed by fanatical Catholic priests and warlords, alas. Most of their decendents are now modest but peaceful farmers and artisans.

ETA: And the death rate of their two pre-Colombian collapses were probably lower than when the Conquistidores came to 'civilize' them. Man, we need a better education system. Do appeciate BCG and Eau seeing what was wrong with this, maybe it depends more on certain attitudes than education...


[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 15 December 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BCG, suggesting that the Mayans, among other cultures around the world, at one time practiced cannibalism does not make one a racist.
If you disagree with the statement or find the evidence for such a supposition lacking, that's fine but it doesn't give you the right to brow beat others with your pedestrian and insulting allegations of racism.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 15 December 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

yet nobody seems to be complaining about the absence of cannibalism in the film, even though it is an historical fact.

Oh, did I mis-read this? Are you definitively stating, rather than suggesting?

quote:
Originally posted by head:
but it doesn't give you the right to brow beat others with your pedestrian and insulting allegations of racism.

Aw, am I browbeating you, head? Browbeating you about the head? Raising my eyebrows in your headly general direction, head? Am I getting on your case, head?

head, sadly (for you anyways), you have a history on babble with some not-too-well-thought-out notions of what does and doesn't constitute racism. And then you go and defend a film such as Apocalypto. You ain't got the stuff, head, admit it.

"Pedestrian" enough? That's so footist and car-centric of you to say!


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 15 December 2006 11:42 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"The Aztecs were not the first Mesoamericans to sacrifice human beings. We know that the Toltec and the Maya engaged in the practice, and it is a reasonable inference that all steep-sided, flat-topped Mesoamerican pyramids were intended to serve as a stage for the spectacle in which human victims were fed to the gods. Nor was human sacrifice an invention of state-level religions. To judge from the evidence of band and village societies throughout the Americas and in many other parts of the world, human sacrifice long antedated the rise of state religions"

The excerpt is from "Cannibals and Kings" by Marvin Harris.

BCG, I am stating that the Mayans practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism at one time. I am not a racist, nor have I attacked any group in this forum ar any other on racial grounds so please go fuck yourself because this isn't the first time you've shaken your stick at someone with your overzealous and absolute opinions of what constitues racism and what doesn't.

What makes you think you have the right to make allegations like that against people you don't even know? Just who the hell moderates your virulent dictatorship over the entire discussion of racism?


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 15 December 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
head, pay attention: the passage you quoted above says the Toltec and Maya practiced human sacrifice, not cannibalism.

And the accusation of cannibalism has often been a result of racism, as this wiki article discusses:

quote:
William Arens, author of The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (New York : Oxford University Press, 1979; ISBN 0-19-502793-0), questions the credibility of reports of cannibalism and argues that the description by one group of people of another people as cannibals is a consistent and demonstrable ideological and rhetorical device to establish perceived cultural superiority...

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 15 December 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After the bodies were rolled down the pyramid steps the speculation is that they were often dismembered and eaten.
Regardless, stating that the Mayans practiced cannibalism is not a racist sentiment.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: head ]


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 15 December 2006 12:23 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...I'd say you've definitely morphed into a troll at this point, whether that's what you had in mind or not.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 15 December 2006 12:26 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When did defending yourself against character accusations become trolling? I stated my opinion on the film and have had to spend the rest of the time defending myself from BCG, which, incidentally, is a common occurence in the antiracism forums and everywhere else the topic of racism comes up under her hawkish digital presence.
From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Drinkmore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7371

posted 15 December 2006 12:46 PM      Profile for Drinkmore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't Gibson Opus Dei?
From: the oyster to the eagle, from the swine to the tiger | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 15 December 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by head:
When did defending yourself against character accusations become trolling? I stated my opinion on the film and have had to spend the rest of the time defending myself from BCG, which, incidentally, is a common occurence in the antiracism forums and everywhere else the topic of racism comes up under her hawkish digital presence.
There does come a point where one can drop the subject without conceding. I'd say you were there several posts ago.

Clearly you have an issue with BCG beyond the topic - and she may have one with you, too; but that's less clear.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 15 December 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by eau:
I have just finished reading a book about the Maya and the Mayan calendar. The Mayans and the Olmecs, who came before, were not as violent as the later Aztecs.

Let's hope Mel doesn't get wind of this, lest he get ideas.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"the speculation is that they were often dismembered and eaten."
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This Wiki bit looks to me like a fairly mainstream but modern view on the Aztecs, who are still generally considered to be the ones who took human sacrifice to the greatest extreme. (a practice that BTW was rare to unknown among Most other FN, including the high Andean civilizations, which prefered animal sacrifice except in times of crisis, and was of course practiced by Other old civilisations around the world -Christian ones traditionally prefering pogroms, inquisitions, witch and heretic burning and massacres of entire cities etc) *Also note that None of this is witnessed first hand by Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

Estimates of the scope of sacrifice

While Cortés and his men reported some gruesome stories of these sacrifices, none of them actually claimed to be a witness, as Cortés acknowledged.

For the reconsecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 84,400 prisoners over the course of four days [verification needed]. This report is hardly credible, not only because it would mean almost 15 sacrifices per minute for 24 hours a day, but also because the city of Tenochtitlan itself had an estimated population of only 80,000 to 120,000 in that time. The rate of 15 sacrifices a minute might have been possible if there had been a team of priests sacrificing the 84,400 but it's even less credible if we credit the report that Ahuitzotl performed the sacrifices himself. As a comparison, the Auschwitz concentration camp, working 24 hours a day with modern technology, approached but did not equal this pace: it executed about 19,200 a day at its peak.[citation needed]

Since the Aztecs reported the number of sacrifices themselves, they could have inflated the number as a propaganda tool, especially if, as they reported, Ahuitzotl sacrificed them personally.

Another figure used is from Bernal Díaz del Castillo, the Spanish soldier who wrote his account of the conquest 50 years after the fact. In the description of the tzompantli, a rack of skulls of the victims in the main temple, he reports to have counted about 100,000 skulls. However, that many skulls in a single line would have had a length of about 100 kilometers; even stacked in several rows, they could hardly fit in the reported 30 meters per side of space available in the tzompantli. Modern reconstructions account for about 600 to 1,200 skulls. Similarly, Díaz claimed there were 60,000 skulls in the tzompantli of Tlatelolco, which was as important as that of Tenochtitlan. According to William Arens in The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (1979, ISBN 0-19-502793-0), excavations by archeologists found 300 skulls.

According the Florentine Codex, 50 years before the conquest the Aztec had burnt the skulls of the former tzomplantli, because they were old. That would give 50 years to construct a new tzomplantli with the 1,200 skulls of the modern estimates [verification needed]. The skulls of the tzompantli were only from the war captives.

Michael Harner, in his article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice, quotes Cook and Borah as estimating number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year and claims that "Evidence of Aztec cannibalism has been largely ignored or consciously or unconsciously covered up."[3]

While popular accounts refer the Aztec had to perform a daily sacrifice so the sun would appear the next day, the sacrifices were made only in specific days. Bernardino de Sahagún, Juan Bautista de Pomar and Motolinía report that the Aztecs had 18 festivities each year, one for each Aztec month. Motolinía and Pomar clearly state that only in those festivities were sacrifices made. Each god required a different kind of victim: young women were drowned for Xilonen, sick male children were sacrificed to Tlaloc (Juan Carlos Román: 2004 Museo del templo mayor), Nahuatl-speaking prisoners to Huitzilopochtli, and an Aztec (or simply nahua, according to some accounts) volunteer for Tezcatlipoca. The Ramírez Codex states that for the annual festivity of Huitzilopochtli, more than 60 prisioners were sacrificed in the main temple, and prisoners were sacrificed also in the main Aztec cities.

Not all these sacrifices were made at the main temple; a few were made at "Cerro del Peñón", an islet of the Texcoco lake. According to an Aztec source, in the month of Tlacaxipehualiztli, 34 captives were sacrificed in the gladiatorial sacrifice, to Xipe Totec. A bigger figure would be dedicated to Huitzilopochtli in the month of Panquetzaliztli: according to the Ramírez Codex more than 60 captives were sacrificed. This could put a figure as low as 300 to 600 victims a year, but Marvin Harris multiplies it by 20, assuming that the same sacrifices were made in every one of the sections or calpullis of the city. There is little agreement on the actual figure since there is little archeological evidence so far to support any figure.

Providing prisoners for sacrifice was the main purpose of warriors, and every Aztec warrior would have had to provide at least one prisoner. Theoretically this should provide a base number of victims. But while all the male population was trained to be warriors, only the few who had successfully captured prisoners for sacrifice could became full-time members of the warrior elite. Those who could not would most likely have became macehualli, or workers. Accounts also state that several young warriors could unite their efforts in order to capture a single prisoner. This suggests that capturing prisoners for sacrifice was challenging.

Because of this modern estimates of the number sacrificed by the Aztec at the time of the conquest can vary from 300 people annually to 14,100 in a single event. The main source of discrepancy in this estimate is whether the sacrifices were only performed in the main temple of Tenochtitlan, in all twenty calpullis (precincts) of the city or in all Aztec cities.

[edit] Cannibalism

While there is universal agreement that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, there is a lack of scholarly consensus as to whether they also practiced cannibalism and, if so, to what extent. At one extreme, Materialist anthropologist Marvin Harris, who wrote about cannibalism in Our Kind and Cannibals and Kings has suggested that the flesh of the victims was a part of an aristocratic diet as a reward, since the Aztec diet was lacking in proteins. {bunkem sez I} According to him, the Aztec economy would have been unable to support feeding them as slaves, so the columns of prisoners were "marching meat". At the other extreme, William Arens doubts whether there was ever any systematic cannibalism.

While most historians of Mesoamerica believe that there was ritual cannibalism related to human sacrifices, they do not support Harris's thesis that human flesh was ever a significant portion of the Aztec diet. Noted Mesoamerican scholar Michael D. Coe states that while "it is incontrovertible that some of these [sacrifical] victims ended up by being eaten ritually, . . . the practice was more like a form of communion than a cannibal feast."[4]

There is little documentation of Aztec cannibalism. There are only five accounts of cannibalism from the date of the conquest, none of them particularly suggestive of widespread ritual cannibalism, and only one – the Ramirez codex – (equivocally) tying cannibalism to ritual sacrifice.

The five specific accounts of cannibalism are:

* Cortés wrote in one of his letters that his soldiers had captured an Aztec who had a roasted baby ready for breakfast.

* Francisco Lopez de Gómara reported that during the siege of Tenochtitlan, the Spaniards had asked the Aztecs to surrender since they had no food. The Aztecs answered, asking the Spaniards to try to attack, so they could be taken as prisoners, and then served with "molli" sauce.

* In the books of Bernardino de Sahagún, there is an illustration of an Aztec being cooked by an unknown tribe. This was reported as one of the dangers that Aztec traders faced.

* The Ramírez codex, written by an Aztec after the conquest using the Latin alphabet, reports that after the sacrifices the flesh from the hands of the victim were given as gift to the warrior who made the capture. According to the codex, this was supposedly eaten, but was in fact discarded and replaced with turkey.

* In his book Relación de Juan Bautista Pomar, Juan Bautista de Pomar states that after the sacrifice, the body of the victim was given to the warrior responsible for the capture. He would boil the body to be able to cut small pieces of meat, to be offered as gifts to important people in exchange for presents and slaves, but it was rarely eaten, since they considered it had no value; instead it was replaced by turkey, or just thrown away.

It is at least interesting that the one account by an Aztec and the account by a mestizo of supposed cannibalism following ritual sacrifice claims that the apparent cannibalism was a sham. This is congruent with Laurette Séjourné and Miguel León-Portilla's theory that the upper classes were aware that the religion created by Tlacaelel was something of a forgery.

In 2005, INAH reported that some of the bodies found under Mexico City's "Catedral Metropolitana", from the basement of Aztec temples, showed cut marks indicating the removal of muscles from the bones. Not all the bodies show this treatment.

In August 2006, near Calpulalpan, Mexico, Reuters reported that an analysis of the skeletons of 550 victims killed after* the conquest, indicate that some of the victims were dismembered, and that many bones showed knife and teeth marks and evidence of boiling.[5] {*me: from seige of Mexico?}

Despite this paucity of contemporary sources, accounts of the Aztec Empire as a "Cannibal Kingdom" (Marvin Harris's expression) have been commonplace, from Bernal Díaz to Harris, William H. Prescott, and Michael Harner. Harner has accused his colleagues – especially those in Mexico – of diminishing or hiding evidence of Aztec cannibalism. The question, of course, is whether such evidence exists to be hidden. Even Díaz (who participated as a soldier in the conquest of Mexico) does not claim to have been an eyewitness to cannibalism. It is possible that Aztec cannibalism was simply a blood libel by the victorious Spanish.

Dominican priest Diego Durán's Historia de las Indias de Nueva España y islas de tierra firme, while clearly a useful source of information (he had access to the survivors of Tenochtitlan), must be doubted on the subject of human sacrifice. Apparently combining a blood libel against the Aztecs with that against the Jews, he argued that the Aztecs were one of the lost tribes of Israel, and adduced human sacrifice and cannibalism as part of his evidence. [1]

Pretty skimpy and questionable IMO, but Head may be correct in so far as certain body parts may have been consumed afterword at times by some Aztec priests. Still disputed for lack of solid consistent evidence, but the lurid possibility rarely fails to get mentioned. Either way, hardly widespread practice of people being routinely tossed into boiling pots by natives with bones in their noses, as old thrillers typically depicted and still being evoked apparently. (There are NO first hand accounts of the almost extinct Island Caribs practicing cannibalism themselves, despite being the lucky ones the word was first based on) It appears that most, except war prisoners, were ritually honoured beforehand and went willingly. And even war prisoners took part in semi-ritual "wars of flowers" where captives from every nation were taken for sacrifice. Ugly practice, but again, not as usually described.

Mayan religion and pyramids had many facets that rarely get as much attention -ceremonial ball games, dances, healing rituals, induction of visions, perhaps the observation of the heavens from their pyramids (not so commonly considered as with Near Eastern ones) communal feasts of Agricultural produce, etc. The most common form of "sacrifice" mentioned involved ceremonially drawing ones own blood as an offering, then burnt to produce visions -the higher ones' rank the more would be expected. (very self correcting limit IMO) Mayan "classical" civilization of course had already fallen and been overgrown centuries Before the Spanish arrived, though a few city states in the Yucaten north survived. A few features like ritual sacrifice (associated with Quetzecoatl-Kulkulkan cult) is commonly believed to have arrived from the North, probably from known Nahual incursions, but perhaps somewhat earlier than I said in the later "classical" period. My mistake there.

ETA: And it's commonly believed now that most of the victims were heavily drugged beforehand and killed as quickly as possible -to do otherwise might put the Priest's Own neck at risk and disrupt the all important ceremony. Ugly like I said, but arguably no more so than the barbaric practices of other warrior theocracies of old.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And this kind of historical 'revisionism', which Always focuses so Eagerly on the less savory aspects of pre-scientific Aboriginal cultures has become, I notice, quite the trend. I've been reading Jared Diamond's earlier "Third Chimpanzee" and I notice a more openly chauvinistic stance being taken.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/JaredDiamond2.htm

"It strikes me that the only lesson one can draw from such an obscure and atypical case study is that it is a mistake to live in such inhospitable conditions in the first place. Of course, there were other islands that were much more endowed with natural resources but that also collapsed. I speak of course of the Caribbean Islands that were a virtual Garden of Eden for its inhabitants. That Christopher Columbus and other such figures helped them to collapse is of not much interest to Jared Diamond, although he will take up the fate of 19th century Haiti in part three. Although I have not gotten to that chapter yet, I have a keen sense that he will get that story wrong as well."

This is relevant to this I think because the scientific community spends the lions share of its time denigrating other cultures still while trying not to Look like theyre biased, overlooking the piss poor record of technological societies in preserving the essentials of life Or keeping the peace. (one of Stephen Pinker's little suburban myths) Much of what they say is still true IMO, but they all suffer from extremely skewed sampling in what they focus on and what they Don't, as well as maintaining via subtext the "liberal" mythology that naturally Every society would want to take the next 'leap forward' if Only they had the chance. I still respect much of what he says, but since he's constantly being evoked now to Downplay well known and completely Unnecessary genocides of more 'primitive' peoples (technologically) as an almost Universal (therefore Natural) course of events, I think this should be noted as well.

(and Diamond looks more and more likely to be wrong about the first "Americans" colonizing the Americas a "mere" eleven thousand years ago, conveniently timed to be blamed for the extinction of Some mega-fauna. In Any bigger picture they did a Much better job of preservation than We've accomplished in a Much shorter period of time. They preceeded these early extinctions by Thousands of Years too and therefore CanNot be simply Blamed for what happened when the Ice-age ended and the environment changed, to the detriment of native species -elsewhere as well as the 'New' world. Indigeous island populations -like Easter Island or Madagascar-have always been understood to be more fragile. Rats are now considered to be the Main culprits in many of these previous extinctions, with modern technology causing Worse damage now in rare gems like Madagascar, as the likes of Diamond scarcely mentions and Never properly considers)

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 15 December 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by head:
When did defending yourself against character accusations become trolling? I stated my opinion on the film and have had to spend the rest of the time defending myself from BCG, which, incidentally, is a common occurence in the antiracism forums and everywhere else the topic of racism comes up under her hawkish digital presence.

I am quite amazed at how this has played out. A moderator has made a spurious accusation against you, immediately demanded an apology, and then proceeded to mock your responses.

Others, shamefully, have proceeded to condem you for your attempts to defend yourself - A task which you've embraced with both civility and patience.

It appears that to some, the right to make spurious accusations of racism trumps both the onus of burden of proof, and the right to defence.

It's all a ridiculous salemesque cliche.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 04:27 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh boohoo, Heads recorded opinions on Aboriginal people are already quite well known here, unlike certain aspects of old Mayan culture. I hope you can now see for yourself that Marvin Harris isn't exactly considered cutting edge historical scholarship anymore.

Pardon moi, I meant Head not you.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 15 December 2006 04:49 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Oh boohoo, Heads recorded opinions on Aboriginal people are already quite well known here, unlike certain aspects of old Mayan culture. I hope you can now see for yourself that Marvin Harris isn't exactly considered cutting edge historical scholarship anymore.

I can't speak to any history between you folks, I've found his posts in this thread to be civil and well intentioned.

If he's not up to snuff on the latest anthropology, it should be sufficient to say: "hey, head buddy, that Mayan Cannibalism thing has been disproven.. Check out these links...".

Instead of a heavy handed rush to judgement such as "You're a racist!! Apologize!!"


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 05:03 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's a long history of him stirring things up Re Aboriginal peoples here, believe me, but next time I should perhaps be a bit more careful of my own words too. "Head" also has a history of going after BCG for 'reverse racism' -one of the most common themes on Babble's Anti-racist and Aboriginal forums until recently. Invoking 'cannibalism' in particular is a common accusation used to attack other supposedly more 'primitive' cultures and to justify the imposition of Ours. One that's been vastly exaggerated historically -except that is when it's occured in our own cultures. If Head himself wants any sort of an apology or forgiveness he can First back down a bit from his own uncalled for assertions. I won't be holding my breath tho, sorry.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 15 December 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If head is not up to snuff on his latest anthropology, he should not be accusing the Mayans of cannibalism as "an historical fact." He should be talking about the movie, and address the concerns made by Aboriginal posters and critics as to why they might be offended about this movie, rather than lauding Mel "Sugartits" Gibson for not being more anti-Aboriginal in his movie by condescending to exclude the "well-documented" sources (all by Spaniards, mark) of Mayan cannibalism.

Otherwise, he's going to get called on his racist bullshit.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 15 December 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
This is from a blog called "NativeVue":

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most repulsive aspect of the film is that the Maya are "saved" from their self-inflicted "apocalypse" through the arrival of Christians —

Link to blog here


Big City Gal,

I find that to be a very odd interpretation, not reflective of the film I saw. There was no suggestion that the arrival of whitey was good for the Maya, other than the protagonist who used the arrival to shed his pursuers. To the contrary, the audience was left with the feeling that the Maya were about to be *really* screwed. Far from being a suggestion of salvation, it was a particularly sad moment in the film (among many sad moments).

If you havn't seen the film yet, I do recommend you see it. It's not a pleasant movie, but it would be interesting to hear your own thoughts on it.


(In case you find racism lurking in my message somewhere, and I apologize in advance for it.)


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 05:34 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I might check it out myself when I can. I have a feeling though that, whatever his intentions, Gibson will again focus more on the gore than historical accuracy. Least he admits he made it up as he went along this time, that's something.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 15 December 2006 05:58 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
If head is not up to snuff on his latest anthropology, he should not be accusing the Mayans of cannibalism as "an historical fact."

Fair enough. Head should probably have done his own due diligence before reasserting his claim as fact. That been said, the initial responses to his claim were over the top, he has every right to take exception.


quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:

He should be talking about the movie, and address the concerns made by Aboriginal posters and critics as to why they might be offended about this movie

Although head should be required to substantiate his own points, I don't see how he should also be addressing other's concerns. Perhaps the concerns raised by aboriginal critics are better directed to Mel Gibson.

I had the good fortune to go see Apocaly[pt|s]o with a bona fide Mayan-Canadian. Apart from being disturbed by the violence, they took no issue with the movie. Far from seeing the european's arrival as salvation, they saw it as the fullfillment of Mayan prophecies of doom.

Intellectuals, academics, and pundits can dissect this movie for traces of racism, but the irony is that this movie will do more for the Maya than most of them ever have. Already, it has caused a massive resurgence in interest in Mayan culture, and with that, an awareness of challenges facing modern Maya in central America.

That's far better than anyone could have hoped for.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 15 December 2006 06:03 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
I might check it out myself when I can. I have a feeling though that, whatever his intentions, Gibson will again focus more on the gore than historical accuracy.

Why do you hold Mel's film to the same standard of accuracy as one would a documentary?


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That remains to be seen. I have to doubt that remaining Mayan cultures will enjoy any sort of renaissance, or that the average Mayan peon will start getting paid anymore for their coffee crops, as a result of this. I also worry if this will only further ingrain many of the traditional sterotypes.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 December 2006 06:11 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

Why do you hold Mel's film to the same standard of accuracy as one would a documentary?


I don't believe its too much for Hollywood to join the rest of the modern world and produce at least a halfway accurate if not halfway positive portrayal of 'exotic' cultures. With their multi-million dollar budgets they could easily research a few of the facts and theories, for a change, with lots of room left for creative license.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 15 December 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
No, it's Apocalypto.

oops


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 15 December 2006 06:40 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Erik: Holy cannoli, thanks for those thorough and incredibly informative posts. I'm so glad you're back, dude!

Catchfire, Lard Tunderin, Contrarian, thanks for the facts and support. I'm taking a page from the recent Elizabeth May experience (TM) and holding the line. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Anyone spouting classic mainstream racism will be called on it, from my high and lofty hawkish perch. Caww caww, er, whatever.

And, Legless?

quote:
I had the good fortune to go see Apocaly[pt|s]o with a bona fide Mayan-Canadian.
. Wow! That's SOkewl! Are they your best friend too? Bona fide? Jeez frikkin Louise.

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 December 2006 07:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by head:
What makes you think you have the right to make allegations like that against people you don't even know? Just who the hell moderates your virulent dictatorship over the entire discussion of racism?

Well, I guess that would be me. And if you continue to tell our volunteers to "fuck off", you're taking a hike. bcg's right - this isn't the first time you've been called on saying offensive stuff on babble. Okay, so you didn't know that attributing cannibalism to indigenous people is incorrect. bcg is here to step in when people, whether consciously or unconsciously, say something that is racist, or perpetuates a racist stereotype or misinformation, even if the person didn't realize that's what they were doing. If you feel threatened when you're called on something like that, then perhaps what you should think is, "Hmm, when it comes to Maya civilization, maybe I don't know all that much except for a bit of folk wisdom about how they were a bunch of cannibals - and people who know more than I do about it are offended at something I said about it out of ignorance. Maybe I made a faux pas without realizing it, and maybe the whole "cannibal savages" image our society has taught us to think about when we think of indigenous people from the Americas is not correct!"

I don't know that much (certainly not nearly enough) about indigenous civilizations, whether historically or now. Actually, I'm embarrassed to say that I've always figured the cannibalism stereotype was probably rooted somewhere in historical occurrences too. But hey, I just learned something new today from bcg, who is a fabulous resource on this sort of thing. Which is why I asked her to take on this volunteer work with rabble, which is pretty white-male dominated, and which could use some anti-racist analysis, even if it threatens some of us well-meaning-I-could-never-be-racist white folks (me included).


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lisahontas
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13669

posted 15 December 2006 10:18 PM      Profile for Lisahontas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a person with Mayan roots, I can say that I absolutely DID NOT see how this film was
racist. I grew up reading as much as I could about my heritage and was lucky enough to
visit Copan in Honduras and Tazumal in El Salvador. A truly magical experience. To me, Mel Gibson brought to life all the beauty of what I saw many years ago. Was brutality part of Mayan civilization? Yes, but also the bonds of family, of community and the strong relationship with the land. In our politically correct and hair-trigger times, we're ashamed of our dark histories despite the fact that they form the base for who we are now. This movie did not portray the Maya as barbaric, it is our Western perspective that judges them as such.

In regards to how the movie ends, I saw it more as an ominous end that allows Jaguar Paw to escape (for how long we don't know). He also seems to know that his destiny is NOT to follow the white man, but to return to his forest. I definitely don't think that the Europeans were portrayed as rescuers but as a more dangerous enemy than Jaguar Paw had ever encountered.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 15 December 2006 10:23 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
the irony is that this movie will do more for the Maya than most of them ever have.

And this, in a nut shell, is why we should thank our White gods' asses that we have bcg here. Legless-Marine, do you have any idea what's wrong with this statement? Maybe you want to defend head, that's fine, but context is everything, and head has a habit (as this trhead shows) of saying ignorant, racist things, being told that he has just said an ignorant, racist thing, and then refusing to apologize for it, or worse, asserting his right to say ignorant, racist things despite what POC think. (God, is there a lot of that shit going on these days, or what?)

Maybe you want to defend Mel Gibson's movie. Go ahead. I haven't seen Calypso. I think that everything he's touched since Lethal Weapon has sucked, but that's my opinion. I happen to know, however, that whenever Whitey tries to write Indigenous history, which he has a habit of doing IN EVERYTHING HE DOES, he gets it wrong. So, when Indigenous critics and scholars start saying maybe we shoulc consider Calypso in a different light, I listen. I know some bona fide Indians too, and some of them liked Braveheart. I try not to hold that against her.

So, when you spout lines like the one above, suggesting that Mayans should thank Jesus for Gibson's decision to misread their history for some PR, you demonstrate that you've got it all wrong. See, this movie [i[will[/i] do more for the Mayans, but unfortunately, it won't be the Mayans who are doing it, so we'll get yet another colonizer narrative impressed upon the colonized that will always tell us more about the colonizer. I don't know about you, but I've had just about enough of what Whitey thinks, and might be interested in a few other things. That's why it matters who's playing the Mayans, who's writing the history, and who's picking the audience. Head over to the Aboriginal Issues forum and read a few threads, and you might start to get an inkling about the frustration Aboriginal peoples across the planet feel.

If nothing else, just think what it would feel like to find out that the only person interested in telling your story was Mel "Sugartits" Gibson. I can think of nothing more depressing.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 15 December 2006 10:28 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
head, pay attention: the passage you quoted above says the Toltec and Maya practiced human sacrifice, not cannibalism.

And the accusation of cannibalism has often been a result of racism, as this wiki article discusses:


And from the same article:

quote:

Aren's findings are controversial, and his argument is often mischaracterized as "cannibals don't and never did exist," when in the end the book is actually a call for a more responsible and reflexive approach to anthropological research. At any rate, the book ushered in an era of rigorous combing of the cannibalism literature. By Aren's later admission, some cannibalism claims came up short, others were reinforced.

What's with all the hatin' on the Cannibals?

We should be accurate in our claims as to who is and isn't into "Long Pork", but it seems dishonest to pretend that some indigenous people didn't practice it.

Rather than receiving a heavy handed demand for an apology, I'd be interested in hearing some of the more englightenened members of this forum explain how this is racism.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lisahontas
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13669

posted 15 December 2006 10:29 PM      Profile for Lisahontas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BTW, many of the actors were Mayans...
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 15 December 2006 11:23 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Legless, we are talking specifically about the Mayans. Can you find anywhere in that article a statement that Mayans were cannibals? It says Aztecs may have had ritual cannibalism, though apparently they preferred turkey. Do you understand the difference between Mayans and Aztecs?

The section I linked to has the title ""Cannibalism" as cultural libel". Did you not understand that is was talking about how accusations of cannibalism are often based on racism?

quote:
...Arens bases his thesis on a detailed analysis of numerous "classic" cases of cultural cannibalism cited by explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists. His findings were that many were steeped in racism, unsubstantiated, or based on second-hand or hearsay evidence...

...At any rate, the book ushered in an era of rigorous combing of the cannibalism literature. By Aren's later admission, some cannibalism claims came up short, others were reinforced...


As for your statement

quote:
We should be accurate in our claims as to who is and isn't into "Long Pork", but it seems dishonest to pretend that some indigenous people didn't practice it.
If you read "Historical Accounts" in that article you will see that cannibalism has been practiced by Crusaders (European, presumably), Americans, Dutch, French, English, Asians, Africans, etc.

So it's not just them, it's not just those "indigenous" people, the ones with brown skin, it's all of us.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 16 December 2006 05:36 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's with all the hatin' on the Cannibals?
On the contrary, I find we're rather open to the topic. It's discussed openly here.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 16 December 2006 07:08 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
why we should thank our White gods' asses that we have bcg here

Aw, shucks, Catchfire! You old sweet-talker, you! (insert blushing icon here) Altho I could do without the image of Jesus' hairy ass, thank you very much.

As for the cannibal hate-on, some of my best friends eat each other, I mean......

Har Har!


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 16 December 2006 10:50 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Erik, if you're going to insinuate that I have made racist comments anywhere on this board, then kindly provide the evidence.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: head ]


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 16 December 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No one is insinuating anything head, we're all unequivocally stating it. And you don't have to look any further than this thread to find racism.

But, just as a trip down memory lane:

quote:
For an anti-racism forum there sure is a lot of labelling and segregating going on. Have your DNA swab handy before posting.

quote:
Ice T made his way to the Hollywood Hills on album after album of hatred and racism. He even got a role on a police drama, which is rather amusing considering his vocal ideas on killing cops.
Racism is ugly, regardless of its source. Yet nobody bats an eye before using the term 'redneck', while they speak in hushed tones when the "n" word sneaks into a conversation.

Let these posts stand as legacy to your tireless committment to defending the White Man from racism.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 16 December 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Human sacrifice

The Maya practised human sacrifice during religious ceremonies. They believed that, because the gods had given them life, humans owed the gods a debt that could only be repaid by killing other human beings. Sacrifice was also one way of repaying the death god for stealing life from him.

Cannibalism

Cannibalism was not uncommon among the Maya. The eating of human flesh by ancient and indigenous peoples is a controversial subject, in part because some European invaders spread reports of cannibalism as propaganda to justify their conquests. However, archaeological evidence of butchery marks on bones found in household refuse suggests that the practice did exist among the Maya. During religious ceremonies, they may have consumed human hearts, flesh and blood as a form of communion."


article link


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 16 December 2006 11:37 AM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by head:

BCG, I am stating that the Mayans practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism at one time.

...

What makes you think you have the right to make allegations like that against people you don't even know?


indeed


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 16 December 2006 11:44 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Catchfire, those statements are not racist. They are not a defense for racism either. You read in to them in the exact same manner that you assume I'm white.
The contention was that racism is an occurence that can be found in all cultures and as such, should be dealt with as a world-wide phenomenon instead of a finger-pointing fest by presumptious activists out to slay the ghost of colonial racism by conducting character assassination on others who question the validity of racism as an exclusively Western European construct/condition.
You might disagree with this point of view, as it is your right to do so, but you do not have the right to scream racist or any other epithet based solely on your assumptions about individuals you don't know.

As it stands, I feel that my ability to respond to attacks by you and BCG is hampered because it feels as though I am the only one being moderated by the moderators while offensive louts as yourself, are permitted to flog the board with personal attacks and accusations which are not based on solid fact freely, unmoderated, unembarassed and with a vile absolutism of what is right and what isn't.


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 16 December 2006 11:49 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 16 December 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First of all, no one is "screaming" anything. We are quoting you and pointing out your eurocentric views. "Reverse-Racism" does not exist. If your starting to feel isolated because everyone on this board seems to think you express racist views, perhaps that's a sign that you should revisit your assumptions, rather than appeal to the persecution defence.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 16 December 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is supposed to be a thread about a movie! It is not a poor me everyone's ganging up on me thread about head. Head, to put it charitably, you have a paradigm on racism that is somewhat underevolved. Others, most recently Catchfire, have pointed this out to you. (that's ok, I know you thank them in your heart) So get over yourself.

If this thread doesn't get back on track, and continues as it is, I'll either close it, suspend head for keeping things derailed with his defensiveness, or some combination thereof.

God I love using that word..."paradigm!" It just makes me feel sort of all "gravitas", ya know?


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 16 December 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should revisit my assumptions to be in perfect compliance with your opinions, without discussion or debate, but simply because your position is infallible, superior and absolutely correct..... I don't think so.
In a discussion it does not follow that all parties should agree, but that they might come together in a consensus of mutual understanding, and not be verbally threatened, attacked abused or forced to comply by means of character attacks and witch-hunt behaviour by those in compliance against those who disagree.

Old Goat, thanks for stepping in. It's not as if the thread was derailed yesterday by the usual attacks of racism and demands for apologies. How timely of you.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: head ]


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 16 December 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
jeeze, and you were doin' so good until the "I don't think so" part. But anyway, you're welcome.

Moving along though, I plan on seeing the film in the next couple of weeks. I'd like to see it with my son who's taking Cinema Study at U of T, and enjoys waving around the odd opinion. Sometimes it's important to seperate the craft from the crafter. I've not a lot of use for Mel Gibson, but he can certainly wrest spectacular things from a camera. Kind of like Roman Polanski I guess, who on a personal level is a bit creepy, but paints with a magnificent cinemagraphic brush.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2006 12:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by head:
After the bodies were rolled down the pyramid steps the speculation is that they were often dismembered and eaten.
Regardless, stating that the Mayans practiced cannibalism is not a racist sentiment.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: head ]



I thought that the speculation was that once the victims were rolled down the side of the pyramid, the sun was sure to rise the next day... or was it all year round....

In anycase, when one starts hearing about "speculation" it is a good idea to think about who, first, is doing the speculation. Do you think that the primitive superstisions about other peoples from pre-civilized European explorers in the "New World" might have anything to do with the nature of the speculations that they have handed down, given that precious little was left of the civilizations they encountered, and everything we have today to go on is either archaelogical or myths filtered down through European folklore?

This is not to say that Mayans did not sacrfiice people, but simply to caution you about "speculations." Now, here is a specuiative picture of a sea monster eating a ship produced by pre-civilized Europeans:


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2006 12:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1562
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 16 December 2006 01:50 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought Mel Gibson's speculation on how Jet Li managed to disemble Martin Riggs's pistol with his bare hands in Lethal Weapon 4 was amazing.

That and the speculation of Riggs finding a shotgun randomly floating in the ocean so that he could blast Li wth whom he was locked in a life and death underwater struggle.

Any other speculations on the part of Mel I find rather distasteful.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 16 December 2006 03:04 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
No one is insinuating anything head, we're all unequivocally stating it. And you don't have to look any further than this thread to find racism.

But, just as a trip down memory lane:

Let these posts stand as legacy to your tireless committment to defending the White Man from racism.


We've fallen on hard times when defence of a particular ethnic group can be misconstrued as racism.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 16 December 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Legless, we are talking specifically about the Mayans. Can you find anywhere in that article a statement that Mayans were cannibals? It says Aztecs may have had ritual cannibalism, though apparently they preferred turkey. Do you understand the difference between Mayans and Aztecs?

You have mistaken me for someone else. I have made no claim that Mayans engage in Cannibalism.


quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:

The section I linked to has the title ""Cannibalism" as cultural libel". Did you not understand that is was talking about how accusations of cannibalism are often based on racism? If you read "Historical Accounts" in that article you will see that cannibalism has been practiced by Crusaders (European, presumably), Americans, Dutch, French, English, Asians, Africans, etc.

It's clear this phenomenon exists. I do not deny it does. Just because it exists does not justify spurious and facile attributions of racism to people who believe group "X" engaged in cannibalism.

quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:

So it's not just them, it's not just those "indigenous" people, the ones with brown skin, it's all of us.

I've not claimed otherwise.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2006 05:42 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've told you before that Head has never said a good word about aboriginals or shown any interest in anything but making out like the white majority is somehow the victim here. It would be easier to just ask him to give one or two examples when hes ever shown any compassion or understanding for the victims of well recorded Euro-American colonialism than come up with all the examples of his insufferable contempt and ignorance. My white brothers and I can suffer from many things too, including class barriers -noone ever said we Couldn't- but when it comes to racism in this here 'Turtle Island' we are Not the prtimary targets and never Have been. Just like we're not the main victims of gender oppression.

Unfortunately the anti-racism and Aboriginal sections of Babble in Particular have traditionally been overrun by white guys (and a few no doubt comfortable white women) trying to make it out like They are the Real victims Here --of -of 'politically correctness' run Amok -Ya, That's IT, That's the issue that Needs to be revisited every second thread! And though some of us have Tried to explain the different and subtler definitions of 'racism' in society on a whole NUmber of occasions, most white guys visiting flat Refuse to even Address the not so subtle differences between say, a Chinese guy being rude to a white customer and a white guy making laws with the Full consent of the Majority which made it impossible for their family to emigrate twenty years after they did. But we've come a long ways now right? I don't think so anymore now, no. Thats one difference of opinion I've had to concede myself, largely as a result of what I've seen here. Hey, maybe it Has been educational!

If you think I'm exaggerating go through the old Babble files and you'll see that almost one Half of threads posted earlier were hijacked this way, and most of the Rest dealing with Direct and incontravertable instances of Present day racism or injustice are basically Ignored by my supposed concerned blood brothers. If however you can't see for yourself why Others got fed up with it yourself then I give up too. I'm Not going to bother arguing over A, B and C yet again either.

Head, once again, has played a large role in this and continues to refuse to either listen, learn or modify his position, or even just let it Be. In this thread he once Again made a totally gratuitous statement into what should have been a light thread on Gibson's Hollywood fables and foibles, and, despite a great Deal of effort to Address the issue, in what I thought were perfectly Rational and realistic terms, he Still insists "Mayans were Cannibals". So once again, the slim Possibility of it is now seen as some sort of Proof hardly needing defending, this despite all the examples given where it was clearly pointed out that human sacrifice was Vastly exaggerated for political purposes, had No known reliable eye witness, and as yet no Physical evidence other than the odd cut and Possibly gnawedc on bone which is Not Proof of "Widespread Practice of Cannibalism", which is what calling people Cannibals Means.

Christ, I get tired of writing long posts, filled with careful qualifiers to avoid these misconceptions and extras just to add some Context, then have it draggwed down again to simple Yes or No. Maybe if Head had backed off at Any point he might have gotten brownie points for the fact that yes, maybe He Could have just made a mistake from the piss poor quality of information thats still widely regurgitated out there, but no, he's personally Offended now. Well IMo tough. And if the reaction Still seems excessive to you newcomers then ask yourself if any movie which shows an insulting, stereotypical and Inaccurate level of Violence among European Cultures would be defended by, I dunno, some bright bulb saying that "hey it Didn't show our hill-billy like penchant for marrying our sisters"! Would you not take That as gross stereotype not just of Europeans but even of Most poor uneducated hillbillies? I would.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And this is one 'discussion' I almost hope my long and winding posts have killed.

And BCG, I'd ask you to marry me too, but I noticed youve already been asked a few times before and not sure if I could take anymore rejection right now....


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 16 December 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The archaelogical evidence, the gnawed bones that you mentioned, are the evidence that cannibalism was practiced. When I mentioned that cannibalism was practiced by the Maya, it was in response to a post about how racist and historically inaccurate the film is. I was simply saying that I don't feel the movie was racist and if anyone was to complain about historical inaccuracies purposely set forth by the director, then that little tid bit about gnawed bones, and how they got to be that way, should be included.

It's not so much that your threads are hijacked, but that you are so intolerant of any type of dissent on matters that are important to you. You gang up on the occasional voice of dissent and that individual ends up being banned for absolutely no good reason, eg, Navigator.
If you feel somebody simply doesn't grasp your position, maybe you can try stating it differently, or you can ignore them. Instead there's an instant gang-up of like minded, older posters, virulently attacking and calling for bans. It makes for an incestuous pool of ideas when differing opinions, even if distasteful to you, are threatened into silence from fear of the labelling stigmas of racism that are sometimes flounted here so easily.

If you prefer, plese replace the word cannibalism with 'communion of human flesh', if it makes you feel better.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: head ]


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bullcrap, there are plenty of differences of opinion here if you cared to look past the obvious fact most of us regulars aren't rightwing wingnuts (though I'm beginning to wonder about that now too) and onething anyone whos read your contributions can easily deduce is your scarcely covered contempt for Aboriginal peoples and cultures and rights to some redress. Yes, Rights. Radical! And here you are dumbifying this 'issue' of 'Mayan cannibalism' again too, what a surprise!

You want to carry on acting like Youre the big victim here, as per usual, then come up with one - no make it Two (just sos we know it wasn't a fluke) statements youve Ever made Before in sympathy to Aboriginal people, their aspirations, and the very real problems they still face.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2006 06:24 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll believe it when I see it.

But I'm not bothering digging around anymore for anymore REal information that'll probably just be ignored or misinterpretted again anyhow.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 16 December 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My contempt for Aboriginals?
Where are you getting all this from? Is it like the last thread you brought up?
Whatever...you win. Mel Gibson is a racist, now freshly out to attack the Mayans after his recent failure to convince the world that the Jews are responsible for all wars.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2006 06:32 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No no, youre still insist that We're being Unfair here? You show me One post youve ever made Here which was genuinely sympathetic to Aboriginals, or if uyou like Any ethnic minority you don't happen to be a member of. Just one. Saying you are doesn't count.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2006 07:23 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And since I'm not holding my breath, here are some reviews on it. Looks about the level I expect, not a word on what must have been Some positive features of even a decaying civilization, mostly just lots of gratuitous violence. Mel strikes again.

http://movies.about.com/od/apocalypto/fr/apocalypto1206.htm

http://worldfilm.about.com/od/titlesaz/fr/apocalypto.htm

http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=8869


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2006 09:48 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm still trying to find some hard evidence for Mayan cannibalism, widespread practice or just occasional nibblies, but meantime I bumped into These edifying adventures in post-Gibsonian Free Republic. Every frikkin one of the posts reeks of racism and ignorance, even the ones who fancy themselves 'experts' or 'sympathic' liberals. Guess the Mayans really can thank Gibson now for helping them get more attention.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1749137/posts

ETA: Sorry, the anal obsessive academics have apparently refused reentry to the second more insightful one I found. Shame.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 17 December 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Article by a cultural anthropologistpointing out some of the racist messages in the movie:
quote:
...2. Mesoamerican cultures are all the same. While keeping some of the archaeological details accurate for "authenticity," Gibson then jumbles together mass Aztec sacrifices with Maya rituals, as if they were the same. Certainly at the height of classic Maya civilization, the ruling classes made occasional human sacrifices to their gods, but nothing on the Holocaust-level scale that Gibson portrays in Apocalypto with fields of rotting, decapitated corpses that his hero, Jaguar Paw stumbles across as he attempts to escape his own execution in the city. With the advice of archaeologist Richard Hansen, Gibson seems to have researched anything the Maya might have done badly over a thousand year history and crammed it all into a few horrific days...

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 17 December 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good article Contrarian, thanx; gets to the heart of it much quicker than I usually do. I particularly liked This bit:

2. Mesoamerican cultures are all the same. While keeping some of the archaeological details accurate for "authenticity," Gibson then jumbles together mass Aztec sacrifices with Maya rituals, as if they were the same. Certainly at the height of classic Maya civilization, the ruling classes made occasional human sacrifices to their gods, but nothing on the Holocaust-level scale that Gibson portrays in Apocalypto with fields of rotting, decapitated corpses that his hero, Jaguar Paw stumbles across as he attempts to escape his own execution in the city. With the advice of archaeologist Richard Hansen, Gibson seems to have researched anything the Maya might have done badly over a thousand year history and crammed it all into a few horrific days. How would the gringos look if we made a film that lumped together within one week the torture at the Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo prisons, the Tuskegee experiments, KKK lynchings, the battle at Wounded Knee, Japanese internment camps, the Trail of Tears, the Salem witch hunts, Texas death row executions, the Rodney King police beatings, the slaughter upon the Gettysburg battlefield, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and made this look like a definitive statement on U.S. culture?"


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 18 December 2006 07:58 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's another view.
quote:
...I hate it. I despise it. I think it's despicable. It's offensive to Maya people. It's offensive to those of us who try to teach cultural sensitivity and alternative world views that might not match our own 21st-century Western ones but are nonetheless valid...

Erik, you're good at digging up information; if you can't find a reputable source that says the Mayans practiced cannibalism, then maybe they didn't.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 21 December 2006 10:17 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And thanks again, but youve researched far more subjects here than I have. I really can't find any substantial evidence for it, so maybe that Is all it is.

Most of what little I found just links to others which repeat the claim without question -a couple suggestive pictographs, a few apparently knawed on bones, not much for a supposedly common rite. The bone diggers just Love finding such things in exotic cultures tho, extrapolating all Over the place from the most meager data. Gets guaranteed headlines I guess.

I'll post onemore which takes apart the still cited Marvin Harris theory on high Aztecs eating others for extra calories but have to find the right link again. Here's another statement which tries to 'balance' out the bad reviews, complete with the usual conservative commentary insisting in all ignorance that it was All of course True -Injuns bein Injuns n'all - only the PC lot deny it Now....

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/12/new_gibson_movi.php

[ 21 December 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 24 December 2006 06:55 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
National Geographic article discusses several points:
quote:
...In Apocalypto, the hero, Jaguar Paw, lives in an idyllic hunting village set deep in the jungle. Would this have been typical?

During Classic times the Maya were an agricultural people. They hunted, but wild game was a relatively small percentage of the diet, and meat in general may have been seen as more of a luxury item.

At that time, it appears that almost all the forest was maintained, manicured, and owned by somebody, and [the fact] that you have a Maya group [in Apocalypto] that doesn't practice agriculture is virtually impossible...



From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 December 2006 10:28 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apocalypto: The Cinematic Logic of Genocide
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 30 December 2006 12:19 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's irritating that Gibson's historical inaccuracies in the film are used as a sort of litmus paper test for his personal views. This isn't the first or second time that he has pitted the good against a seemingly pure evil.
He did the same thing in Braveheart, setting the hero up against unbelievable and unrelenting evil on the part of the English. Nobody rushed out of the movie screaming bloody racism because anything English was portrayed as barbaric.

In case you forget, it's not the only historically inaccurate film that has hit the theatres. Gladiator portrayed the Germanic tribes as savages being put to the sword under the 'civilizing' power of the Romans.
Troy as well as the TV movie of Jason and the Argonauts also portrayed extremely skewed versions of the cultures involved but few seemed to bat an eye. Not to mention the Da Vinci Code; this movie discredited an entire faith and its adherents. Of course, they are a favoured target at the moment so if someone spoke up in defense they were simply branded as right wing neo-con, Bible thumpers because the movie after all, was only an adaptation of a piece of fiction, just simple entertainment.

Before anyone hops on their reverse racism tricycle and putters out the usual arguments, consider the lack of objectivity in criticizing one film over another based on their own personal views of the director. Mel Gibson can do nothing right at the moment and that's what makes it a witch hunt. Ridley can wave off the Germanic tribes as savage, grunting and odious forest dwellers, Troy turns the Greeks into savage conquistadors of the ancient world with little regard to the literary work that inspired the film in the first place.

Not to mention the martial arts movies that seem to say that all that comes out of China is guys that do the splits, walk on nails, and run around butchering each other on crowded streets for largely insignificant reasons.

If the concern is truly racism and we are trying to protect ourselves from negative stereotypes then shouldn't the criticism extend beyond the favourite victims that we use as fodder on a daily basis?


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 30 December 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by head:
It's irritating that Gibson's historical inaccuracies in the film are used as a sort of litmus paper test for his personal views...

Head, very similar thoughts have been bouncing around my head for weeks. Kudos to you for articulating them better than I could have.

It's interesting to note the rush to judgement in these forums, as well. Everyone's posting articles that support their preconceived notions about the film, but are relucant to go see it and form their own opinions. It's also clear to me that a lot of this criticism of Mel's movie is a proxy attack on his personal behavior and views.

[ 30 December 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 30 December 2006 12:58 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I won't comment on Apocalypto, 'cause I haven't seen it, but your comparisons seem a little misplaced to me.

quote:
Ridley can wave off the Germanic tribes as savage, grunting and odious forest dwellers, Troy turns the Greeks into savage conquistadors of the ancient world with little regard to the literary work that inspired the film in the first place.

Neither of these movies has much that is historically accurate, but I don't think they disparage any group or people. In Gladiator, we never see how the germanic people live, we only see a battle. All we could say is that they seem less equipped and organised than the Romans, which, of course, was precisely the case.

In Troy, it is not at all inaccurate to portray the Acheans (nobody calls themselves Greek for thousands of years after these events) as marauding conquistidors. They were well known for their war-like ways and widely feared for their rapacious conquests, and the literary work that inspired the film occured hundreds of years later, so if it was historical accuracy you were after, you would do well to throw out a great deal of it. (for a truly worthwhile treatment of this subject, check out the excellent comic "Age of Bronze")


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 30 December 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Before this thread hits the dreaded "Cien", I'd like to encourage all pariticpants to take a moment and help themselves to a steaming mug of Chocalypto:

http://www.amazon.com/Abuelita-Mexican-Chocolate-18-8-oz/dp/B0000GH6UQ


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 11 January 2007 03:35 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's an interesting take on the film as a "Christian snuff movie" which is pushing a certain extreme theological view:
quote:
...Read as a pair, Apocalypto and The Passion contrast the macabre cult of the sacrificial system with the one true sacrifice of Jesus Christ. For it is a staple of a certain sort of Christian atonement theology that the endless cycle of temple sacrifice was done away with by the crucifixion...

...The technical term for this theology is penal substitution. It is, among other things, the reason so many conservative Christians like Gibson support the death penalty - wickedness must be paid for with blood. And it's precisely this equation that has come to rot the Christian moral conscience from within. For this theology is intrinsically vindictive, bloodthirsty and vengeful. Though many evangelicals and conservative Catholics think it the beating heart of the good news, it's a much later medieval interpretation that refuses the gospel's insistence upon forgiveness and non-violence.

Jesus put it pretty clearly when he quoted his favourite passage of the Hebrew scriptures: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." The retributive logic that sin can be cancelled by pain is just what Christ resisted. And it was a stand taken by the Hebrew prophets before him. By contrast, in Gibson's films, only blood can pay for blood.



From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 23 February 2007 07:03 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Old thread but can see I missed another good review. Gibson's religious obsessions definitely shine through in most his films, least the ones he's directed.

Found this just recently, looking for other arcane material, think its appropriate for this and some of things I've seen said online about supposedly more "primitive" tribal peoples in general and NDNs in particular. I think it's a fairly comprehensive list:

"Peaceful tribes" PDF:

http://tinyurl.com/2hxo5o

(needless to say some overly eager "Darwinian" social theorists have gone to great lengths to minimize these examples of alternative and decidly Non-Darwinian lifestyles, or dispute their accuracy...)

[ 23 February 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca