TUCSON, Ariz. - Before everyone commends Mel Gibson for his most recent epic movie, ''Apocalypto,'' please take the time to think about what is American Indian history, who writes it and how it exists as it does in mainstream America. ''Apocalypto'' is evidence of America's historic amnesiac disease.
The history of America that we are all taught in school celebrates and honors the heroics of European explorers and their ambition to find gold, to spread the Holy Roman Empire and to seek the ultimate quest of military domination over indigenous Americans. Simply put, American history is about gold, God and glory.
The history that is taught in all of our schools, even in our ''Indian'' schools, comes from books written by non-indigenous American authors who perpetuate the celebration of European explorers and their goals. Can you remember the lies your teacher told you, and the lies you have read from your history books? Lies like: ''Indians had no religion, were weak, and were unable to defend themselves against guns, germs and steel.'' Or that: ''Europeans coughed and killed 20 million Indians in two days.'' Or even that: ''Indians were so dumb they thought a man on a horse was a giant man-animal,'' and that the ''Indian bow and arrow could not compare to the advanced weapons of Europeans,'' which until 1870 took at least five minutes to load, fire and hope that the unpredictable bullet hit something. After mainstream American children complete their 12 years of basic American history, they may graduate believing that white Americans conquered already-dying cultures with M-16s and AR-15s. This deception breeds confusion, which in turn allows ignorance to rule.
Worse than the lies the teacher tells are the lies that top scholars tell. Like that genocidal warfare, rape from sexually repressed soldiers, racial enslavement and global conquest were a part of everyday American Indian life. You may have already heard your children say, ''Indians had slaves, too''; ''Indians murdered and raped each other, too''; ''Indians stole the lands of others, too.'' These lies void responsibility and accountability of the racial enslavement of Africans in America, the genocidal warfare practiced against American indigenous people and the thievery of their land.
Indians must be especially aware of these types of lies because they set up an even greater lie - that Indians were equally or more violent than the Spanish, English or French colonizers of America; or that the Roman Catholic Church saved Indians from themselves.
''Apocalypto'' is a movie that takes these lies to the fullest extent possible. After you watch this film you may be wrongfully convinced that it was the Mayan who stole land from your ancestors; you may begin to think that it was the Mayan who burned the villages of your ancestors; you may begin to believe that it was the Mayan who tied up Indian men and raped their wives while they watched powerlessly; you may be convinced that the Mayan were the culprits who brought smallpox to decimate the indigenous American populations; you will probably be convinced that Indians taught Europeans racism and racial slavery; you will be lied to while watching this movie, and you will mistakenly be thankful that Europeans came and saved your ancestors from their own demise.
As an Indian person, this movie may convince you that Indians needed to be saved from their own savagery. But don't thank a European explorer and your non-Indian neighbor just yet.
It took 500 years to colonize Native North and South America, and they are still being colonized today. Do not let two hours and 18 minutes in a movie theater convince you into believing of your own inferiority. They already took your land; please don't let them take your mind. Do not let it convince you into believing that a 7,000-year-old Mesoamerican Indian civilization was bloodthirsty, religiously fanatic, environmentally destructive, controlled by vanity and chemically addicted. The Mayan people were around for a long time and they knew what they were doing. Remember, these are the people who blessed the Western world with the concept of zero and the practice of bathing.
American Indians in both North and South America never knew such kind of humans in the entire 50,000 or more years we have been here. Do not let people who've only been here for fractions of that time determine who your ancestors were, who you are now and what will become of your people in the future, especially an Australian immigrant they call ''Mad Max.''
Mel Gibson may appear to know something about history because he has directed award-winning movies, but we as indigenous people of Native America must remember that he is merely an actor. He is not a historian and his movies are not history. So do not perceive him as anything close to a historian or watch his movie as if it were anything close to history. It would be like watching the Flintstones as if it were a documentary directed by a cartoonist.
Gibson knows as much pre-contact Mesoamerican history as he knows about Middle Eastern history or about Scottish history. To him an Aztec is the same as a Mayan, which to him may be the same as a Hebrew, or a Scot, perhaps an Irish, or maybe even a Jew.
Hopefully ''Apocalypto'' will inspire you to seek this truth and do some research yourself. Human sacrifices make for good historic expirations, but do not focus solely on this part of Mayan culture. Besides, human sacrifices were a small part of the much larger and complex culture of the Maya. Non-indigenous scholars love violence because it affirms stereotypes of savagery, and moviemakers love violence because violence makes money.
Do you want to know the really truth about the Mesoamerican people before European conquest? Turn off the television, log off of myspace.com and pick up a book. It will be difficult to read any Incan, Mayan or Aztec book because all of their libraries were burned by Catholic priests who feared their texts to be ''witchcraft.'' I bet you did not know these civilizations had writing, let alone entire libraries. Deception runs deep, doesn't it?
You can start by reading Bartolome de las Casas' book, called ''A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.'' In it you will read firsthand accounts of what the Spanish did to Natives during colonization - the torture, the rape, the murder and true human savagery, straight from Christendom. Oddly enough, these exact depictions are what Gibson portrayed the Aztecs doing to other Indians in the movie. This ''projection'' tactic is used when ''deception'' fails.
Despite my criticisms, Gibson can be commended for his artistic directing approaches and that he actually did some research on contemporary indigenous American peoples before making an ''Indian film.'' The use of languages and the depiction of non-imperial indigenous cultures are commendable, considering the follies of most directors of ''Indian films.'' Gibson may have the resources and ability to do some good research on existing Native peoples; perhaps this trend will catch on in big Hollywood. But still, in terms of historical research, a high school senior could have done better than his entire ''Apocalypto'' team.
Okay, yes, but what can any "outsider" ethnic group really expect from the
media? Any kindness from the media is an unexpected favor, I would think
(smile). Yet somehow things do always seem to have a way of working
themselves out for the good of all sides, regardless of any innocent or not
so innocent mischief by our media. The universe always keeps its balance,
and somehow things work out well for the good folks on all sides; and there's
peace in the valley again. At least I'd like to hope things will eventually work
themselves out, because media mischief may be more harmful than we know?
Salsassin, I just went over to that link and read
your good words. Mr. Salsassin, excellent insight.
Much appreciated. By the way, Sir, it looks
like a pretty interesting forum over there.
Salsassin, I just went over to that link and read
your good words. Mr. Salsassin, excellent insight.
Much appreciated. By the way, Sir, it looks
like a pretty interesting forum over there.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 29 Dec 2006 14:38 Post subject: American Indians
Hi,
I believe the problem on here is believing Amerindians are a single people. No, they are not. In the Americas there were thousand of different cultures, with different levels of development, ethics, religion and violence.
The Aztecs were one of the cruelest people of the hemisphere, that's no doubt. Mayans also practised human sacrifices, that's also true, but the scale was minor. We should not forget that, at the same time, Europeans had a happy time burning witches.
Believing there are good and bad peoples is the problem. Conflict existed in the Americas before Europeans arrived. Slavery, invasions, genocide, cruelty, different social classes, the mita, all existed as well before the European arrived. The Americas was not a paradise, like anywhere on the planet was either. But it was not more violent than the old world at all.
When is going to be the time people consider American Indians not better or worst than anybody else. And when they are going to realize a Quechua is not a Sioux and a Mayan is not a Guarani? And that ancient amerindians are not theirs today's descendents. But all different cultures and people, as different as Irish from Japaneses in the old world.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 29 Dec 2006 20:55 Post subject: Mexicans
Salsassin wrote:
Yeah, it would have been more believable if he had made them Aztecs. But he didn't want to piss off all the Mexicans working at his house.
That's funny , however not precise. Mexicans identify with Aztecs because of nationalistic reasons, and ideology but, most of theirs native ancestry is not Aztec at all, but of the victims of Aztecs.
Now, Mayans were not as violent as Aztecs but ... (and that but is important)... they were not sweet creatures either. Yes, there were certain native american people that were quite peaceful and philosophically oriented (I am thinking in some North West tribes and in Quechuas, perhaps), but I won't put ancient Mayans in that same cathegory.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 168 } Location: Mid-Atlantic States; USA
Posted: Fri 29 Dec 2006 21:49 Post subject: Re: Mexicans
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Yeah, it would have been more believable if he had made them Aztecs. But he didn't want to piss off all the Mexicans working at his house.
That's funny , however not precise. Mexicans identify with Aztecs because of nationalistic reasons, and ideology but, most of theirs native ancestry is not Aztec at all, but of the victims of Aztecs.
Now, Mayans were not as violent as Aztecs but ... (and that but is important)... they were not sweet creatures either. Yes, there were certain native american people that were quite peaceful and philosophically oriented (I am thinking in some North West tribes and in Quechuas, perhaps), but I won't put ancient Mayans in that same cathegory.
Omar
Yes Sir, Omar. Good points. Mr. Oevega it's always good to see you. And
yes (heehee), that was funny about Mr. Gibson not wanting to tick folks off.
Posted: Sat 30 Dec 2006 00:51 Post subject: Re: Mexicans
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Yeah, it would have been more believable if he had made them Aztecs. But he didn't want to piss off all the Mexicans working at his house.
That's funny , however not precise. Mexicans identify with Aztecs because of nationalistic reasons, and ideology but, most of theirs native ancestry is not Aztec at all, but of the victims of Aztecs.
Now, Mayans were not as violent as Aztecs but ... (and that but is important)... they were not sweet creatures either. Yes, there were certain native american people that were quite peaceful and philosophically oriented (I am thinking in some North West tribes and in Quechuas, perhaps), but I won't put ancient Mayans in that same cathegory.
Omar
The Mexicas. Who's legends actually are against Aztecs. But the majority aren't even of Mexica decent. The Mayans weren't innocent but no more than any major society of the time.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 30 Dec 2006 01:40 Post subject: Gibson, the Catholic
I think I got it.
Gibson deployed in the movie the orthodox Catholic vision about the conquist of the Americas. The one that assures us pre-contact Americas were societies dominated by evil, that natives were worshipers of Satan, and that sweet European conquerors and priests fought hard to save the soul of the people of the New World, converting them to the "true" faith.
The same vision that has tried to convert Columbus in a saint, and that remarks that the sails of the caravels had a huge red cross on it.
The vision of the crusaiders. In short, the vision of:
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007 18:38 Post subject: Re: Gibson, the Catholic
oevega wrote:
I think I got it.
Gibson deployed in the movie the orthodox Catholic vision about the conquist of the Americas. The one that assures us pre-contact Americas were societies dominated by evil, that natives were worshipers of Satan, and that sweet European conquerors and priests fought hard to save the soul of the people of the New World, converting them to the "true" faith.
The same vision that has tried to convert Columbus in a saint, and that remarks that the sails of the caravels had a huge red cross on it.
The vision of the crusaiders. In short, the vision of:
Gibson, the Catholic.
Omar
Aren't we stretching things a bit? The movie is essentially an action-packed chase movie. That is all.
Some people are upset with the depiction of the "natives" because it deviates from the idealized vision we are supposed to have of Amerindian people as spiritual earth people at one with nature and completely peaceful.
Depicting pre-Columbian Indians as people who used their cultural advances to oppress other less-developed Amerindian people undermines the a-historical but popular belief that this behavior is unique to Europeans.
If it were just an action packed chase movie, why the Maya specific language? Why the criptic quote at the beginning? Why the Conquistadors at the end? I don't think so.
If it were just an action packed chase movie, why the Maya specific language? Why the criptic quote at the beginning? Why the Conquistadors at the end? I don't think so.
It is essentially a chase movie with Mayans. The criptic message at the beginning and the Spaniards at the end were inserted to make the movie appear more substantive and meaningful than it really was. The film could have worked with another cultural context IMO.
David Yeagley’s Latest Editorial from the Bad Eagle Forums
Apocalypto
The Bad Eagle Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apocalypto: The Bad Eagle Review
By David Yeagley
Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto has no plot, no dialogue, and no point, but it’s a fascinating movie, and has been very successful. All action, all the time, that’s the key. And the action included some blood and guts scenes which were apparently novel. That’s an achievement in itself. The Mayan religious rites had certainly never before been depicted in action. It’s a significant film, as entertainment, for presenting historical realities in an unprecedented way.
In terms of political ideology, it was deliciously liberal. Our appetite was duly whetted by the previews of a couple of upcoming movies: 1) Children of Men, and 2) Pathfinder. The first features a nameless young pregnant black girl who represents the hope of the world, since she is the last female capable of bearing a child—fatherless as it is. The second features a white Viking child, lost among the American Indians, who grows up Indian, and ends up fighting against the Vikings. A movie that makes a nameless black teen pregnancy the savior, and a movie that makes a white man an Indian, fighting against the white man—this was the obvious tone setter, ideologically.
It was a laughable warm up. But the disdain the liberal whites have for the white race is disingenuous. The façade is wearing thin. In these race-based movies, it is becoming clear that the white liberal simply hates the darker races. The use of the darkies against the whites is a thin veil of psychological displacement—of white hatred for the darks. The white liberal disguises his hate for the darkies under the guise of white self-hatred. Rather than flagellate himself, he uses the dark races to do it, the races he has conquered, enslaved, or otherwise lorded over.
Just as we comprehend this from the previews, Apocalypto starts. But it’s all Indian against Indian, Mexican Indian, that is. It’s about one major, ‘civilized’ tribe abusing the weaker, smaller tribes—like the English used the Scots and the Irish, or like the Germans tried to use all of Europe. Nothing surprising there. Sure, the liberally trained, university Indians all complain that Apocalypto gives a terribly degrading picture of all Indians. Well, they’re just thinking like they’ve been programmed to think. They don’t know what to do if there’s no “white man” to blame.
The movie is in basically two parts: the first part depicts a primitive, pleasure-based community scene of the smaller, weaker tribe, enjoying hunting, sex, and the community experience. The second part is all about the Mayan abuse of them. The rest of the movie is one escapee running through the jungle, being chased by the ‘evil’ Mayans. Then ending is a strikingly anachronistic scene, obviously borrowed from William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. The chase ends when, on the beach, the big boys arrive. In this case, it wasn’t the British Navy, but a three-ship entourage of apparently Spanish authorities. Well, we know it wasn’t Columbus. He never touched any mainland. But, that’s a minor detail. It was a moment of distraction. The chase was over. A new era was just begun.
Naturally, in Apocalypto, they used a "black" Jaguar,
to be more politically correct.
On of the more interesting moments was near the beginning, in the peaceful community setting, when an old, one-armed elder tells a campfire story. The story is quite charming, about how the animal kingdom observes the ailing soul of humanity, which cannot be remedied. This is clearly a PETA moment. (Speaking of PETA, Pammie Anderson should investigate whether or not those Indians really killed that large South American pig and cut out its internal organs!) The pantheon of animals in the fireside story, however, is not exactly kosher for Mayan populations. The story cites the owl, but the folklore of the Mayans aggrandizes the bat, not the owl. Zotzilaha Chamalcan, the bat god, the fire god, was a major social player, and was idolized in the area of what is now Guatemala. This makes us suspicious of the cultural authenticity of this folk tale without Zotzilaha.
Zotzilaha Chamalcan, the bat god
But the biggest irony is that Jaguar Paw, the totem of the movie’s main character, was a famous leader of the Mayan people, not of some insignificant forest clan. (Jaguar Sun was the Mayan god.)
Well, one doesn’t go to the movies for facts, history, or truth. This is fantasy land. It is also inevitable that the writers, producers, directors, and other professional ideologists, are going to project their personal ideas and values and customs onto the rather naked landscape of history. History is helpless before the artists, always.
If it were just an action packed chase movie, why the Maya specific language? Why the criptic quote at the beginning? Why the Conquistadors at the end? I don't think so.
It is essentially a chase movie with Mayans. The criptic message at the beginning and the Spaniards at the end were inserted to make the movie appear more substantive and meaningful than it really was. The film could have worked with another cultural context IMO.
I think it was both. It was Mel Gibson. He has been involved in the religious scene and the action film genre.
And Yeagley? Come on now. Even though I agree with the sentiment, he usually is rife with errors. Thus unreliable.
David Yeagley’s Latest Editorial from the Bad Eagle Forums
Apocalypto
The Bad Eagle Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apocalypto: The Bad Eagle Review
By David Yeagley
Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto has no plot, no dialogue, and no point, but it’s a fascinating movie, and has been very successful. All action, all the time, that’s the key. And the action included some blood and guts scenes which were apparently novel. That’s an achievement in itself. The Mayan religious rites had certainly never before been depicted in action. It’s a significant film, as entertainment, for presenting historical realities in an unprecedented way.
In terms of political ideology, it was deliciously liberal. Our appetite was duly whetted by the previews of a couple of upcoming movies: 1) Children of Men, and 2) Pathfinder. The first features a nameless young pregnant black girl who represents the hope of the world, since she is the last female capable of bearing a child—fatherless as it is. The second features a white Viking child, lost among the American Indians, who grows up Indian, and ends up fighting against the Vikings. A movie that makes a nameless black teen pregnancy the savior, and a movie that makes a white man an Indian, fighting against the white man—this was the obvious tone setter, ideologically.
It was a laughable warm up. But the disdain the liberal whites have for the white race is disingenuous. The façade is wearing thin. In these race-based movies, it is becoming clear that the white liberal simply hates the darker races. The use of the darkies against the whites is a thin veil of psychological displacement—of white hatred for the darks. The white liberal disguises his hate for the darkies under the guise of white self-hatred. Rather than flagellate himself, he uses the dark races to do it, the races he has conquered, enslaved, or otherwise lorded over.
Just as we comprehend this from the previews, Apocalypto starts. But it’s all Indian against Indian, Mexican Indian, that is. It’s about one major, ‘civilized’ tribe abusing the weaker, smaller tribes—like the English used the Scots and the Irish, or like the Germans tried to use all of Europe. Nothing surprising there. Sure, the liberally trained, university Indians all complain that Apocalypto gives a terribly degrading picture of all Indians. Well, they’re just thinking like they’ve been programmed to think. They don’t know what to do if there’s no “white man” to blame.
The movie is in basically two parts: the first part depicts a primitive, pleasure-based community scene of the smaller, weaker tribe, enjoying hunting, sex, and the community experience. The second part is all about the Mayan abuse of them. The rest of the movie is one escapee running through the jungle, being chased by the ‘evil’ Mayans. Then ending is a strikingly anachronistic scene, obviously borrowed from William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. The chase ends when, on the beach, the big boys arrive. In this case, it wasn’t the British Navy, but a three-ship entourage of apparently Spanish authorities. Well, we know it wasn’t Columbus. He never touched any mainland. But, that’s a minor detail. It was a moment of distraction. The chase was over. A new era was just begun.
Naturally, in Apocalypto, they used a "black" Jaguar,
to be more politically correct.
On of the more interesting moments was near the beginning, in the peaceful community setting, when an old, one-armed elder tells a campfire story. The story is quite charming, about how the animal kingdom observes the ailing soul of humanity, which cannot be remedied. This is clearly a PETA moment. (Speaking of PETA, Pammie Anderson should investigate whether or not those Indians really killed that large South American pig and cut out its internal organs!) The pantheon of animals in the fireside story, however, is not exactly kosher for Mayan populations. The story cites the owl, but the folklore of the Mayans aggrandizes the bat, not the owl. Zotzilaha Chamalcan, the bat god, the fire god, was a major social player, and was idolized in the area of what is now Guatemala. This makes us suspicious of the cultural authenticity of this folk tale without Zotzilaha.
Zotzilaha Chamalcan, the bat god
But the biggest irony is that Jaguar Paw, the totem of the movie’s main character, was a famous leader of the Mayan people, not of some insignificant forest clan. (Jaguar Sun was the Mayan god.)
Well, one doesn’t go to the movies for facts, history, or truth. This is fantasy land. It is also inevitable that the writers, producers, directors, and other professional ideologists, are going to project their personal ideas and values and customs onto the rather naked landscape of history. History is helpless before the artists, always.
David Yeagley?!! Please, this guy truly is the epitome of a puppet or suck up. Have you read this Scum Eagle's postings on African-Americans and mulattoes? Even A.D. Powell took him to the woodshed.
Yes, Apocalypto is a chase movie; but it doesn't care about history or accuracy. The Mayan empire fell centuries before the Conquistadors arrived. Concerns about the film are about context; with all of the relentless violence in the film, there are no counterpoints to show the cultural and scientific success. It's like seeing nothing but stereotypical, violent films about African-Americans or Latinos.
I was really excited when I heard about the film, but the critics have valid points.
And Yeagley? Come on now. Even though I agree with the sentiment, he usually is rife with errors. Thus unreliable.
No more than many other Indian commentators whose political ideology is different from his.
Sorry, but Yeagley is a know white racist claiming some Native ancestry.
Racist he may be, as are many Native Americans. Just look at the treatment of Rudmila Cody by many Navahos. But where is the substance for your claim that he is a white racist (instead of an Indian or half Indian racist) simply claiming to have some Native ancestry?
He is legally a member of the Comanche tribe. Racially he is half white and often rails against interracial marriage, despite being the product of such a union. His opposition to interracial marriage is no less odd than many black-identified biracial people who do the same. Also, his negrophobia is not uncommon among his fellow Native Americans (okay his half fellows). Again I reference the treatment of Rudmila Cody.
David Yeagley?!! Please, this guy truly is the epitome of a puppet or suck up. Have you read this Scum Eagle's postings on African-Americans and mulattoes? Even A.D. Powell took him to the woodshed.
Are you implying here that his racism and paleoconservatism is proof that he is a puppet or suck up? Are you suggesting that he as an Indian (well, half Indian) can't come to objectionable opinions on his own unless he's being controlled by someone or seeking their favor? Do you have any proof he’s a puppet or a suck up (like a W2 form or something) other than the apparent belief that Native Americans who harbor anti-black attitudes (and there are quite a few) are acting out of character?
If Indians are individuals, then surely his views on race and his opinions on “Apocalypto” are just as legitimately Indian (or half Indian in his case) than any other Indian whose views on a myriad of topics you find pleasing.
There is nothing inherent in "Indianess" that requires Indians to be racially tolerant, and traditional Indian societies during their pre-Colombian period were no more tolerant of diversity than many other societies during the same period. Moreover, too many of us idealize Indians as one-dimensional spiritual earth people. Hence, many of us have difficulty accepting as legitimately Indian (or in his case, half Indian) people whose behavior or opinions deviate from this idealized image.
Yeagley is a strange bird indeed. He is a self-identified Indian and a member of the Comanche nation. He is soured on interracial marriage, which he sees as “racist” in that it destroys the integrity of groups, yet he is a product of an interracial marriage. In this he is no different from dozens upon dozens of black/white biracial people who see themselves as black and denounce interracial marriage as wrong and dangerous.
His views on black people, if his website is any indication, are shared by many of his fellow Native Americans. Basically, he doesn’t respect black people and he feels they are not worthy of respect. Though objectionable, there’s no need to believe that he, an Ivy League-educated person with a Ph.D., came to these opinions as a result of being manipulated by “Others” as if he were some trained circus animal.
Accepting the humanity of others, as opposed to idealizing or demonizing groups, means acknowledging the possibility that people from groups that have a history of oppression and mistreatment develop opinions and attitudes we find unsettling, but they are just as responsible for developing those opinions on their own as are people from groups we label “privileged” or “powerful”.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
, however not precise. Mexicans identify with Aztecs because of nationalistic reasons, and ideology but, most of theirs native ancestry is not Aztec at all, but of the victims of Aztecs.