--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Bizarre! Post what could've been an interesting discussion on 
> > the mechanics of samadhi, written by someone they don't know, 
> > and it automatically becomes an attack on TM! As I've said here 
> > before: if it weren't so sad, it would almost be funny.
> > 
> > I'm almost waiting to find a Jack Chick-style tract in my mail 
> > box.
> 
>
> Oh, are Jack Chick tracts where you learned the
> technique of quoting criticisms and then pretending
> you weren't the one doing the criticizing?


I'm not quite sure what 'Jack Chick tracts' are myself,
but I'm pretty sure I've seen the technique you describe
above. It looks a lot like the following, doesn't it?


[ Thread title, embedded commentary in brackets, and final
commentary at the end by the thread's author. Everything 
else is "quoted criticism." ]


Mel Gibson, Christian bigot (title by Judy Stein)

>From Salon.com:

Maya in the Thunderdome

By Marcello A. Canuto

Dec. 15, 2006 | As a scholar of the Maya civilization, I was anxious
to see Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Maya in "Apocalypto." Of course,
I realize the movie is not a documentary and was mindful of the
director's artistic license. I was happy to see that Gibson got some
details right, like personal adornment, tools and body decoration.
Although the main actors are native North Americans, I applaud
Gibson's use of some Maya actors, as well as his decision to have the
characters speak in a native Maya language, Yukatek, still heard in
Mexico. While these are brave and ambitious choices, they also imply
that "Apocalypto" is a sincere depiction of Maya society. In fact,
the movie is not an accurate portrayal of the Maya at all; rather, it
is a reflection of Gibson's own feverish imagination....

...The movie focuses on Maya society on the eve of Spanish contact in
the 16th century. Yet the Maya city portrayed in the movie, central
to its plot, dates roughly to the 9th century. This is akin to
telling a story about English pilgrims founding the Massachusetts Bay
Colony, and showing them living in longhouses described in "Beowulf."
In fact, Gibson incorporates Maya images from as far back as 300 B.C.
Throughout the movie, these anachronisms make Maya civilization seem
timeless, and undermine the idea that the Maya could and did respond
to change....

Whatever the causes, the collapse [of Mayan civilization] was
primarily of a system of governance, not a self-immolating culture.
The movie misses this important distinction by creating a spurious
contrast between a rural idyll and an urban miasma of excess and
violence. The truth is that within several generations of the Classic
Maya collapse, other regal cities with different forms of government
would flourish in other parts of the Maya area. Over several
millennia, the Maya underwent many cycles of growth and decline, each
with its own major cities. The idea, proposed by the movie, that Maya
civilization was at the verge of final self-destruction makes for
good drama, but does not reflect the depth of this civilization's
resilience and history....

...[The hero] flees through the jungle, and with only two pursuers
remaining, he bursts out of the forest onto a beach. There, where the
land ends and the water begins, both he and his tormentors witness
Spanish galleons and rowboats ferrying Spaniards and Christianity to
the lands of the Maya. His pursuers, as if in a trance, walk weakly
toward the arriving Spaniards. Their pursuit is now irrelevant, as
their world is about to end....

In "Apocalypto," the arrival of the Spanish signals "a new
beginning." Remarkably, the event is portrayed as tranquil, as if the
Spaniards are the adults who have finally come to rescue
the "littleuns" stranded on the island of William Golding's "Lord of
the Flies." In reality, the arrival was anything but serene....

...If there were ever an apocalypse in the history of the Maya -- and
herein lies the ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- it would
be because of European contact. But in the movie, after two hours of
excess, hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent the arrival
of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] to the Maya world. The tacit
paternalism [and bigotry--JS] is devastating.

After many centuries of misguided and simplistic views of the Maya,
recent scholarship has shown the complexity and historical depth of
their civilization. In Maya society, as in all civilizations,
violence, surfeit and disparity were balanced by accomplishment,
restraint and illumination. Gibson's feverish vision of a childish
Maya society sacrificing itself to extinction is more than
inaccurate, it works against the progress of decades of diligent
scholarship to restore to present-day Maya people a heritage of which
they are proud, and from which we have much to learn. I can only hope
that audiences seeing this movie will be motivated to learn about the
Maya -- present and past -- rather than be sated by Gibson's
sacrificial offering at the altar of entertainment.

Read the whole piece, with many more details, here:
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/12/15/maya

To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
purported superiority of Christianity.
 






Reply via email to