Isn't Mel Gibson Disrepectful Towards Alicia Estrada and Mayans??

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_en_ce/mel_gibson

How the heck can a person who has no native american ancestry consult with arquelogists as to what the Mayans were suppose to be like??

The ones who would know are the conquistadores themselves who were present or the descendants of the native americans.

I do not like these archeologists who make theories about what the native americans were suppose to be like. Just like the considered african slaves in the USA as sub-human??

And they were wrong big time!!

All native americans are behind you Alicia!! Even the spanish conquistadores would argue with Mel Gibson.

Answer 1

Mel Gibson is a Hollywood director, who made a Hollywood movie. There isn't one movie made in Hollywood that is historically accurate. My people didn't have a loud hissy fit over the many inaccurate movies about Crazy Horse, Wounded Knee, and the Lakota and Dakota Sioux tribes.

I think Mayans are overreacting, especially since the movie wasn't a blockbuster hit. No one cares about the movie except Mayans. I didn't see it, and had no interest in doing so. All the whining is doing, is giving the movie more publicity. If the Mayans don't like it, make a movie and tell the story in a way that pleases them.

User Natasha aka RedPower, the militant, always speaks for groups of natives, all tribes throughout N. America on YAnswers.

Estrada gave Gibson alot of publicity, now more people will see his movie to find out what all of the fuss is about.

Answer 2

Mel Gibson is a known racist. He has depicted too many events in an inaccurate way.
I will tell you that the majority of the Native American/Indigenous population knows that Mel's movie was historically inaccurate. He is just spreading ignornace and therefore continuing oppression.
It is sick that his crap makes popular media. I feel sorry for those who do not know what they are watching is false.

I am a Native woman. I do not support Mel Gibson or his movies.

EDIT:
User Lakota says that only Mayans care. This is not true. I care. I am a Native woman. I know that the Native population where I live cares. Everyone should care that he is spreading ignornace and helping support oppression.

User Alvie says you underestimate archeologists. She says you don't have to be a part of the culture to truly understand it.
This is not true. You Absolutely CANNOT understand a culture unless you are part of it. Many cultures have a completely different way of thinking, their minds work differently. Unless you are part of that culture you can only infer as to why things are done certain ways. Even if they try and tell you it is often impossible to mesh two different ways of thinking into one explanation. And language barriers are HUGE. If one does not understand the lanuguage of the culture being studied it is nearly impossible to get an accurate description of the culture. Most cultures have words in their language that can't accurately be translated into another language. So they just skip that information. But if there is a word for it that means it is important to the culture and cannot just be skipped over.
Think about this. Emotion. A word in another culture is translated as Love. How do you know that their love is the same as our love? How do you not know that to them love is more like joy? This difference could have a big impact on how you understand the culture but is not easily discovered.
The simple fact is that people need to be able to explain their own cultures, not have others do it and interpert it how they see fit.

Answer 3

I think that Mel Gibson has some serious problems and needs help fast. He's disrespectful towards nearly everyone -- Alicia Estrada, Mayans, Jews, Romans and probably a few others he hasn't cursed out or featured in a movie. He acts like an unmedicated bipolar. (Got a few friends and family members with that affliction; I know how they act without their meds.)

That being said, I have not yet seen the movie "Apocalypto." It looks interesting, but I suppose it's because I'm interested in different interpretations of human sacrifice. It's a facet of ancient life that intrigues me, mainly because no one does it anymore. I'm actually very grateful for that, but still. Morbid curiosity, I guess. (Before you call me racist, let me say that my heritage is Celtic. The Celts practiced one of the most horrific methods of human sacrifice I can think of -- the wicker man, which is a horrible burning death. None of their descendants do this anymore and it's not something that most of us are proud of, but it was a different time back then. Nearly all ancient societies practiced human sacrifice in one form or another.)

Anyway, when I do see "Apocalypto," I'm going to watch it with a skeptic's eye. Ever since "The Passion of the Christ" came out, I haven't been an overly big fan of Mel Gibson as a director. Oh, the cinematography was beautiful and the acting was great, but I think he overdid the arrest, flogging and crucifixion of Christ -- it was way too bloody, the Jewish elders were depicted as greedy and petty and the Romans were depicted as sadists. I feel it was over-exaggerated, and as such, it should be taken for one man's interpretation of events. The same should be taken into consideration with "Apocalypto." It's one man's interpretation of one facet of the Mayan civilization. It's not a documentary and therefore should not be treated as a historical commentary.

As for archaeologists, I think you underestimate them. One does not need to belong to any culture to accurately study that culture or treat it with respect. In fact, to accurately study a culture, one must treat it objectively and make no conclusions based on heritage or race. (Just the facts and only the facts...) Many archaeologists who study the Mayans know that they had an advanced, beautiful civilization. Of course, they are never 100% accurate, as that would require a time machine. Archeology requires a great deal of detective work based upon physical evidence. They surmise that the Mayans practiced human sacrifice because they've found the remains of sacrifice victims and art that depicts it. Maybe the art was metaphorical rather than literal. As I said earlier, without a time machine, they have to guess. However, knowing that almost every ancient society did practice human sacrifice, it's a valid conclusion. Saying that the ancient Mayans practiced human sacrifice does not mean that they were "barbaric" or "subhuman." That would make every culture in the world barbaric and subhuman.

I don't think Alicia Estrada did anything wrong when she asked Mel Gibson about his research. I think that his response was unprofessional, juvenile, abusive and downright criminal. She was just trying to engage in productive academic dialog and he responded like a street thug and had her kicked out. HE should have been the one to be kicked out by an armed police officer! Mel Gibson owes her a sincere and very public apology -- for cursing her out and for labeling her as a "heckler."

Answer 4

Anglos are generally extremely ethnocentric, and certainly not among the most conscious people on the planet. Thus, if you're culture is less materialistic, greed driven and superficial as theirs, they assume you are "primitive", and, among other horrors, worthy of exploitation. Very sad.

Unfortunately they have "high technology" which allows them to be successful aggressors and "conquerors". But, as many know, being competent at genocide is no guaranty of being viewed as worthwhile humans, worthy of emulation.

The West has provided to the planet many beneficial innnovations and technologies, but wisdom and compassion are not necessarily among their most pronounced "gifts", especially lately.

Answer 5

Saw a video online earlier that talked about the incident... Kind of sickening when the spoiled celebrity is treated like he's the one in the right. >:-|

Answer 6

Same old story, different location>

Answer 7

Did they have human sacrifices?

How would anyone know if you don't tell them??