|
|
|
September 25, 2006
Searching for the right "precursor"
When Mel Gibson made his bizarre anti-Jewish remarks, many of his defenders assumed it was the alcohol talking. Was it? If we assume he stopped drinking, to what can the latest remarks be attributed? In describing its portrait of a civilization in decline, Gibson said, "The precursors to a civilization that's going under are the same, time and time again," drawing parallels between the Mayan civilization on the brink of collapse and America's present situation. "What's human sacrifice," he asked, "if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"I try to be fair, but I looked in vain for a detailed explanation of what Gibson means. Historians do not agree on the causes of the Mayan collapse. There are several theories, some ecological, some non-ecological, ranging from bad agricultural practices to cultural decline, foreign invasion, and volcanic activity. What "precursors" are we talking about? Human sacrifice was an inherent part of Mayan culture -- practiced so frequently that it makes no sense whatsoever to attribute it to the "fall" of their empire. But that seems to be what Gibson is saying. Otherwise why would he try to conflate American soldiers in Iraq into Mayan sacrificial victims? I hate to judge the man before all the facts are in, but at this point it's looking like Gibson's historical analysis suffers from the same kind of incredibly bad logic as his claims about "the Jews." Might the man still be drinking? I mean, really. He might as well claim that because the Mayans practiced homosexuality that this was the real reason for their decline. (As it will be for ours, and so on.) I kid you not; they even had gay gods! And (according to more than one site) gay marriage! Chin (Mayan) Chin, a small child or dwarf god, introduced homoerotic relationships to the Mayan nobles. The nobles obtained youths of the lower classes to be the lovers of the noble's sons. Such unions were considered legal marriages under Mayan law.Far be it from me to advise Gibson, but if he was looking for the right rhetorical "precursor" I think he'd have been on safer ground with whatever "base" he's courting had he blamed the Mayan fall on gay marriage. If he's courting the M.A.D.D. people, Gibson might even blame alcohol, for the Mayans used booze to induce clairvoyant states: The use of alcohol in Mayan rituals was particularly used for divination purposes in which the shaman was to foretell future events, misfortune, reasons for illness, and many more issues otherwise not understood. The shaman used alcohol as a vehicle in which to alter his consciousness and take him to another plane of reasoning in which he could physically see the spirits and communicate with them.Hmmm.... Physically see the spirits? That's what I'd call practicing what you preach. Not bad. (And not unlike a certain co-blogger.) It's tough to be serious about this but I'm trying. The bottom line seems to be that if serious scholars do not know what caused the Mayan fall, it is unreasonable for Gibson to extrapolate from their experience to ours. Calling our volunteer soldiers sacrificial victims is even more unreasonable. While it would be a cheap shot to ask what he's been drinking, his whole argument strikes me as a cheap shot. (And, historically speaking, an incredibly bad one.) posted by Eric on 09.25.06 at 07:47 AM
Comments
It looks as if the Maya did that Greek thing. What they had in common was a private-sector compensation system for affirmative action. Homosexual clientage opened opportunities for young men which otherwise would have opened only to the relatives of the noble caste. And it was done in such a way that the higher-ranking party will consent to it, passing up other prospectives (like his dunderhead nephew) willingly. I must further note for any lurking trolls that I am NOT, repeat NOT considering the NAMBLA line. But at the same time, this is just a sexual form of nepotism; for both the nephew's sexual client and the noble's nephew, at no point is anyone asking after the young man's actual qualifications for the job. Also, even when both sides are adult and when society encourages it, it's still exploitation. That's actually WHY Maya society was encouraging it, to show the direction of power. To illustrate: between equal-status adults, in such a society, committed homosexual relationships remain taboo. Committed homosexuality removes high-ranking males from the marriage pool, thus costing social mobility for poor families "cursed" with daughters. Would it be better for society for the state to mandate that certain (unskilled or soft-skilled) opportunities be available to lower-ranking classes, or for society to provide for this through widespread acceptance of sexual clientage? (When race is added to the mix, I suspect that a sexual clientage system would fail to provide mobility. The ranking classes would be too physically visible.) David Ross · September 25, 2006 12:39 PM Personally, I don't look to individuals in the Entertainment industry to hold forth on policy. Sure, I may listen to their opinions, but when my laughter subsides, I'll weigh it against my own knowledge and judgement. bobdevo... Quickly now, without Googling the answer, tell me the civilian death count when the Allies swooped into Sicily in 1943. Darleen · September 25, 2006 01:04 PM Uh, Darleen, as I recall Italy (and Germany) declared WAR on the US - after we declared WAR on Japan after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. So, it would be an inapposite comparison to link Italian civilian deaths in a war of necessity with Iraqi civilian deaths in a war of choice. Or are you one of those morons who think Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11? Anonymous · September 25, 2006 03:30 PM Well, at least there's no argument over the necessity of war. Eric Scheie · September 25, 2006 05:25 PM war of choice Hmmm... so we get a side of seasoned fries with that? Yes, we chose the timing, but the war was already there. Or are you one of those morons who believes that Saddam's Iraq was nothing but flying kites and laughing children? Darleen · September 25, 2006 05:57 PM Eric- Also, are we still discussing whether we should go to war with Iraq? Because, I think that boat has sailed. Jon Thompson · September 26, 2006 01:02 AM You mean you don't see how human sacrifice can't be a sign of moral bankruptcy and lead to the fall of a civilization? Sirkowski · September 26, 2006 06:19 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Geeze - looks like Mel getting off the sauce has done wonders for his powers of reason. Indeed, what has the Iraq War been - besides an AWOL draft-dodger's pre-emptive vanity war and exercise in human sacrifice?
It's okay, though, cause George told Wolf Blitzer:
Of course Iraq has also become - according to the CIA - the inspiration to a new wave of jihadists from all over the Muslim world and will cost us taxpayers at least $1,000,000,000,000.00 - (that's a TRILLION DOLLARS). Sounds to me like Mel is making more sense than the Bush Administration.