(hat tip to Racialicious)
Mel Gibson goes crazy after professor corrects him on his portrayals of Mayans in the movie Apocalypto. The article an be read here.
After Gibson's presentation, the crowd was allowed to ask questions. Alicia Estrada, an Assistant Professor of Central American Studies at CSUN, challenged Gibson, asking him if he had read about the Mayan culture before shooting the controversial film. Gibson said he had.
Estrada persisted, stating that representations in the movie that the Mayans engaged in sacrificial ceremonies and had bloodthirsty tendencies were both wrong and racist. Estrada and others tell TMZ that Gibson exploded in anger, responding, "Lady, F**k off."
We're told Gibson also became extremely angry when members of the Mayan community protested on how they were portrayed in the film. The emotional Mayan members were escorted out of the room, and we're told Gibson screamed a parting shot -- "Make your own movie!"
Wow Mel, that is real classy. Telling someone to "fuck off" is a seriously diplomatic way to address someone's concerns. But next time, maybe you shouldn't use someone's culture, portray them like savages, and then act like you didn't do any of the above while counting your millions of dollars. Disgusting.
See the video of the woman who was attacked here.
18 comments:
"The Passion of Gibson"....I smell a movie spoof plot emerging!....
...In a world where no one understands him...he's forced to portray others as savage to mask his own vicious tendencies...
...One man...One mission...Mel Gibson in...THE PASSION OF GIBSON...
...AsianWeek raves about The Passion of Gibson saying, "We've never seen anything so good since Kenneth Eng's last column-this movie will knock your colonized socks off!"
I gotta be honest: sometimes,the voices that are picking on Mel remind me of some of the early American criticisms of the eastern European Jews who made movies in Hollywood-land, and established dynasties that thrive today there; Bolsheviks, and jewish thought was everywhere in the twenties and thirties, through the McCarthy era, but today this same thread of thought is seen as heroic, whereas once it was seen as 'communist' and secretively revolutionary.
I agree: let the Mayans make there own movie--and the jury is still out as to whether ol' blood stained Mell will finace such endeavours; after all, that is the lesson we have from Hollywood land in genral about all of the propaganda that streams out of there--if you don't like it, invest in us and make your own movies( Italian gangster flicks of the thirties portrayed whites, and Italians, Irish, etc as thugs and gangsters, but then there was no whining lobby about race).Guys like Melvin Van Peebles, etc; the early 1993 row with Arsenio Hall, etc, all were part of the 'let me insult you, and then make your own movies mindset emanating from Hollywood in general...not to mention that Hollywood tokenizes Jackie Chan as a 'fun, nice, and silly Chinese guy', but there is no row over that.
It is always racist guys like Abraham Foxman of the ADL that point the finger at anyone but themselves, and then manipulate our views to hide their own--in this case it is Mel and his stupid drunken rant. Where were we all when Foxman and Rabbi Hier were demanding Mel censor his film before it aired?( sure, it was a stupid religio- bloodbath, blah blah...)
Can you imagine Christians uniting to censor even one Holocaust film? What an uproar that would be!Or maybe if the Koreans made a film about the rape of Nanjing, and all of the Chinese protested? There would be a row or two;-)
So, are there no positives, or do we have to always jump on the racist circus train (the 'for it or against it' racist dichotomy)that we are trained to jump on when it comes to public targets? I mean, if gutys like Foxman want to stir up the pot, they do quite a good job by censoring our press ahead of time with Israeli atrocities, etc.
I for one, loved the fact that Mel portrayed, for the first time that I am aware of, a relatively dead language, which is quite an achievement, and I would imagine,and used indigenous actors throughout, possibly uniting tribes across the border in common dialogue, quite a non racist endeavour--but everyone takes the simplistic route, and jumps on the victim of racism wagon....
Thank you mensch for your honesty. I am not familiar with the "early AMerican criticisms of the eastern European Jews," so I can't really address whether or not they were controversial in Hollywood.
But I find your comment about "if you don't like it, then invest in us" problematic. The communities that are often negatively portrayed are often the communities that Hollywood rejects in terms of accurate movie-making. More accurate portrayals of indigenous peoples are independent films because mainstream producers/filmmakers do not endorse them due to the "lack of" selling value. Unfortunately, the majority of movie-goers don't want to hear about the history of the Mayans as it really was. People look forward to Hollywood depictions of something that re-enforces the popularized/racialized perceptions of people. There is simply no mainstream audience for films that shows people's real experiences. That is why many films end up being independent films with a limited audience.
Also, in terms of the rape of Nanking, are you referring to the Japanese? Because it was the Japanese who invaded Nanking, not Koreans.
In addition, many Mayan activists and community members have voiced their protest of the film. So Mel's portrayals are far from authentic. And he did not use actors of Mayan descent. The main character is North American Indian. And I also doubt that the language in the film is anywhere near the accuracy of the original language.
I don't think it's a matter of a "simplistic route" to the racism wagon. It's a matter of using stereotypes to portray the indigenous as uncivilized (which was used in the genocide of indigenous people around the world) AND disregarding the history of colonization and colonialist thought on the indigenous.
On the movie from an indigenous perspective, you can read an article here.
Cynical: Yes, honesty is difficult; it often reveals my ignorance;-) However, in regard to what you ask, gulp....here I go again:
RE:
"if you don't like it, then invest in us">> this is one of the main ideas of propaganda as a tool and a lever: the leftists in China employed it with the film "Shen NU" with Ruan LingYu as a single mother prostitute; Mao used it in early Mandarin speaking films,reaching into the international banking coffers with imagery of women revolutionaries and such, etc... the leftists used it here to pit racial issues against the mainstream protestant views with DW Griffiths portrayals of the klan, and also the subtle film techniques employed throughout the early film years were often very left leaning, in a right run country;Even the Wizard of Oz has socialist undertones;-) The constant stereotyping of ITalians and Irish as thugs or cops brought many an Irish actor to H-wood, and many an Italian director or producer as well Today US soldiers go from Al Jazeera outlet to outlet slowly leveraging, and influencing opinions of media, and its portrayals of America....
Yes, "it was the Japanese who invaded Nanking, not Koreans."
I specifically meant the Koreans...imagine if they made a film in an attempt to influence Chinese, or Japanese thought about something sooooo sensitive to so many! Yes, there would be inaccuracies, and yes their would be outsider bias, but it certainly would start some debate, I think;-) I think the most vocal criticism would likely come from Japan, who would undoubtedly say s/th similar to what is being said about comfort women " it wasn't me...", or in this case 'we were not that uncivilized/brutal, etc....but the poignant speeches would be given by NanJing survivors....but either way, the point that it is finally out in the open would be moot by then, with all of the arguments...portrayals of uncivil others always precede the next versions of bestial human actions by the next group of
As for "And he did not use actors of Mayan descent. The main character is North American Indian.",as well as the language critique: this is an interesting critique in light of the fact that fifty or so years ago, the war drums were beating here in the US saying 'why don't Indian actors get hired for westerns....'yet today, we see that they get hired, but now the debate is that they are 'the wrong KIND of Indian....' ..it is circular...
And Mayan Language? I think they are as fortunate to be heard for the first time that I or anyone knows of, as Jewish thougthts were back in the days of the rise of the American left, or even today, ala Seinfeld...How many times have you heard a comedian say "Oy Vey" or call someone a schmuck, a putz, etc..? THese were often jewish comedians (who were routinely labeled leftist, even if they weren't) and those imitating them...sure the language was rudimentary, but it aided in the climb to power those who had come from the Easern europe of that era...here is a link to some interesting thoughts in the stream about Jewish Hollywood..be a little careful , for some of it is right leaning too, but it has a good digression about Asian stereotypes too:
http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/archives/arch53.htm
I liked your linked editorial about Gibson, I have read others.I especially liked the phrase "Hopefully ''Apocalypto'' will inspire you to seek this truth and do some research yourself..." which is exactly my point.And you are quite right about Hollywood liking or not liking certain groups--but only in terms of 'can they produce revenue'. On another board, I ran into the dillemma that many people will argue incessantly about whether whites did all the race dirt, or Nazi's, or( pick your favorite 'other white meat') but no one will call the Hollywood spade the Jewish spade except Gibsonm who is then labeled racist.It is almost always a non-Jewish producer, or director like Gibson that gets labeled racist, but never in my life have I seen a Jewish producer get that particular label, until many years later in the disguise of non specific phrases like " Hollywoods racism"...Graned, Mel is no Robert( Independent fil maker) Redford who is sensitive to native causes and view points, but thankfully, he doesn't claim to be either.
Oh: and it is not merely a "wagon", any wagon: it is a "circus wagon," replete with all of the necessary distractions--bells, belles and whistles--to keep us talking, paying into it, and coming back for more;-)
I go to Cal State Northridge, and I am very, very disappointed on how our PR spokesperson John Chandler totally demonized Dr. Estrada as being a "heckler". The Central American Studies and Chicana/o Studies department has been FLOODED with calls from idiot jackass entertainment networks on their opinion (which will VERY likely be twisted).
I am currently spearheading a campaign to email bombard (i.e. an influx of so much email their servers shut down) both the president Jolene Koster and John Chandler's email address, which I shall post here.
Such ignorance will NOT be tolerated at a campus known for its activism.
Jolene Koster
presofc@csun.edu
John Chandler
john.chandler@csun.edu
mensch, (spoiler alert, kind of)
Thank you again for taking the time to explain.
Yes, I understand what you're saying about giving actors jobs. For many communities, it's an issue because yes, you want the actors to have roles in Hollywood and have some sort of representation where non-existed before, but the hard part is the ACCURATE representation. Therefore, a community can be torn on whether or not the actor in question is really portraying the community and what impact it has on how the community will be perceived and treated post-film. Similar with the films in 300, the Persians were not portrayed by actual members of that specific community (like in Apocalypto). The issue with that is that when you have someone like a North American Indian portraying a Mayan man, certain audiences might conclude that they are both the same culture. Even within the Native community in the U.S. there are distinctive cultures and traditions that many people in the mainstream are not aware of because of the false representation in the media.
I can also understand your argument about although the films were not accurate, it starts a dialogue/debate. Yes, it certainly does! Look at where we are :) But I think a more accurate film would even be better. Why have films that do not accurately portray a group of people instead of a film that negatively/wrongly portray a group of people (that can also lead to more stereotyping and colonization of the indigenous)? Mel's movie is especially detrimental because the movie portrayed a supposedly "dead" culture. Mayan culture is very much alive and by watching that movie, you're not going to know anything about it.
And in terms of your statement "And Mayan Language? I think they are as fortunate to be heard for the first time that I or anyone knows of," just because there was a brutally butchered form of a language does not mean that it is anywhere near it's accuracy. I also think that it had very little impact on the audience and if it did, it re-enforces the stereotype of a "dead" culture. We should keep in mind that the movie was made for mostly a western audience. The film made a mockery of Mayan culture and the Mayan community. Don't forget the people who are sitting in the theatres are not of Mayan descent and probably do not have a critical analysis of colonization and issues of indigenous peoples. Therefore, the movie has simply turned to entertaining baseless violence and stereotypes.
And I think as critics of popular culture, we should support those who are marginalized via the media. The Mayan community has been misrepresented. The justification of genocide and colonization is very alive in the film. For example, the Europeans arrive in the end of the film to a society that is "falling." So I think the Mayan community has the right to be angry. And I also have the right to support them.
Hi Cynical...Sure, all this validation of anger...I hope you are not meaning "spoiler alert" in the sense that I somehow am spoiling this discussion? If so, I will cease to visit you, if that would please you, just tell me, and I will disappear;-(
But because you are obviously a student of film of some degree, I guess I can infer that you are just warning me and others about plot twists, right?....
I think I am just too old now;-( I have seen the effects of anger, and those effects are almost always misplaced, and then, re-created.
But I see that this dialogue could go on forever, so I will just validate anger, and uplift those who feel marginalized...people like me, talking to you late at night on a blog;-) But I still agree with Mel, and I make my own silly movies.
Yes, you have outed me: I like to stir up discussion.
And I will now out Ang Lee for his portrayal of gay cowboys, de-mesculinizing white men, black men, and especially vaqueros, as homosexuals. The impact of that will do for the occidental icons what orientalism has done for eastern icons.And the Persians? I wonder if you mean all of those wealthy people who fled here after the dethroning of the Shah? Who cares what they think.They took enough illegally obtained wealth with them when they 'fled' so they CAN make their own movies ( and they have)
As for the appearance of the big black drag queen in 300? Well, yes, that is one of the most important racist stereotypes ever, next to the pimp, which drives American consumerism, and 'multi-culti' debates. However, thast stereotype has its origins in the exact same thing: demasculization( I say de- instead of em- because these are images of men who are representative of straight men, and are deconstructed in film for various reasons-not least of which is to titilate large gay audiences who like to talk talk talk about film;-)For a thought on that, here is Savage Love's thoughts on that:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/300
The real issue is emasculation not just of men, but of whole cultures, and there is no one culture who escapes that.
The real problem I think, is that academics live in academia, and miss the real substance of portrayals, which are the film itself--a detached montage of culture, film technique, and wo em special effects designed to make money, not friends, and the building of larger money pools to tap into--that being the building of new 'body politics' through titilating them, offending them, but offering them a voice in the dialogue. Hollywood is keenly aware of its intentions to profit off of the unrest they create ' there is no such thing as bad press'--but academics, who vacation in Mexico twice a year, also progfit from this same unrest, but good luck getting them to admit it;-)
In effect, when the topic comes up of "voice" and who should employ it, and who should be thus employed, here is a scenario where we see that even when options to be heard are offered, they are negated, derided, and dismissed, or worst of al NOT USED appropriately--key root word 'appropriate'.
"The Central American Studies and Chicana/o Studies department has been FLOODED with calls from idiot jackass entertainment networks on their opinion (which will VERY likely be twisted)."
I mean, gee whizz...then build your own news outlet....you know?
mensch,
I think you have misunderstood my spoiler alert. I was referring to my comment spoiling the end of Apocalypto.
"I will just validate anger, and uplift those who feel marginalized." Thank you for pointing out that I'm just one of those angry people who have nothing better to do. Actually, I don't really need your validation on my "anger." Apparently, you equate anger with critique... which I am still trying to grasp how. Well, anyhow, maybe you should stop your anger also... and here, I'll validate it for you. In terms of uplifting those who feel marginalized. Can you remind me who you are and how you plan to do that? And personally, no one is asking you to uplift anything except for maybe your mass generalizations.
"I still agree with Mel, and I make my own silly movies." Sure, go ahead. I will continue to disagree and pull it apart with my supposed "anger."
"And I will now out Ang Lee for his portrayal of gay cowboys, de-mesculinizing white men, black men, and especially vaqueros, as homosexuals." Yes, I agree that Brokeback Mountain wasn't the best film to portray gay love. But I do not see how Ang Lee "de-masculinized" the men in the film as they seemed to me to be very masculine. You seem to be linking de-masculinization with homosexuality. Masculinity and femininity does not define whether or not someone is straight or queer. There are straight men who are more feminine than some gay men out there. But that does not make the straight men gay if his sexual orientation is in fact straight.
"The real issue is emasculation not just of men, but of whole cultures, and there is no one culture who escapes that." I really don't understand how you're making generalizations and blanketed statements, but I will bare with you. The answer is, no, not all "cultures" are de-masculinized. In fact, if you're slimming it down to Hollywood, it is often Asian men that are demasculinized. Black men are hyper-masculinized to mimick the older racist stereotypes of the danger/violent savages who rape white women during slavery and Jim Crow. White men, of course are the rescuers. They rescue white women from men of color - throughout history and in Hollywood. And of course, they are also rescuers of women of color in heterosexist discourse. Because women of color need to be "freed" from their demasculinized/hypermasculine/violent counterparts. On a global scale, white men are also the saviors. White men have all the money, white men control all the resources, white men pretend to be saving people of color but in reality exploit them by masking themselves in a paternalistic/ultra-masculine manner. If you look at the propaganda during the time the U.S. Imperialists ceded the Philippines, you can understand what I'm talking about.
"The real problem I think, is that academics live in academia, and miss the real substance of portrayals" I do not identify with academia. Yes I am a student, but only to further my education so I can do bigger and better things which may or may not be in the realm of academia. And also, to address your earlier concern. I am not a film student, my majors are listed in the "about me" part of this blog. In any case, I do not think that academia misses the real sustance of portrayals as you say. I think academia can sometime be too academic and not accessible to the public. But i think academia do point out critically how certain stereotypes are used in the media..etc.
"film itself--a detached montage of culture, film technique, and wo em special effects designed to make money, not friends, and the building of larger money pools to tap into" Yes it does come down to money indeed.
"offending them, but offering them a voice in the dialogue." Dialogues do not happen by a magic wand of controversy, sorry to say. Making racist portrayals os someone 'causes more harm than good and perpetuates the same sort of racism in institutionalized systems. They do not make a dialogue on a larger scale.
I do thank you though for "stirring-up" discussions.
mensch, on your later comment, I think you're missing the point.
""The Central American Studies and Chicana/o Studies department has been FLOODED with calls from idiot jackass entertainment networks on their opinion (which will VERY likely be twisted)."
I mean, gee whizz...then build your own news outlet....you know?"
The whole point here is that when they DID try to build their own outlet by attending the talk with Mel, it was shot down. I think you're missing the power dynamics between the media and the entertainment industry, and an academic department of a university/a marginalized community. The media can put a spin to most things and get away with it like it was the truth. How often have we seen that? The power inbalances of the media and the people who are calling out the racism in the community plays a key role in how you can "build your own outlet." It's all about resources and of course, money.
It's not easy building your own news outlet when who you're going up against is mass media.
Hi Cynical,
I am just another college person who found your blog, and I am a film buff. And I commend you for your search for asian women bloggers. I find asian people everywhere, from myspace to the outer reaches of the universe, but not all of them are interested in the distinctly Babylonian racialism of the phrase "asian".
I actually agree with you in many respects, esp. power interplay btwn institutions etc., but I was merely advocating that Mel has that right, albeit misguided if you need to see it that way, to produce crappy innacurate portrayals...which I loved, but also hated for its driven, constant war feeling--which more than anything was his intention, for I didn't have enough time during that fast paced film to hate his characters racially, I only hated the feeling of being warred upon, and captured, and....
About anger: I too validate it, if that is necessary to begin a discussion; I am not intentionally projecting anger, or anger issues, and if so, I beg that my inability to mask it be overlooked, if in fact it is there.
I was only responding to this comment that you have made :
" the Europeans arrive in the end of the film to a society that is "falling." So I think the Mayan community has the right to be angry. And I also have the right to support them. "
Which indicates validation of anger. However, in reality, I advocate for tact, and diplomacy.
About academia> You felt that "But i think academia do point out critically how certain stereotypes are used in the media..etc."
and I agree, as much as I also note that academics, academic discourse, etc, is side industry often based on fomenting dialogues that are controversial, and that profit academics in the end.In the way back machine, academics were corrupting Darwin into eugenics, and using evolutionary theory to motivate the "masses' into a common self interest that was good for the econopmy--the tax base, and they are doing the same today, but reversing the racial construct, one emergent neo-racist at a time.There was so much more to Gibsons film..... When and if a race based war, or any other broke out, you can bet those academics who invested in that war with their rhetoric, and books, and class rooms full of young minds with too much hormones and energy to direct soemwhere other than selfish self interest will be in the sunny Yucatan
;-0
Profit is the root of industry, and academia is a discourse fomenting industry--so academics are primarily JUST AS BAD AS MEL, when it comes to positing their ideas, and profiting thereafter.
about dqalogue>>"when they DID try to build their own outlet by attending the talk with Mel, it was shot down."
I don't think they were as much trying to build there own outlets, as to tap into Mels outlet, and using the tactic of 'hostile takeover', and it didn't fly in that instance. Maybe next time, a little diplomacy, requesting side dialogues, would be a good thing? A longer term, less angry and reactionary method? Very little commerce other than the business of war takes place over anger.
Yeah, and the whole white men analogy is overplayed,because at the very least, every one of them has a wife who shares in the responsibility for that wealth, and 16 of 50 of the worlds wealthiest are women, 'white' and 'arguably white, depending on which racial, and racist definition you choose to follow. Or, put another way, those who pit themselves against any race are decidedly racist in so much as they accept those definitions, which I don't, unless it benefits me, and I do when it does, and just go along with the program when the racists are having their moments classifying, because , yes, it is all about resources, and then factor in time, our most precious resource, and how e spend it, and with whom.
Indeed you are right,"The media can put a spin to most things and get away with it like it was the truth." and a large part of todays getting away with it is the re-construction of race, ala 1920, but in 2007.
I do disagree with you tho in regards to Hollywoods depictions. It does not proportionately hold true any more( absent empirical data) because in my experience, I have watche dthe definitions, the stereotypes, and the archetypes of good and bad change: any episode of most television episodics, especially crime dramas, have fully shifted to images of evil white men as perpetrators, and most US made movies with african americans made in the last twenty years have been cautious to re-frame him as the good guy, saving the white penelope, etc. If you watch tv, or movies, it is a common pattern indeed. The hyper masculine images are gradually giving way to Don Cheadles, and
This could be a large discussion and critique, and if you know of a spot wherte it is happening across the board, I would love a link. But I don't know of such a spot, because in lieu of that actual critique, we have a legion of racist/anti-racist(closet racist, but only against white men) dialogues across cyberspace. Black, and white, like old tv's with broken antennas.
The socialists did as much in China with film: you were either a nationalist pig or a good caring sensitive socialist leaning person.The old Chinese studio's were at war with first the socialists, and later the communists, but both looked rather blatanly, and I might add , quite blase--yes/no, good/bad, etc., national/not
And where did that war take place? Mostly in Penelope's unlined candy box of a mind, Penelope, the middle class slightly entitled female, teaching her film by film who the good and bad guys are--but never is a guy with s/th to talk about a good guy, unless what he says is echoed in film.The only good guy(or girl) is the one that Penelope feels safe with--the one that movies have instructed her to be, and be with, by way of mutual attraction/repulsion to propaganda.
Today for instance, if you live in the common culture of any major city in America, the hypermasculinized savage is getting more than pity from Penelope, no matter what his race is--it has alkways been that way amongst the 'masses' that form up for film .White men as saviors? Sure, for now;-)Just wait and see what GW cooked up around the world with his arrogance, and butchery. But racism, and in this case, ethnocentricism, nonetheless sells films.
Cynical,
p.s.
I wasn't meaning "you" when I spoke of academics, per se. I was meaning that rant above it from an academic, and also the very idea of what informs us--academia, not always lived experiances that show us different sides of the issues.
mensch,
I do not have enough time to de-construct everything you have said. Read details here. I am suprised you have all this time to spend on one blog. I also question whether you have several people posting your answers since your posted comments differ in politics, logic and knowledge.
I hope others can weigh in their thoughts on the posts and comments also.
Cynical: I don't have that time, but found your response interesting, and engaging. However, I never infered that I was being posted by anyone, anywhere else.
I do not have an ideology, one, or a hundred. I have an open mind though, and a few opinions.
mensch,
I've been trying to write a response to your comments for the past week- but have lost the energy to address everything that I've found within your comments that upset me. I then put my response aside, and the moment I return to this page to fully address it, you've written something else equally problematic. So, consequently, you might want to go back to your previous comments to understand what I'm saying.
You touch on the lack of "whining lobby about race" during the 30s from the white, Italian, and Irish community. Just because you are not aware of these movements does not mean that they did not exist. Indeed, while harmful and
stereotypical- romanticized even- images of Italian Americans are still prevalent in our society, so still are movements to remove them. Please see these links:
American
Italian Defamation Association
href="http://www.nj.com/sopranos/ledger/index.ssf?/sopranos/stories/111500anti.html">
Marred by the mob
However, maybe the reason why you along with many other people don't know about these movements is because many Irish, Italian, and other European immigrants chose to collude with the dominant American culture and contribute to the Racist society- That is how the Irish went from being seen as savage "others" to being considered White. And after becoming White, have you noticed a surge of
romanticized Irish to America movies and less of the brainless, flea-ridden, bad tempered, drunks.
You also talk about the possibility of Mel bringing the Indigenous communities of North and South America by casting North American native people in roles in Apocalypto. Unfortunately, the only reason why this came about was because people within the Mayan community refused to take the lead roles in this film. The only way that Gibson has brought the North and South American Indigenous communities together, is by the unified outrage expressed by our (and I'm speaking as an Indigenous person) communities.
What Gibson did was appropriate a culture for his own desires- Mel Gibson wanted to make a movie that was a social commentary about the dangers of unjustified war and over-consumption. He is also a devoted Christian, hence the strong Christian overtones throughout the film, stemming mostly from contrast. The sacrifices of the prisioners in the film were done in the most violent and "othering" way possible (not to mention the fact that Mayans DID NOT practice human sacrifice. The Aztecs did, but no mass graves even remotely the size of the grave site in Apacolyto have been discovered)- this makes it all the better when the Catholic Spanish come to save the day in the end.
To see more about the introduction of Christianity to the Mayan people, please see this article:
Gibson's Sacrifice of the Maya
My argument? If Gibson wanted to make the film he said he was aiming to make, PLEASE USE YOUR OWN COMMUNITY TO MAKE YOUR POINT. It would have been far more powerful for him to use his own people and his own culture to make his point. Too often under-represented communities are used as vehicles for the dominant groups.
You talk about language and being lucky to be heard- The Mayan community is NOT being heard and seen in Mel's fictional film. Mel's interpretation of the Maya, Mel's wish of what he wants the Maya to be, and what he wants or sees as their history- this is what is being seen.
It is painful, as an indigenous person, to see how people think of my brothers and sisters. It may not mean much to you, but it literally hurts me to see people watch that film and think that they're getting a history lesson along with their entertainment. There is no defense for this.
" the Europeans arrive in the end of the film to a society that is
"falling." So I think the Mayan community has the right to be angry.
And I also have the right to support them. "
Which indicates validation of anger. However, in reality, I advocate
for tact, and diplomacy.
While I think that it's important to advocate for tact and diplomacy when confronting misleading media images such as the ones in Apocalypto, I also do not fully believe that tact and diplomacy has ever been an effective agent of change in the course of race relations in this country. If you look at the Civil Rights movement, and on through the Black Power movement, civility, tact, and diplomacy were never the motivating change factors that enabled many to renounce the racist and biased media portrayals. Direct action, coalition-building and militancy all marked the progressive change agents that compelled law makers to diplomatically change policies (which are still racist today for the most part).
I understand your argument behind critical analysis from the ivory tower, but I believe that in this day and age, these sort of critical analyses are needed since those who are not academically studying popular culture are unaware of the racial or political undercurrents behind movies that are normally considered innocuous in nature. I mean you can use the idea that academics have fueled racialized endeavors all you want. You can always find some institutionalized vantage point that has at some point in time negatively influenced the predominant epistemological line of thought in particular eras. Darwin sure, and the perpetual cycle of anthropological and biological determinism are all examples of how academia have inspired racism etc.
You then went on to say, "When and if a race based war, or any other broke out, you can bet those academics who invested in that war with their rhetoric, and books, and
class rooms full of young minds with too much hormones and energy to direct soemwhere other than selfish self interest will be in the sunny
Yucatan"
I mainly want to point here that race/racism have always been institutional considerations when it comes to war. Every war in history has been based on race/racism in one way or another. Even today the war on terror, comes not necessarily as a means to oust terrorism, or spread democracy, but has ethnocentrically placed a democratic political system as a way to colonize a "less-civil" nation as the U.S. Since 9/11 thousands and thousands of South Asians, Muslims, and Middle Eastern folks have been conflated into the "Brown Peril" (similar to the Yellow Peril once seen in Asians), where no distinction is made between these people-and terrorism is an inherent prejudicial classification for those who wear hijabs, turbans and tunics. I could go on about how Western Imperialism has always ridden on the shoulders of racial classification where those countries at war are cast as culturally inferior and needing to be governed over.
I'd also like to comment on what you said here "A longer
term, less angry and reactionary method? Very little commerce other
than the business of war takes place over anger."
The only thing reactionary to the social commentary surrounding Mel Gibson's movies is how quick to judge many are in relation to people like us who criticize his movie for either its over exoticization of Mayan culture based on falsified historical content, and the grossly unjust portrayal of Mayan people.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but anger is a natural reaction to racism-but there are many other reasons to be mad at in the case of this movie which I think Cynical spoke very articulately to. To think that anything would have been accomplished during the civil rights or Black Power movements that was based on your friend "diplomacy" or "tact" is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps the gross injustices we have seen since the 50s and 60s to people of color in this country is due to a lack of anger since racism is a much more complex agent than ever. Racism has buried itself within institutions on the policy, education, business and many other levels. Racism is no longer an easily classifiable event by all definitions most understand of the 50s and 60s. The point is that there are various levels of racism at work here. Many have been hidden, and visually diluted from the public eye in a form that isn't seen as racist but contributes to the racist inequities in this country. That to me shows the need for academia to continuously challenge people to take critical roles in looking at how institutions such as the mass media (through movies of course) play a part in the misinformed judgments of people of color.
One last quick thing. You mentioned that there is now a reversal and the white man is the one discriminated against in the media. I hate to break it to you but it is only because racism was started by white people when they enslaved Blacks, exploited other people of color for labor like the transcontinental railroad, took Native Indian land, wrote legislation on anti-miscegenation between whites and other people color, segregated education and neighborhoods via legistlative institutions such as Plessy vs Ferguson, Interned Japanese Americans, eugenicized Black women, and now deny Latino families citizenship. The list could go on and on. But the main point here is that these racial constructions in this country are based on white people being the normative American. There really isn't such a thing as being racist to a white person because racism in this country was built by white people (the normative Americans) and only against people of color. Now this doesn't mean that all white people are evil or completely racist-but it does mean that this is the origins of racism in this country-and to combat it we have to understand the mechanics of how racism works its way through society today. Prejudice still exists, and is a testament to the fact that race still plays a large role in the ways people of color are illustrated today. If we don't confront these prejudices we are doing nothing to stop the prejudices that result in institutionalized racism in all its forms.
oops, sorry forgot to mention that was in relationship to mensch's comment
mensch,
Notice that I did not publish your last comment because it was highly offensive (not that your previous comments haven't been). If you make such ignorant statements again, they will not be posted. Let's just say that we have noted that you will not be responding for now because you are doing bad business in China that will hurt lots of people (I am not joking y'all). (In your words "on sabatical"). You can email me if you are wondering why I deleted it.
Now, let's get down to your comment shall we? You said "I find asian people everywhere, from myspace to the outer reaches of the universe." This is me just being picky, but capitalize "Asian" like you did with European, American,Christians...etc. Second, where do you see Asians in the outer reaches of the universe? Just a small curiosity.
You also stated, "and academia is a discourse fomenting industry--so academics are primarily JUST AS BAD AS MEL." Yes, this is true, but I would disagree that ALL academics are as bad as Mel. There are academics who teach against racist discourse in the media and teach their students how to exactly pinpoint prejudiced, stereotypical and racist portrayals of the media. In this case, academics are incredibly helpful in educating the future generation of film-makers and film critics.
"Yeah, and the whole white men analogy is overplayed,because at the very least, every one of them has a wife who shares in the responsibility for that wealth, and 16 of 50 of the worlds wealthiest are women, 'white' and 'arguably white, depending on which racial, and racist definition you choose to follow." I will guess that you have very little experience with race and racism and also sexism for you to make such an outlandish statement. If you take a look (a small critical look will do), although the world is not predominantly white, it IS white people, more specifically the U.S. and other European countries that have historically colonized, brutalized and imperialized people of color in Africa, Asia, Pacific Islands, the Caribbeans and North/Central/South America among other places as well. European invasions took away natural resources for their own benefit and exploited the inhabitants for their labor. You really need a history lesson. And in terms of your comment about "and 16 of 50 of the worlds wealthiest are women," where are you getting these numbers? In the future, if you choose to post ridiculous comments, at least back them up by a credible source (not your crazy friends or neighbors). And also, please do not make inaccurate statements such as "every one of them has a wife." No, not every one of them have a wife. That is a fact. Just like not all men marry women or women marry men and/or not everyone gets married. I don't have enough TIME to explain how heterosexist, and nuclear-family based your comment is. 1. again, please get some facts before you make statements that makes little sense, 2. yes, women (IF they are married to the wealthy), MIGHT have access to monetary means, but in the most part, if it is their husbands who are making all the dough, it is unlikely that she has the access to spend that money as she pleases. Therefore, they do not have equal access to wealth. And because wealth is in control mostly by men, women do not have as much access to money as you say they do. If you look at the disparaties between men and women in the labor market, it is obvious that women are not financially equal to men - Women and Labor Market Changes in the Global Economy:
Growth Helps, Inequalities Hurt and Public Policy Matters .
"Or, put another way, those who pit themselves against any race are decidedly racist in so much as they accept those definitions, which I don't, unless it benefits me, and I do when it does, and just go along with the program." It is not about people pitting themselves against ANY race. Racism is a social-construct. There are no distinct "races." Race has been socially constructed in order to justify exploitation. The slavery of Africans was justified via race. It was believed that they were inferior and that they were justified in a lifetime of servitude. So people are not really "pitting" themselves against one another. They do not have a choice because since "race" was created, people HAVE to identify via race. You yourselve said that you would also use "those who pit themselves against any race are decidedly racist in so much as they accept those definitions, which I don't, unless it benefits me, and I do when it does." So your argument contradict itself where you stated that it is racist to pit one race against another, but also said that you would use it to your benefit.
You stated, "Today for instance, if you live in the common culture of any major city in America, the hypermasculinized savage is getting more than pity from Penelope." Fetishization is a product of prejudice and stereotypes and ultimately, are due to race. Yes, there is an increase in interracial dating after miscegenation laws have been lifted (there were prior relationships also). But 1. you are acknowledging the existence of "hypermasculinized savages" as a reality, when I have stated that it is ONLY a stereotype. 2. again, stop with the heteronormativity. There are same-sex couples who fetishize their partners. It's not all the straightees that are making the mistakes! 3. in terms of heterosexual relationships, again, the "hypermasculinized savage" is not a reality, it is a product of racism to maintain dominant white supremacist discourse, and fetishization of this stereotype is also a form of racism.
Lastly, as I have urged you many times before, please familiarize yourself with race, gender, class and sexuality BEFORE you make your statements. You will learn something and then you won't have to look stupid. Also, please don't assert your "correctness" on my readers and myself. We are having a discussion, not a debate.
Post a Comment