Brittany has always been better at stirring up more controversy than me via her hard-hitting posts about… the Mayan civilization as portrayed in Mel Gibson’s new film Apocaypto?! C’mon, how lame is that? :-) Anyway, check out the post she wrote here. This set off a bit of a firestorm when she criticized a shock-blogger for his post criticizing the Mayan civilization for being blood-thirsty, and thanking the blood-thirsty Spanish Conquistadors for slaughtering the Mayans. She cited his first post on the subject, and is criticized in a later post.
I think it’s interesting to level criticism towards an entire culture. It certainly raises a lot of eyebrows and gets people to pay attention. To make a sweeping generalization, sweeping generalizations often do a very good job of causing controversy.
There’s criticisms can be had of every culture on the face of the earth. But how do we measure a culture? I found this definition helpful – the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group. That’s from the dictionary on my computer. Seems reasonable. We can walk back thru history breaking down societies and knocking them apart.
It’s all well and fun, until we fail to turn the camera back onto ourselves. The Vietnamese people looked at the Americans fighting in their country as killers; their own struggle was a war for their country. For Americans, we viewied the war as a fight against an idealogy going against what our country stood for; we were fighting to save Vietnam from falling into the clutches of a country we viewed as brutal. The only way to parse out who was right and who was wrong is to wait and see what the final repercussions are of the act. Right now, we view the deaths of so many Americans and Vietnamese as needless, but also view Communism as a failure and its practices as draconian. In other words, it’s a mixed bag.
We can also look to criticize the Middle East today. Differing views abound from every part of the world. But the question remains – in the future, will the war be seen as striking change in a region whose governments are frequently out of step with the rest of the world? Or will the Middle East stay the same, only growing because America removes itself from the region? I have no idea. Judging from history, it seems like we will probably see a little bit of both. The war probably wasn’t a good idea, but the Middle East did need to change.
In short, summing up an entire society with a sweeping blow is a pretty tall order. Let’s look at the Greeks and Romans, for example. Much criticism can be had of them, to be sure. For one, their sexual practices were far different from ours today. I’ve heard reports that men frequently engaged in sexual acts with young boys. This is very different from our society today, in which such behavior is regarded as criminal and deviant. These two cultures also kept slaves; today, we consider the keeping of slaves to be backward and against basic human rights.
There is much that we could criticize the Greeks and the Romans for, but we recognize that they had significant developments that lead to much greater understanding of science and reason into later societies. Therefore, we write off what differs from our societies and embrace what lives on in our lives today. We can still look back with a critical eye, but we keep our views more well-rounded, playing both sides. It sets up an interesting discussion. Broad generalizations tend not to do such a good job with that.
So how about the Mayans? Indeed, fans of killing each other, something many civilizations have gone thru. And indeed fans of their religion, which they believed dictated these killings. Thank goodness no wars fought over religion have occured since the Mayans were killed. But the question remains – noble savages or just savages?
How about neither? The blogger Brittany quotes – Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Blog (how’s that for a wham-bang of a name?!) – tries to frame his argument in these terms. Either way, you’ve got the word ‘savage’ as a central part to the argument. Definitions abound for this term, having to do with an uncivilized way of acting or a level of violence. Either way, the term remains relative. The Mayans were savage compared to what? There is no intrinsic standard. Compared to our society today, they were savage, and stupid, and backwards.
Furthermore, what do we have the Mayans to compare to? They were removed from the rest of the world, where other societies were developing. And in that remote location, they achieved a complex society, with advancements in engineering, art, architecture, and government. Three cheers for the Mayans!
At the same time, they did have a religion that dictated the killing of people as ways to appease their gods. In this way, and many others, I have no doubt they were a society we would find radically different from our own.
So what’s the point? As usual, the truth is in the middle ground. Arguing that the Mayans were a society that we should be proud to model our own after is obviously foolish. Arguing that the Mayans were sick savages who deserved to be killed makes about as much sense. So c’mon. Either be smart and back up what you’ve got to say, admit to your shock-blogging ways, or stop trying to make arguments that you know you’ll never win in any realm of logic or reason.