At least one expert couldn't agree more.
To find out what the Maya Empire was really like, Stefan Lovgren checked in with Zachary Hruby, a Maya expert at the University of California, Riverside.
Although this film will undoubtedly create interest in the field of Maya archaeology by way of its spectacular reconstructions and beautiful jungle scenes, the lasting impression of Maya and other Pre-Columbian civilizations is this: The Maya were simple jungle bands or bloodthirsty masses duped by false religions, that their mighty but misguided civilization fell into ruin as a result, and their salvation arrived with the coming of Christian beliefs saddled on the backs of Spanish conquistadors. As we archaeologists struggle to accurately reconstruct ancient Maya society, obstructed by their decimation via Western diseases, destruction of their books, art, and history by Spanish friars, not to mention their subjugation and exploitation by the conquistadors, films such as Apocalypto represent a significant disparagement of that process. Further, inaccurate, irresponsible representations by Hollywood of indigenous peoples as amoral, inhuman, or uncivilized can only lead to greater misunderstanding and strife in contemporary society. This may be particularly important in a modern world where common ground is increasingly difficult to come by.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDelete"These Natives..." means that they all somehow must have been interrelated. But we know that the three films the writer names fairly widely are separated in time, and thus the natives so depicted were not related, nor were they in the same geographical areas, and neither were they alike one another other than they all were natives. How does one do that, alter time and space and identities in order to make one's argumentative points?
Omigosh, is it possible that Rob Schmidt has been cloned and thus his other selves state the same syllogical 'think-speak' in reference to the same topics?
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST, APOCALYPTO, and the KING KONG remake occurred filmically in three definitively separate parts of the world and in three definitively separate historical eras. Thus, they cannot be so compared unless there was an intentional interrelation and likely therefore a conspiracy among the filmmakers.
Which leaves one to ask, what will the webmaster of this website make of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END when it reaches the theaters later this month? If there are any natives within it, that is? That somehow the 3rd film of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and APOCALYPTO and the most recent remake of KING KONG somehow still are interrelated? If so, then how?
Note the address line of the topic itself: Another EXPERT (emphasis writerfella's) Criticizes Apocalypto. That means that any and all who criticize Apocalypto IS AN EXPERT, or the word 'another' would not appear. And by the dint of the use of the word 'expert' implies that the webmaster himself also is such an 'expert'
Ah, too bad. Such a flimsy house of cardinal attributions only can collapse upon examination and analysis. And so it has..
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteRob, perhaps you should go and read the item posted by writerfella at the article labled, 'Comanche Meets Horse Again,' as it is totally NOW!!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
No, "these Natives" means that three movies that came out around the same time portrayed "nonwestern natives as evil savages." The only connection implied or required is that Hollywood-based filmmakers created these portrayals. They're prima facie evidence of mainstream filmmakers' attitudes toward indigenous people.
ReplyDeleteRe "they cannot be so compared unless there was an intentional interrelation and likely therefore a conspiracy among the filmmakers": Of course they can be compared. Proving the point, Hruby and I have compared them. Again, all three are mainstream Hollywood depictions of indigenous people. What part of this sentence don't you grasp?
To reiterate, the "interrelationship" is in Hollywood, not in the three movies. The same small group of Hollywood execs reads, approves, and makes movies such as King Kong, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Apocalypto. These films demonstrate their narrowminded view of Native peoples and cultures.
I've already answered your rhetorical question about the third Pirates movie. Read my answer again in the comments section of Good Exchange on Mascots.
The only "collapse" here is your understanding of basic English. "Another expert" refers to the previous experts--e.g., archaeologists and historians--I've quoted. It doesn't refer to me or to the movie critics I've quoted.
If I had meant to say everyone who criticized Apocalypto was an expert, I would've said so. Instead, you've imagined something that isn't in the text. I suggest you brush up on your reading skills so you don't make this mistake again.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteAh, ah, ah. It's right there in keystroke black and white, unless you decide to emendate or even to erase them. Your words, sir, are your bond, whether or not they are shaken or stirred...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
When you find the words that spell out how "another expert" refers to me and not to the other experts I've quoted, be sure to let us know. Until then, your inability to understand plain English remains all too evident.
ReplyDeleteWriterfella here --
ReplyDeleteThe pud of the proofing lies in one clear and evident fact, that you quote yourself nearly as often as you do your 'experts.' How much more plain can English be?
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Translation: You couldn't find the words that spell out how "another expert" refers to me and not to the other experts I've quoted. You failed yet again when presented with a direct challenge. So noted.
ReplyDeleteI quote myself "nearly as often" as I do the experts? How stupid can you get? Take a look at the blog, bright boy. How many times do I quote articles written by or about Natives? And how many times do I append my own comments at the end?
Let's take the current blog as a typical example. I'm talking about the postings from May 11 to May 17. There are 46 postings in this stretch and I've added comments to exactly nine of them. Most of these comments are explanatory notes, not instances of my asserting my expertise.
So no, I don't quote myself nearly as often as I quote others. In fact, I don't comment at all more than three-quarters of the time. I interject fewer personal opinions into my blog than almost any blogger I know.
This stands in marked contrast to your approach, by the way. I'd say about half of your comments are self-serving and have little or nothing to do with the matter at hand. You should be as self-effacing as I am.
In short, Russ, better luck next time with your lame attempts to quantify my writings. It's bad enough that your spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills are inferior to mine. Brush up on your math skills so I don't have to embarrass you in this area also.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteLove it, love it, love it. writerfella's Michigan University-rated vocabulary is 350,000 words. What is your rating? writerfella's Michigan-rated spelling quotient is 97%. What is your rating? writerfella's Michigan-rated grammatical quotient is 94%. What is yours? writerfella's Michigan-rated punctuation skill is 75%. What is your rating and by whom was it rated, if at all? writerfella has all of his own documented abilities set to paper. Where are yours?
In writerfella's 39-year-long experience as a professional writer, these are his ratings. Where are yours? The proof of writerfella's essays lies in the very obvious fact that you never have answered the above questions. Not even once... In fact, you answered his questions with other questions! Ennh, ennh! Oh, we're sorry, but there's Beulah the Buzzer and your time is up! All who read this only can know that Rob fails to answer questions meaningfully because he receives responses that were different from the answers he wanted others to provide. Sorry, but very few of us out here adhere to your principle that, 'reality is what you make of it.'
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Let's see...you dropped the issue of how often I allegedly quote myself. Presumably that's because I shut you up by embarrassing you with the facts.
ReplyDeleteAnother self-serving comment about your writing prowess isn't the best way to address my claim about your self-serving comments. I guess you don't care how self-serving you sound.
I've never heard of "Michigan ratings" for spelling, grammar, or punctuation, so I don't have such ratings. Find a website on the subject and then we'll discuss it.
I've never answered the above questions because you've never asked them before. If you imagine you have asked them before, tell us when and where. Or I'll point out that you're fibbing again.
Apparently you really want me to point out your mistakes. Okay, if you insist. Let's go over your comments in this thread and see how many you've made.
In your first comment, you again misused the ellipsis--completing a sentence with two dots instead of four. The sentence "That means that any and all who criticize Apocalypto IS AN EXPERT" should read "That means that any and all who criticize Apocalypto ARE EXPERTS." In the next sentence, "by the dint of the use of the word 'expert'" isn't a valid noun phrase. (The sentence would be correct if you omitted the unnecessary "by the dint of.") And you forgot the period at the end of this sentence.
I'm also tempted to count your redundant use of "somehow" in "That somehow the 3rd film of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and APOCALYPTO and the most recent remake of KING KONG somehow still are interrelated?" But although it's an example of flawed writing, I'm not sure it's technically a mistake.
In your second comment, you misspelled "labeled." In your third and fourth comments, you misused the ellipsis yet again. You might want to take a special class in ellipses, since you don't appear to have a clue how to use them correctly.
In this thread, therefore, you've made at least seven mistakes (so far). I believe I've made zero. That gives you the only "rating" you need to know: Russ 7, Rob 0.
If you love touting your abilities, I love tallying your mistakes. As I told you before, whenever you raise the subject to inflate your ego, I'll be glad to deflate your ego. If we both enjoy noting your inferiority, please feel free to continue. I can do this all day long.