The MoFo Personal Pictures Thread

I have to admit, I've always had a macabre interest in such subjects.

I condemn any such things on a moral & ethical level, yet find them eminently interesting to study in a historical context (maybe that's why Apocalypto is one of my favorite films... but not just for the horrific scenes, I also really like seeing the bad guys get theirs in a movie!)

But if you think about their society at that time period, they don't feel the same as society now.

This is something people need to consider.

Just like animal abuse in older films. They didn't have organizations like they do now.

Oh, I get it.
If I had a time machine and went back to witness an Aztec sacrifice, I might not be the hero by single-handedly trying to fight off hordes of thousands (and quickly be killed in the process or risk being sacrificed myself, not to mention potentially changing history & reality in ways no one can imagine by interfering with time), but at the same time I wouldn't cheer with the rest of the crowd.

There are many factors and mindset is one. They are taught at a young age, meaning the villagers, that this is normal. Most of the people who were sacrificed were prisoners of war. And when they weren't available, it was by lot. This was practice by the Druids, Vikings and Sumerians, as well as other cultures who believed in human sacrifice.

Also, we can view this like kamikaze pilots of Japan. They are "taught" it is better to die at your own hand than to die at an enemy's hand.

Or go watch Robin Hardy's The Wicker Man.


I guess I'm the only person who sees in ancient cultures, the was normal.

I guess as much as I study history and early cultures with torture and sacrifice, I don't see an issue.

AND, You have a modern mindset, not ancient, so you find this wrong . It's only wrong by modern standards.

Remember, there are non Modern religion believers.

Yes, I understand that.

Using Apacalypto again as an example, although it shows ancient cultures, the story is one told in a way that appeals totally to modern ethics (which is why I like it - I'm rooting for the good guy according to how the story is told).

I've jokingly called it Die Hard in the jungle: the victims are innocent people who never harm anyone else (in reality such ultra-peaceful tribes were probably few and far between), while the bad guys are war mongers, conquerors and murderers, so of course we root for a hero from among the victims when they fight back and enjoy seeing the bad guys get their comeuppance. (Then we growl at the end when we see the Spanish ships arriving because we know they will be the disease-bringers that wipe out entire nations and violent aggressors as well).

I'm sure in ancient times Aztecs had similar stories where the heroes were the people of their own cultures, making holy & righteous sacrifices to their gods and must defend themselves from captured slaves who get loose and need to be hunted down, lest they return with a military force of their own. Or stories where Europeans are peaceful explorers of the New World who must defend themselves for the Queen's glory against violent, Godless savages that don't understand "Christian compassion".

Apocolypto, for the most part, is a story. It does have some historical accuracy.

It is a good movie overall.

When I watch a "historical " film. I tend to do research afterwards. I do it with novels as well.

Historical romance novels are part of the reason I enjoy history. If they talk about The Field of Gold, you better bet, I'm going to read up.

This is the same with Serial Killers, Human Sacrifice and the darker. I watch documentary, then I read more.

This caused my love of history to bloom further.

I watched a new show called Hunting History (History Channel > On Demand) last night - it was about the lost colony of Roanoke - one of my favorite historical mysteries.

It didn't have a whole lot of new info, just explored the three foremost theories on where the colonists went. A large concentration was on how difficult it would have been for over 100 people to live off the land in that area, no matter where they went, at that time. Unless they were taken in by peaceful natives who taught them their survival skills - but the question remained; would even compassionate natives risk their own survival by taxing their resources for over 100 newcomers.

Of course, the idea was presented that by the time the colonists might have been taken in by the Croatoans (the friendly natives), there may have been so few of them left alive so as to just be absorbed into the tribe without much trouble. The other two theories seemed to spell quick death for the colonists as it took them into swamps where farming was impossible, hunting and fishing were scarce, and which were riddled with angry natives who already had a beef with white intruders due to recent past violence from Europeans.

I get it. The cave I visited (ATM) is a cave where human sacrifices occurred and the skeletons of a few of them have been preserved pretty good. Camera's/cell phones are no longer allowed in the caves but I was about a foot away from this young fellow:

that guy should not have lent a hand.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza