Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 27 Editor's Choice: 7
-
a correction
[Read the article: "Apocalypto"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Andrew O'Hehir claims that the plague in Tenochtitlan was the result of "the sheer buildup of rotting corpses from mass sacrifices". This is incorrect. The plague he refers to was suffered by the Aztecs in the time interval between the first incursion of the Spaniards to the Aztec capital (which had ended in summary defeat and retreat for Cortez sparked by Pedro Alvarado's unprovoked massacre of a group of dancers), and Cortez's second entrada to Tenochtitlan in 1520.
The cause of the plague was undoubtedly prolonged exposure to the Spanish who were carriers of European pathogens. Aztec chronicles record illnesses that can be identified as smallpox, influenza and measles.
The piles of bodies O'Hehir refers to were unburied victims of disease not sacrificial victims.
I refer interested readers to Inga Clendinnen's magisterial work "Aztecs: An Interpretation" along with the work of Susan Gillespie and Thelma Sullivan for example.
I also wish to take issue with the other letter-writers who continue to harp on the Maya as "blood-thirsty savages". While it is true that blood sacrifice was important to Maya religion, heart sacrifice was secondary to auto-sacrifice (drawing blood from one's own body) and both were just part of a larger set of ritual behaviors including dance, prayer, burning incense and pilgrimage. To focus on this one aspect of Maya activity would be akin to characterizing 16th century Spanish culture as "bloodily savage" because of the Inquisition, burning at the stake and routine torture as part of the legal process.
By the way, 16th century Yucatec Maya culture has relatively few direct portrayls of sacrifice unlike the earlier Classic period (200-900 AD). The outdated conceit that the Maya were somehow corrupted by blood-thirsty Toltecs should be put on the shelf along with the Cortez's self-promotional accounts of both the Aztecs and the Maya. Real understanding of the ancient cultures of Mesoamerica relies on more nuanced and careful scholarship than breathless popular accounts from the 1940s reinforced by Mexican tour guides who know that the size of their tip is directly proportional to the amount of sensational thrills they can engender in their gringo clients.
-
Edward VIII no celebrity
[Read the article: Diana's last days]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In addition to his well-known sympathies for both Hitler and Mussolini, Edward VIII was intent on re-establishing some measure of political power for the monarchy. In this he was encouraged by both Von Ribbentrop and Hitler, who saw an activist, pro-Nazi monarch as the best way to keep Britain out of the war that Hitler was intent on launching against France to the west and Poland and Central Europe to the east.
Unlike his attitude toward the Soviet Union, which can best be described as pragmatic tolerance in the short term and maniacal hatred in the long, Hitler openly professed admiration of the Britain of the pre-war period. In return, many members of the British aristocracy also flirted with Hitler, particularly since he appeared to respect blood lines and the "natural" role of the aristocracy as partners in rulership. This in contrast to the rise in importance of the bourgeoisie and the working class in British political life.
Edward may have been a "celebrity" in his time, particularly when he was Prince of Wales, but his real danger to the constitutional monarchy was not his prioritization of his own desires over "service", or his own political views (God knows, Prince Philip is no fan of anything that could remotely be called liberalism, and his son's idiotic use of a Nazi uniform as fancy dress could be construed as a similar level of obliviousness, or perhaps even rightwing tendencies), but his stated willingness to put his authority as the Prince of Wales and then as monarch behind specific political views.
Had the King made his agreement with the Nazis an overt public position, he would undoubtedly have enabled pro-Fascist political groups working within the aristocracy to put pressure particulary on the ruling Conservatives to continue the policy of appeasement.
-
elites = ?
[Read the article: Say it loud: I'm elite and proud!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I agree with Bill Maher's general sentiment, I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of folks who point out that labels like "elite" don't really tell you that much. Being well-educated, doesn't mean you'll de facto be egalitarian or justice-oriented in the enactment of that education. By the same token, being "non-elite" doesn't automatically consign you to the outer darkness morally, intellectually or in any other fashion.
Being elite means lots of things so that's why the modifiers are so important and what's more important is the moral compass of the person so identified. Remember, the Waffen-SS were elite. You wouldn't want them running anything in a democracy.
George W. Bush is a child of privilege who masquerades as a good ol' boy to get re-elected and because it suits his self-image. There are plenty of trust-fund morons around who are quite happy staying East Coast country-club. W merely highlights the presence of another variant of same: the dude ranch trust-fund moron.
Fundamentalist, absolutist and supremacist thinking have no special class identity. But I'm sure as I am of gravity that they have no place in any country that has an ounce of self-respect.