Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
Also, because I am historian, I'm prone to defend my profession : )
You gotta consider the historians, pre-historians, archeologists, and anthropologists are so immersed in their work that when they see what they consider mis-interpretation, they get mad; they believe, and they may be correct, that the most accurate interpretation would always be more interesting (even with a little embelishment).
|
Defend away!
I'm definitely not an historian by any means, just a lowly lay person who loves a good discussion.
I keep hearing, though, this claim that it isn't historically accurate, but so far I haven't really gotten a clear description of just what is considered to be inaccurate. From everything I've seen and heard, it is more accurate than, say, the last movie of Joan of Arc I saw.
In one radio talk show I listened to, some Latinos were up in arms because of the human sacrifices, saying that it was completely inaccurate, but having seen temple murals, it seems to me that what was depicted in the movie was pretty accurate. Or at least a fair represenation of the stories the murals tell!
According to one archaelogist, it sounded like there wasn't much to defend, so I would be very interested to hear things from another professional's point of view. I'm a bit tired of listening to the racial arguments.
