While I disagree with the author’s conclusions, I also think he makes some good points.
In almost all movies the movers and shakers of the story are white guys. The heroes and villains. The “people of color” generally function as victims. They are objects, not subjects. A species of wildlife, if you will, rather than people. I haven’t seen this movie yet, but it sounds like the same story.
A movie that didn’t do this utterly confused the critics. Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto. There were no white guys in it, only Indians. So they were by default both the heroes and the villains. This confused liberals so much they thought it was insulting to Indians.
Liberals aren’t in the least interested in the native victims they cry about. They’re only interested in the stories of their oppression by whitey.
Take “black studies,” for example. It isn’t about black history and culture at all, it’s about the oppression of blacks by whites.
Very good points indeed. I have to agree with your analysis.
I've read practically nothing at all about that movie in any Big Media outlet. It's like it disappeared down a black hole. You and I know why of course, it depicts (accurately) the brutal world of the Aztecs. This is something very uncomfortable for libs to talk about since it shows that "native" Americans weren't all the peaceful lovers of the earth and other peoples that the libs wished them to be. In fact, it showed them as being like other peoples of the world.
This causes a great deal of disconnect and uncertainty in libs when they cannot blame those evil white Europeans for some crime. Incidentally, the totally non-European Mongols have been estimated to have killed thirty to one hundred million people in the twelve and thirteen hundreds. But you won't see libs condemning them much either. For obvious reasons.