I thought the movie was about challenging people’s perceptions, or whatever?
They were trying to demonstrate the point that your mind often will choose not to handle something that’s sufficiently foreign to you that you really have no concept of it. That requires, for demonstration purposes, a person or culture that does not understand something that we understand. Columbus being a historical thing that everyone is familiar with, it’s easy to demonstrate the (stupid, wrong) point they were trying to make.
The movie apparently takes the tone that the viewers are ignorant of their own perceptions, or whatever - so it’s not saying “ha ha, Native Americans are dumb”, it’s saying “Your perceptions are screwy, here’s an example of something you can understand to demonstrate why”
Well, I thought the point in question was that it was a really stupid assertion, so I have no doubt that whatever particular scenario they chose to demonstrate it along these lines would be pretty screwy.
I just don’t see where the racism comes in. The Native Americans didn’t see the shrips, supposedly, because there was nothing in their culture that prepared them to understand that, not because they happened to be genetically inferior.
Millions of Native Americans couldn’t see Columbus’s ships because Columbus was in the Caribbean and, necessarily, on or near the ocean. I’ll bet those ships were mighty small when trying to see them from the Ohio valley.
Yup, and the boundaries of the USA and Ohio were firmly etched onto the minds of everyone involved. (Native American != Native USAian)
It’s not that there was nothing pre-existing for them to compare it to. It’s the suggestion that they were incapable of understanding something that they saw with their own eyes.
Now, I’ve never seen this movie, but as described, it appears to be a movie about challenging one’s perceptions. It also seems to be a pretty stupid movie that uses illogical arguments to do so.
The movie (I’m assuming) was implying that people often can process what they don’t have a reference to understand. They used Native Americans in their example, but did not limit to them. The logic they’re trying to use about perception is supposed to apply to everyone, using Native Americans was just a good example because they’re a culture that wasn’t familiar with large boats. It was a stupid assertion and a stupid argument, but it wasn’t made to degrade Native Americans, it was made in a stupid attempt to show something about perception. There’s clearly no racist intent in there.
The same (stupid, wrong) logic could apply if you’re talking about the first time Europeans seeing men riding elephants, perhaps.
It’s amazing that the people of the Caribbean, who did have large boats, couldn’t see small sailing boats anchired just ofshore, yet for some reason the people of Australia, who only had single-person watercraft, had no problem at all seeing European sailing boats while they were well offshore.
There’s a slight problem with that one, in that Europeans have seen elephants at many occassions and at many times. I still maintain that the inherent implication in the ‘they couldn’t see the boat’ story is that they were somehow incapable of seeing it - which makes them inferior to other humans.
Who said anything about boundaries of modern-day political entities? The Ohio Valley is a stretch of land through which runs a river which the natives of that area called the Ohio. And whatever you call the place where Columbus’ ships landed, it’s mighty hard to see it from the banks of that river.
One wonders, then, how these people came to be living on islands to begin with. It’s not as if Columbus was going up the Hudson or anything.
I see a lot a lot of racism in the underlying assumptions of what sort of vision it’d take to blow the minds of, I assume, the Carib. People who had boats aren’t going to be dumbfounded by large ones.
Now, one thing they didn’t have were swords, and apparently a number of them cut themselves on swords when they handled them at first. But a) they learned right away what part of a sword not to handle and b) it didn’t blow their minds to the point where they didn’t see the swords; in fact they were immediately curious about them, a normal human reaction.
Oh, do give up. There’s Americans who have never seen the sea (and there are recent threads to prove it), but nobody suggests they’d have a difficulty comprehending a ‘fucking big lot of water’ (which I believe is the technical terminology)
Well, okay. I’ve never seen the movie, but as it has been described, it seems more like a pothead “dude… like… what if like… perception… like…” movie, not a “non-whites are dumb” movie. I see no reason to read racism into this, given the stated subject of the movie.
GorillaMan, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. SenorBeef is saying that claiming the Indians “could not see ships” IS as ridiculous as claiming the Europeans could not see elephants… because after all what is a ship if not a really big canoe? And the Indians had seen canoes “at many occasions and at many times”.
However…
It’s obvious that the claim that the natives “could not see” the ships is ridiculous, bogus, and absurd. But WE know that because indeed the only way it could be true that they could not see them IS if they had all a major neural cognitive-sensory disability… and if that were the case then NO amount of explanation by the elders would have had the effect of “dropping the scales from their eyes”.
The movie’s producers, in making their bogus “point” about perceptions and reality, ran out of ideas over what to offer as an example and brought forth this stupidly ridiculous parable, that sounds racist because they reached for an example that involves not just a clash of paradigms but of racial groups as well. I wonder if they realized this at the time, and suspect they probably are as rectocranially inverted as to not not have noticed it in their eagerness to claim that “our preformed thought patterns blind us to reality”, which they want to apply to the idea of what can be objectively known about the universe.
This is the fight against ignorance, guys, so let me try and throw an actual fact in the mix.
Although this was slightly later than Columbus, the first Aztecs to see the European ships believed they were new mountains in the water. Only when some of them were taken aboard the ship did they comprehend that it actually was a ship.
So did they see a ship? well, yes, they saw a ship, but they did not perceive it a ship. They sure as hell saw something, though, and they knew it wasn’t normal.
I’d like some third-party evidence of this - particularly that the linguistics didn’t play an unnecessary part (ie that the Actec for frickin’ big ship wasn’t interpreted too literally) Also, particularly, the ‘mountains in the water’ description may not be exclusive to ships - it could also apply to whales, for instance?
