The reason I despise this movie

A glorification, maybe. But historically accurate -- without a doubt. Doesn't mean that we agree with those methods anymore, but it's what people really thought before Vatican II introduced more open thinking, including the so-called "anonymous Christian" of Karl Rahner (which sounds condescending too, I realize, but it too is a notion from the times).

As misleading, perhaps, as the "White Man's Burden" is the whole mythology of the "Noble Savage" -- which one could almost think was another fault of this film, except that we see a different tribe (different markings) assist the European forces attacking the mission (the ones who shot flaming arrows with their feet). You see this in Dancing with Wolves, too. And we of course know, by now, that African slave trade at least was greatly aided and abetted by competing African tribes. Not that the Europeans don't bear the greater burden for perpetrating wholescale evil -- because they do. My knowledge of history, admittedly, isn't as rich as some people's is, but I suspect that greedy white settlers would have conquered the New World and waged their obliterating campaign against the natives with or without missionaries who espoused Christianity. But I'd like to think that at least the real Christians -- not the bejeweled ones who sided with political power, but the ones who died defending the innate human dignity of the natives (and would have, whether they'd "converted" or not) -- imparted a small taste of the dignity, holiness, and liberty that all peoples are due as God's creatures. And so maybe they wouldn't turn around and resort to slave trading themselves, or warring, etc. Christians obviously held African American slaves at the time of the civil war, e.g., but it was the liberating message of the Bible -- Moses the great liberator, Jesus who followed in his footsteps -- that helped spawn the abolitionist movement, among both the slaves and the free.

<<<<<"We're going to make Christains out of these people." WHAT THE HELL WAS WRONG WITH THEIR OLD BELIEFES AND WHY ARE WE GLORIFYING THIS KIND OF INDOCTRINATION!!!>>>>>>

you missed the whole point of this fine film... which isn't to glorify the catholic faith, but rather to glorify the 'human spirit,' for this movie isn't really about men of the cloth as much as it is about mere men following their hearts. as such, this movie is about 'humanity,' not religion.. and humanity, regardless of its many flaws, deserves to be glorified at every turn... especially when it involves the protection of the most defenseless among us against exploitation.

i agree somewhat but let's face it, this is the history of present-day south americans. this is the foundation of their roman catholicism, of their ethnic makeup, etc.

Yes I understand where you are coming on this. But as a piece of filmmaking it is wonderful.

Boy if you thought this movie was glorifying the evil European conquests, I must have watched a different movie. And that is, by the way, one of the basic generalizations in history. A tendency of trouncing what Europe and America did while giving a pass to every other culture. As the best answer to the question ever given shows: Why did Europe enslave so much of the world? Answer: Because so much of the world was unable to enslave Europe. That the 'evil' Europeans showed up while the 'beautiful' natives lived in harmony and peace is a stereotype that, thankfully, is giving way to a more realistic assessment. Of course Hollywood can only deal in sweeping generalizations. But that was hardly, in this movie, a case of glorifying the white man's burden. It was adopting the typical post-WWII 'evil Europeans screwing up the beautiful natives' point of view. But nevertheless, it is a wonderful and moving film.

Many of these south american tribes were cannibals and also practiced human
sacrifice. Catholics, though wrong, are 'righter'.

'Dim X as Integer = 0'

You're sadly mistaken. This film is not preaching, it's simply telling a story- a story of what actually has taken place throughout much of the world through the many centuries. That story is the story of man's inhumanity to man through a vehicle known as slavery. The film didn't indict the white man; remember, the white man is both antagonist AND protagonist in this film. Rather, it shows the two faces of good and evil.

Think about it.

Well, the Cardinal says at one point 'These peopel would have been happier if nione of us had ever come to them', so I don't think it com[pletely glorifies the so-called 'white man's burden'.

However, it is a film about faith versus religion - and Father Gabriel, the man of faith, is the defender of the native customs. He explains why they kill a throd child. Mendoza is happy to be painted in the war apint of the tribe - the Jesuits conform to the local culture, to a certain extent. And the tribal people with their arrows are protrayed as infintely more 'civilised' than the Europeans with their guns.

Christianity is based on the Word, and it was responsible for the spread of literacu and other useful cultural tools. Besides which, a lif eof 'turn the other cheek' has to be preferable to nearly any other way of living, if modern times have anythign to show.


And I don't think it's fair to say that the rain forest people are exploited and ignorant - that is as denigrating as the philosophy you claim to reject! Afterall, they killed the first priest. It was love and not ideas that prevailed. If Christianity could only be developed parallel with lack of education, the world would never have had isaace Newton. Recerend Martin Luthor King, William Wilberforce of JRR Tolkien. And Christiani5y is the prevalent religion in the Werstern, developed world - which does not in any way denigrate the spirituality of other parts of the world.

And I can't spell either - or maybe it's more typong that's the problem!