Recent archaeological findings in Tikal National Park have sparked controversy after a Mexican scholar’s comments appeared to downplay the severity of ancient child sacrificial practices. The discovery included an altar containing remains of three children under the age of 4, yet subsequent media coverage has focused primarily on the site’s cultural significance rather than addressing the disturbing nature of these historical practices.
The coverage by CBS News notably emphasized Tikal’s role as a cultural hub and cosmopolitan center, while giving prominence to comments from María Belén Méndez of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, who characterized the sacrifices merely as “a practice” for connecting with celestial bodies, rather than acknowledging their violent nature.
This approach to reporting has drawn criticism for its apparent reluctance to confront the darker aspects of historical practices, particularly when they involve non-Western civilizations. Critics argue this reflects a broader trend in academic and media circles, where Western practices face intense scrutiny while similar or more severe practices from other cultures receive more favorable treatment.
The situation highlights a growing debate about the influence of “oppression studies” in modern academic discourse, where Western values and scientific methods are increasingly challenged or equated with alternative approaches. This is evidenced by recent developments such as New Zealand’s promotion of “indigenous ways of knowing” as equivalent to Western scientific methods, and the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s $30 million federal grant to incorporate indigenous knowledge into scientific education.
Similarly, the University of Alberta now requires nursing students to study “indigenous ways” of understanding health and nature,
representing a broader shift in educational approaches. This trend extends to high school and college curricula, where emphasis is often placed on examining Western “settler-colonialism” and its purported negative impacts, including courses focused on concepts like “whiteness” and “white supremacy.”
The coverage of the Tikal discovery presents a particular irony, given that the Maya civilization never directly encountered European colonizers, predating the arrival of Cortez by approximately 700 years. Furthermore, the Maya were renowned for their advanced mathematical and scientific achievements, making the selective reporting of their practices even more noteworthy.
This situation raises questions about consistency in historical reporting and academic analysis. While modern media outlets would likely approach similar practices from Western historical contexts with appropriate gravity and moral judgment, there appears to be a reluctance to apply the same standards when discussing non-Western historical practices.
The case of the Tikal altar discovery and its subsequent reporting exemplifies a larger pattern in contemporary academic and media discourse, where the desire to avoid cultural criticism of non-Western societies can lead to what some view as inappropriate minimization of historically documented practices. This tendency reflects broader debates about how to discuss and analyze historical practices across different cultures while maintaining both academic integrity and cultural sensitivity.
The discussion surrounding these findings highlights the challenges faced by modern scholarship in balancing respectful treatment of diverse cultural histories with honest acknowledgment of historical practices that conflict with contemporary moral standards. It also raises questions about the consistency and objectivity of current academic and media approaches to historical analysis across different cultural contexts.