Staff Reports
In an era where rewriting history to fit a politically correct narrative seems all the rage, the musings of a certain educator have once again sparked controversy, showing the sheer audacity of some intellectuals in academia today. Claiming that the Incan civilization’s practice of human sacrifice was somehow “kind” and “voluntary” is not just a stretch of the imagination but a disturbing display of moral relativism. It’s the type of thing that should disqualify someone from ever teaching young minds again.
One can scarcely believe the justification provided—that these sacrifices were performed by elite volunteers who simply wanted to maintain closeness to their gods. In reality, the state selected elite children from conquered regions for sacrifice, and only the emperor could authorize these sacrifices, making it a state-mandated practice, not a matter of personal choice. This perspective not only glosses over the horrific nature of such acts but also tries to wrap them in a deceptive shroud of nobility and choice. It seems the classroom isn’t immune to such misguided romanticism about ancient civilizations, often presented with disregard for the grim realities involved.
As if things couldn’t get any more surreal, we hear that this educator likened the Incan methods of sacrifice—where victims were drugged and left to succumb to the elements—to a kinder, gentler approach. Yes, you heard that right: drugging someone to death was painted as a compassionate act. However, the use of intoxicating drinks and coca leaves was intended to reduce resistance and pain before death via strangulation, blows, or exposure—not out of compassion. It’s alarming to think this kind of reasoning is making its way into education, where impressionable students might be encouraged to view history through this warped lens.
It’s concerning when historical atrocities are downplayed in favor of moral and cultural equivocations. The suggestion that recognizing the brutal nature of these sacrifices equates to receiving a “white education” speaks volumes about the divisive and often absurd rhetoric being peddled in academic circles. This is history seen through rose-colored glasses that ignore heinous practices, all for the sake of challenging traditional Western narratives.
This is what happens when historical analysis is twisted into pushing an agenda, where objective truth becomes secondary to ideological alignment. Let’s hope this kind of thinking doesn’t take a stronger hold in our schools because our children deserve better than to be confused by the fog of revisionist fantasies. The responsibility is clear: defend truth and common sense against these ill-conceived interpretations if we hope to preserve the integrity of education.
