Notice the usage of the word “cancel” in an attempt to play the victim and attract sympathy for what amounts, essentially, to intellectual dishonesty.
Part of his theory (which is well explained in the show) is that there are a handful of ancient cultures like the Aztecs who have stories of an "enlightened visitor" like Quetzalcoatl, bringing the knowledge necessary to elevate their cultures into organized society. In other words: these ancient cultures, who are mostly non-white, were "saved" by an ancient white civilization.
Having followed him loosely since then: he does not use this language anymore; certainly not in Ancient Apocalypse.
If, upon reading that, your conclusion is "mainstream academia may actually be out to get him": you're beginning to understand why people like Dr. Hoopes [1] just need to shut up, go outside, and find more actual evidence to disprove him. Slinging insults like that only adds credence to his statement that mainstream academia is out to get him, which by proximity adds credence to the rest of his theories. But, what he would say is: mainstream archaeology is a lot better at insulting and talking than they are at digging; and independent of his theories, there's substantial evidence to conclude this to be true.
[1] https://boingboing.net/2022/11/27/archaeologists-reveal-the-...
That's where scientific standards may differ.
I cannot drop in to gather a couple of references and find more than a tinfoilhat lady and two hobby blogs that were likely set up to promote the show, I have no use for it.
>... is that there are a handful of ancient cultures like the Aztecs who have stories of an "enlightened visitor" like Quetzalcoatl,
It's a 50:50 chance it's black or white and that's heavily skewed by the sun in favor of brightness.
> memories of an "enlightened visitor" like Quetzalcoatl, bringing the knowledge necessary to elevate their cultures into organized society.
Yes, thank velociraptor our lord and savior!
> In other words: these ancient cultures, who are mostly non-white, were "saved" by an ancient white civilization.
No, no. Proper racism says they were white and got bastardised. But Hancock doesn't say anyhting like that other than what may be warranted by years in currect affairs economics, I guess.
Christianity is based on the same stipulation but less technocratic, and it can be racist as hell, no doubt, but, well
Oh, I guess you are right.
Second, IMO that's the weakest claim made against him, but in no way does that amount to canceling anyone or anything.
Third, a little bit of proportionality is also in order: the request is for Netflix to reclassify the production as fiction, not to remove it. Even if the claim that this amounted to cancellation had merit (and I don't see how it does) it would still be quite the exaggeration.
What's really happening here is that he's upset that adults are calling his work fiction. That's pretty much it.
edit: I need to add that it is also intellectually dishonest to dismiss arguments based on who you think the arguments have been designed to appeal to.
No, it removes the personal judgement from the word "victim," where we decide whether a particular victim deserves their punishment as a preliminary to discussing their situation.
-----
edit: i.e. where sympathetic people who are killed are victims, and unsympathetic people are killed are being portrayed as victims. It's an attempt to distract from the material facts of a situation with arguments about language.
edit 2: In the spirit of tripling down, I'm also giving this discussion more credit than it deserves. This is about someone saying that the word "cancel" implies the word "victim." So here's the implied argument afaict.
1) Using the word "cancel" to refer to an imposition on your work means that you're implying you're a "victim."
2) A "victim" is someone who is undeserving of what has happened to them.
3) This person is deserving of what has happened to them.
4) Therefore, they are dishonest.
Yes, and when they are really playing they become the victim of their own ploy.
Hancock is being proved right about his accusers.
But inventing spurious ad hominem accusations instead of offering a plausible counter-narrative is not a good look.
"He will get to the edge of something, but he won't say it, because he knows that his followers already know it. He can say, 'I didn't say that,' and he didn't say it, but everyone knew what he said because it was already known, right?"
How much accusation do you need?