This should piss some people off

[sanchopanza]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

Thats an interesting question, in that it adresses several things that are controversial.

In my opinion, morals are a conciet of society. They aren't universal. If this was the accepted practice in thier society then it obviously wasn't morally wrong.

-Colly

 

[CharleyH]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

In fairy tales, the collective unconscious, this is not uncommon. WE as humans, as silly as that is when I look around the world . . .yep - in this day and age, eating one's children is reprehensible. In literature cannabalism is significant, as I am sure in myth and culture. I'm certain your not telling the details of the symbolic sig of this . . .

Many cultures did and continue to do rather bizarre practices. Brandt case in Germany being one . . . the AIDS scare in parts of Arfica even now . . . why eat children? What it represents - innocence - hence one is not and needs it . . . purity, youth, and oh I could go on . . .

I think of it in terms of symbol, and well, Aboriginies in OZ are not different than world wide history

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

No.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

This is a tough one, and riddled with moral dilemmas, loaded questions and contradiction.

However, to most societies outside of the understanding of the Aboriginies, it is morally wrong, of course it is. I'd rather eat myself, bit by bit, than even consider eating one of my own children. In fact, I'd rather die and have them eat me.

Having said all of that, looking at it purely from their perspective - no, it isn't morally wrong. Their reasoning and logic on this matter was probably very complex. Their life expectancy probably wasn't very long, and they had many children. If the mother and father didn't survive, it would probably follow that the whole family would die.

Lou

 

[Boxlicker101]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

This might make a difference. Do they kill the children and eat them or do they eat children and, presumably, others who have died? If it is the latter, it is not unknown, even in the USA.

 

[sanchopanza]

They were killed for food. Not all the dead were eaten and not all those killed were killed for food I must say - all that needs knowing is that in times of famine cannibalism and killing children (particularly the breeding females) was practiced, after all they were a nomadic people so you can understand.

Oo just taste the sarcasm.

 

[minsue]

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

No.

- Mindy

 

[sweetnpetite]

I wanted to say 'no' but then I thought:

Slavery was once considered necessary adn was accepted by society, as was segregation, as is currently preventing same sex couples to marry. People, even during the time, saw that it was wrong even though it was acceptable at the time, and spoke out against it.


I don't think that there is a right answer to this question.


I guess it was the way that they found to solve there problem. If one were to decide that it was wrong, and needed to be stopped, they would need to find a new solution, rather than expecting a people to 'do the right thing' when it was not benificial to them.

When Westerners try to put a stop to Female Genital Mutilation, for example, it's important to understand the implications and consequenses on a girl who is 'rescued' from this procedure. You've got to adress the real issue, not just legeslate morality.

It's kind of like asking- is it morally wrong for a starving man to steal food? There is really no *right* thing for this man to do, he simply must make a decision of weather he wants to eat or starve, and he really doesn't have the luxory of considering it in terms of what is moral.

Out of curiosity- do you know why they stopped the practice?

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

 

[sanchopanza]

The practice was stopped after immigration to Australia by deported criminals and a number of administrators. The immigrants as you know brought diseases that were alien to the Aborigines and decimated the population - the original/traditional Aborigine way of life went into decline.

So, I'm a little surprised that of any who said it was immoral (the slave trade is greatly relevant) nobody suggested that there are universal standards of moral and immoral. I'm sure all moral relativists on here know all about ideas of objective morality so I won't bother going too far into that. I was just interested in how other people justify greatly immoral acts.

As you can tell then, I believe there is a right answer to this question - just because everybody thinks it is okay it doesn't make it so, just as just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it okay. If a man beats his wife we would consider that immoral, but if everyman beats his wife why then is it not immoral? Everyone is doing it and it is accepted so why then is it suddenly amoral?

Simply an exercise in curiosity, not an attempt to start an argument.

 

[PDumbledore]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

Reading this reminds me of an actual event that happened years ago when I was growing up.

There was a plane accident in the mountians somewhere, in a very cold, snow blowing blizzard. Some of the passengers were killed, some lived. Not wanting to die, and with very little or no food, the one's who lived reverted to eating the bodies of the dead.

Is it still morally wrong to do this when your life, and others, depended on it? Also, answer this. Place yourself in this type of situation. What would you do?

I am well trained in different case situations, and I can survive when needed. I can also say, if I was in a situation where it called on eating others, I may not like it, but I would do it.

 

[Couture]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

I won't bother telling you what I think just yet. I was wondering what other people thought about this, I mentioned this to somebody earlier today and was suprised at the response.

I think that it's a pretty good practice, as long as you serve them with fava beans and wash them down with a nice chianti.

 

[sanchopanza]

PDumbledore, the events of which you speak relate to the consumption of human flesh but the flesh of those already dead. I was asking about killing humans for food and population control, on an ongoing basis not an isolated incident - the whole concept is different.

Couture, I wouldn't polute a good meal with Chianti, possibly a Breganza Cabernet and I never was too fond of beans, so many mangetout instead or just have the wine and meat and no veg. and eat it for lunch.

 

[PDumbledore]

Sancho,

I understand. Population conctrol I would not. For food, that could go both ways. In famine conditions that you speak of, how wide spread would it be? And how weak or strong would the kids be?

If I was in that kind of situation, the strong would survive, and I would one of the strong. I would also weigh every means possible, before I would do it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'd like to see the reference for this, because to me this sounds like a contrived if story, if not invented out of whole cloth.

Since children feel the effects of famine before adults, the children would die first, so I imagine there might be some covert cannibalism of the victims, but I really doubt they would be eaten by framily members. There are examples of ritual eating of the relatives in order to ingest their powers or preserve their souls, and cannibalism is certainly known, but that usually involves eating extra-tribal members who are looked at as not fully human anyhow. I really doubt that any culture could countenance eating their own children and still survive as a culture.

Coming on the heels of Sancho's rant against cultural relativity, I suspect we're being baited. I'd like to see the original article.

---dr.M.

 

[oggbashan]

Archaeology has shown that children were eaten in Ancient Egypt in time of famine when the Nile flood failed for several years.

Whether the children were dead first is not recorded.

The statement about the Aborigines is incomplete. The aborigines were a whole series of peoples spread over a wide continent.

Evidence that one group, in time of dire necessity, possibly ate dead children is not proof that it was a common practice nor that it would have been acceptable to the majority.

Would you judge all US citizens by the actions of one aberrant group?

Og

 

[gauchecritic]

So where had all the kangaroos gone?

I recall reading an article somewhere that there has never been any verifiable recordings of institutionalised cannibalism anywhere in the world.

I feel more comfortable going with that.

Gauche

 

[Svenskaflicka]

It's sad, that's what it is.

 

[Guest]

Gauche makes the most sense. I go with that too. I replied above, but for me this has been one of the most ueseless things to think about in a long time. Done thinking here.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Archaeology has shown that children were eaten in Ancient Egypt in time of famine when the Nile flood failed for several years.

Whether the children were dead first is not recorded.

The statement about the Aborigines is incomplete. The aborigines were a whole series of peoples spread over a wide continent.

Evidence that one group, in time of dire necessity, possibly ate dead children is not proof that it was a common practice nor that it would have been acceptable to the majority.

Would you judge all US citizens by the actions of one aberrant group?

Og

Actually Og, a very good account of the terriblie Nile failures and famines exist. They were pinned by an Iraqi physician who was there. I won't even try to mangle his name.

One important part of his text delt with canibalism among the poor. In his account the common practice was for parents to swap children with neighbors and thus they didn't have to eat their own children.

Wish I could find the reference, but it will have to wait till I go home. I don't go in heavily for 12th centruy arab texts so I am sure the book is in my father's library back home and not hiding here among my own collection of obscure historical texts.

-Colly

 

[Free Pictures]

Controversy and emotive subjects are always interesting to bring up so here is a question for you all:

In times of famine it has been recorded that Australian Aborigines ate their own children. Is this morally wrong considering it was accepted in their society and it was necessary?

It was another time, another culture. I believe they were cannibale.
However, I have never heard of them eating children and I find that hard to believe as children are very important to any culture as it represents their survival.

That said, it was their way of life and no one has the right to judge another culture for its moral and values.

This is the very reason that today we have terrorists. Since the new World Order, the US is telling every other country and culture in the world what they can do or not do. To many people, this is simply not acceptable.

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Re: This should piss some people off

It was another time, another culture. I believe they were cannibale.
However, I have never heard of them eating children and I find that hard to believe as children are very important to any culture as it represents their survival.

That said, it was their way of life and no one has the right to judge another culture for its moral and values.

This is the very reason that today we have terrorists. Since the new World Order, the US is telling every other country and culture in the world what they can do or not do. To many people, this is simply not acceptable.

Aborigines were NOT cannibals. It wasn't their way of life and it is a slur to suggest that it was.

Human beings are capable of extreme cruelty. Australian aborigines were fierce and cruel to their enemies but never sunk to the depths that have been reached by "civilised" nations in the names of religion, politics and war.

Og

 

[Free Pictures]

Re: Re: Re: This should piss some people off

Aborigines were NOT cannibals. It wasn't their way of life and it is a slur to suggest that it was.

Human beings are capable of extreme cruelty. Australian aborigines were fierce and cruel to their enemies but never sunk to the depths that have been reached by "civilised" nations in the names of religion, politics and war.

Og

Among humans cannibalism has been widespread in prehistoric and primitive societies on all continents. It is still believed to be practiced in remote areas of the island of New Guinea. It existed until recently in parts of West and Central Africa, Sumatra, Melanesia, and Polynesia; among various Indian tribes of North and South America; and among the aborigines of Australia and the Maoris of New Zealand.

 

[Free Pictures]

The reasons for cannibalism have varied. Sometimes there was simply limited food. Some groups liked the taste of human flesh. But mostly the reasons had to do with revenge or punishment for crimes, ceremony and ritual, or magic. Some victorious tribes ate their dead enemies. In some rituals the deceased body was eaten by relatives, as a manner of reverence for their ancestors, or in a pious desire for the soul of the dead to be reborn in the body of the consumer. This is called endocannibalism. In primitive rites that involved human sacrifice, parts of the body were often eaten. Headhunters, for example, often consumed certain parts of a body to gain powers of the dead person. Also, in Mexico, men representing the gods were periodically sacrificed and eaten to identify the participant with the deity.