This should piss some people off

[oggbashan]

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

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.

The statements you make should be backed with evidence.

It was practised by one man in Germany - court case this year.

It was practised by one family in Scotland in the 17th century.

It has been practised by serial killers in the US.

None of that justifies calling Germans, Scots and US citizens 'cannibals'.

Much of the cannibalism you refer to has been disputed because it was wildly overstated in the 19th century. It was a racial slur on many peoples and not justified by the facts.

It may have occurred in some societies and in isolated cases but the practice was not widespread and endemic.

The Maoris of New Zealand, the Aborigines of Australia and the others are greasing the Lee Enfields and Kalashnikovs which are their ancient weapons. Some of those mentioned have members in the US Armed forces so they might choose to use cruise missiles to object to the slur on their ancestors.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Canibalism is a documented fact among the late period Anazai. The discovery is pretty much indisputeable in light of the recovery of a copralite from the cliff house at Choca Canyon. (For anyone who dosen't know a copralite is a fossilized turd).

Testing revealed the presense of two enzymes which could only be present if the fecal matter were composed of digested human meat.

As Ogs points out that discovery in no way proves Canibalism was endemic, instituionalized or anything else. Supporting evidence comes from bones found to have grooves consistent with butchering and the Dendrochrolology would place these happens during the tail end of a thirty year period of severe drought. Strong, but certainly circumstantial evidence.

In a well documented case Al Packer ate several members of his party when they were snowed in while trying to cross the rockies and canibalism is also documented when the Donner party was similarly snowed in.

The charge of cannibalism was used extensively by colonial powers to justify their harsh treatment of indiginous peoples. It is a charge that carries with it an exceptional amount of stigma and thus is hotly disputed by those groups who are charged with it.

While I am happy to point out a sceintific/archeological discovery that proves at least some members of a community practiced canibalism, I would hesitate to charge that the Anasazi were canibals, even though they no longer exist as an ethnic group and thus no one should be offended.

Certainly no one would point to Al Packer or the Donner party and say Americans are all canibals. But in a far future, if arecheologists were investigating that obscure branch of humanity called homo sapiens and they happened upon the bones of Al Packer's victims they just might asume we all were.

With that in mind I tend to think we should be very careful in characterizing any group as canibalistic. especially if those reports are based on oral/written accounts of members of a colonial power and no hard archealogical evidence exists to support the claim.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

I know of at least two areas of the world where cannibalism was common.

The first is New Guinea. It has been going on so long that a disease evolved using cannibalism as it's infection vector. The disease is called kuru, or laughing sickness. It main symptom is, naturally enough, the victim being unable to stop laughing. It is a prion caused disease similar to BSE or Mad Cow Disease. The prion seems to have an affinity for the tissue of the brain and reproductive organs. Since the men usually got the good parts of the victim, heart and stuff like that, kuru was more common among women and children who had to be satisfied with the 'leftovers'. As I understand it, the cannibalism practiced by the people of New Guinea was very much of a ritualistic nature. It was always 'outsiders' who were eaten and it was dne in the expectation of gaining the power of their victim.

The other example I know of is the Aztecs. This was also had a highly ritualistic base. During Tlacaxipeualiztli, The Feast of The Flaying of Men, a victim, a warrior from another nation captured in battle, was placed on a platform in public view. He was given four throwing clubs and a wooden sword edged with feathers. Four Aztec warriors, properly armed with swords edged with obsidian or flint, surrounded him. They then bought the victim down by 'striping' him. Essentially the death of a thousand cuts.

Once the victim collapsed he was sacrificed, heart torn out and beheaded. The warrior that captured the victim drank the victim's blood, took the body back home, flayed the skin off of it and served his family a meal of maize stew topped with a fragment of the victim's flesh. He also wore the victim's skin until it had rotted away to nothing.

Nice people, the Aztecs.

As regards the thread starter, I wonder if they ate the old people first? Kids can grow up to become hunters and gatherers, fathers and mothers. The old people may not be able to do this anymore, so it would make a certain sense that they go first.

Assuming the story is true, of course.

 

[CharleyH]

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.

But it depends on the context? I'm surprised your surprised that people find it immoral? Men with AIDS in Africa . . . a modern version of cannabalism. Its morally reprehensible, however, what is their context for doing it? It seems right to them doesn't it? How do they justify it? It will prevent them from death. People find justification for all their actions - you do - I do.

Existentially, if everyone beats their wife, then everyone is saying it's ok to do so. The greater anguish of the choice - I could go on . . . and acceptance. If everyone is doing it, then societally it is acceptable, but that doesn't make it moral to me. It makes it moral for everyone doing it. 80 % of any population are followers.

Hence I am an individual because I am choosing not to do it. So throw me in JAIL!

God, where was I going with this thought?

 

[MathGirl]

Mr Universe?

Dear Sancho,
I can't reply to your question, because I take great pains to aboid thinking or writing about things which are not in the best of taste and delicacy. Is that Steven Hawking in your AV?
MG

 

[minsue]

Re: Mr Universe?

...in the best of taste and delicacy.

You're a sick, sick woman MG.

You've been missed.

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Mr Universe?

Dear Sancho,
Is that Steven Hawking in your AV?
MG

LOL

 

[Free Pictures]

I'm surprised your surprised that people find it immoral? Men with AIDS in Africa . . . a modern version of cannabalism. Its morally reprehensible, however, what is their context for doing it? It seems right to them doesn't it? How do they justify it? It will prevent them from death.

More info. Please explain.

 

[Free Pictures]

- 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?

That's an easy one. You can do anything you like in this world until a politician create an artificial law saying that you cannot do it anymore because it is not OK.
I have been driving legally at 60km/h around town all my life. The speed limit has now been reduce to 50km/h and if I get caught doing 60, I am a speeding criminal endangering people life. I am anti-social and should not be allowed to drive a car.

The funny part about those laws is that people are never given the opportunity to vote for them. Governments make those laws claiming to have a mandate to do anything they like while they are in power.

Most people fear the law, so rather than fighting it, they find it simpler to accept it. This is how we loose a lit bit of our freedom each day.

 

[A7inchPhildo]

Since I am on a Don Quixote kick tonight sanchopanza I will play your quest riddle.

They were victoms of circumstance. Morals had nothing to do with the enviroment in which they lived. Survival and ritual will always take precidence over opinion.

Just as a Kamakazi pilot or a satanic cult would avidly avoid the reality as we percieve it.

Hey is this going to be in the story ideas? Mother and father eat daughter for lunch? I think we may have just breached on an area that does not have many stories posted on such a topic.

Would this be incest? Not really but it would still be taboo! I know she has to be 18!

Phildo

 

[curious2c]

It is only morally wrong if your morals are such that it would be.

 

[Free Pictures]

Hey is this going to be in the story ideas? Mother and father eat daughter for lunch? I think we may have just breached on an area that does not have many stories posted on such a topic.

Would this be incest? Not really but it would still be taboo! I know she has to be 18!

Phildo

The 18 is another interesting subject.

These days the age group 15 to 18 is probably just as sexually active as any other group. So what is the deal about restricting anything being written about someone under 18? Or for that matter, showing any pictures of someone under 18?

Also, how come, people on this site can write stories in such great sexual references and descriptions without being penalise with censorship?
While at the same time, if you happen to show a picture of a sex act on any other site, you are regarded as the scum of the earth.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The 18 is another interesting subject.

These days the age group 15 to 18 is probably just as sexually active as any other group. So what is the deal about restricting anything being written about someone under 18? Or for that matter, showing any pictures of someone under 18?

Also, how come, people on this site can write stories in such great sexual references and descriptions without being penalise with censorship?
While at the same time, if you happen to show a picture of a sex act on any other site, you are regarded as the scum of the earth.

In most of the United States, the age of consent for sex is 18. That's why Lit. has set the minimum at that age. I don't think there would ever be a higher age. Most of the advertisers on Lit show sex acts. Some of the AV's show sex acts, at least oral sex.