Did you hear about the cannibal who passed his brother in the woods?
That’s just foul. 
We really need an “Ask the Cannibal” Thread. Will anyone come out of the closet and help ease our curiousity? Remember, people only fear the unknown. Perhaps if you let us ask questions we can begin to understand your lifestyle and…all learn to live in harmony…at least those of us you don’t eat.
I have it on good authority that Jefferey Dahmer was often caught singing:
My Bologna has a first name, it’s O-S-C-A-R…
Issei Sagawa apparently thinks we taste like maguro sushi or maybe (considering the fat content) toro.
samclem, sometimes you are positively wicked!
I remember reading several years ago that human beings have a slightly salty taste. I’ll bet that goes double for sam.
Amongst the Maori of New Zealand that wasn’t the case. While eating an person was considered a terrible insult to the perosn and their family people were eatien in toto and raids were launched against enemy tribes for the sole purpose of obtaining meat. On war band was documented to have advanced several hundred kilometres over a period of months and to have sustained themsleves almost exclusively during that advance by eating the people they captured. For much of that time prisoners were part of the baggage train in the same way that live catle and sheep were part of the baggage train of European armies.
So yeah, Maori really did eat people, and not because they were sick of chicken or pig but because they had let their chickesn and pigs die out because of the overabundance of food when they arrive son the islands. By the time they realised they had exterminated all the large food animals it was too late so they resorted to cannibalism as a means of obtaining protein. They ate not just enmey warriors but everyobody they could catch, and they ate all parts of the body.
The same is basically true of many New Guinea highland tribes. These people were cannibals until the 1960s so there would still be plenty of people there who could tell you what human flesh tasted like if you could find them. I attended a seminar where a scientist spoke of his interview with one of the men who was a cannibal as a teenager. He quite candidly spoke of his memories of the time and referred to the people of the next valley as “My refrigerator” and words to the effect that “When I needed meat I would go over there and catch someone. When they needed meat they would come here but they would never catch us.” Obviously a fair bit of macho bluster in there and I doubt that hunting people was ever taken quite that lightly but it does highlight the attitude that some people had towards cannibalism and it really was people as a food source, not in any way ritualistic.
I’m not sure about your comments on New Guinea tribes, but your comments on NZ Maori are very much in dispute - do you have a cite for this?
Some references on Maori cannibalism.
Personally, being familiar with some of the references and having lived in NZ for an extended period, I don’t think there is any serious doubt that the Maori frequently practiced cannibalism for nutritional purposes.
Having lived in NZ does not give anyone evidence that Maori practiced cannibalism for nutritional purposes, in fact, if you had a lot of contact with Maori when you lived here, you would know that many deny that cannibalism, on any level even existed.
Your quotes are mostly not first-hand experience and the following Quote from Captain Cook, indicates that they eat enemies, not for nutritional purposes.
Is cannibalism a myth?, Smith, Tony. British Medical Journal. (International edition). London: Apr 2, 1994. Vol. 308, Iss. 6933; pg. 923
Cook’s own verdict was characteristically understanding. “This custom of eating their enemies slain in battle (for I firmly believe they eat the flesh of no others) has undoubtedly been handed down to them from earliest times and we know it is not easy to break a nation of its earliest customs.”
I also know that many of them freely and cheerfully admit to cannibalism in the past, and that it has a prominent part in Maori legends and mythology. To deny that cannibalism at any level even existed is utterly absurd, because it is attested to in the archeological and historical record very extensively.
Well, of course they don’t eat their friends. There is of course a distinction between ritual cannibalism, in which one only eats a small part of the body such as the heart, in order to disgrace the enemy or to partake of his courage, and nutritional cannibalism, in which most of the body was eaten. The Maori were clearly practicing nutrional cannibalism, even if they only ate their enemies.
Other observers indicated that Cook in fact was mistaken in his belief (of course, Cook wasn’t there long enough to gain a thorough knowledge of the culture) and that the Maori killed slaves and other captives for food, not just those who had been killed in battle.
“I also know that many of them freely and cheerfully admit to cannibalism in the past, and that it has a prominent part in Maori legends and mythology. To deny that cannibalism at any level even existed is utterly absurd, because it is attested to in the archeological and historical record very extensively.”
I agree that to deny is absurd but it happens - however, my point was that saying you have lived here, doesn’t mean anything, it could very well lead you to the conclusion that it did not happen.
I’m not sure that many will “cheerfully admit” - since christianity came, it causes shame to talk about/admit it for many Maori.
I mean ‘not first hand’, as in quotes from the 1930s, looking back.
Anyway - my original point was that cannibalism was not as wide spread as originally thought.
I won’t dispute that the extent of cannibalism in some areas may have been exaggerated. However, the position of some revisionist anthropologists that it was just “a myth” is in my view not supported. In some places, such as Polynesia and Melanesia, it was widely practiced, and not merely for ritual purposes.
There are more first hand accounts of cannibalism in NZ by Europeans than just Cook’s, and there are many historical accounts based on interviews with the Maori themselves. And note that some of these books “published in the 1930s” are based on first hand accounts from earlier times. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be many of these posted on the web that I can link to.
Here’s an account of the devastion of the Moriori of the Chatham Islands by Maori invaders who had obtained firearms from Europeans. (Introduction of firearms into NZ in the early 1800s caused a major imbalance of power and widespread slaughter of their neighbors by the first tribes to obtain them.)
MelC,
Did you read the link provided by Colibri? Those were not all “quotes from the 1930s, looking back”. Did you not see the account by Tregear dated 1904? Read it, it leaves no doubt about Maori cannibalism for food.
If you want absolute first hand accounts of Maori cannibalism you will do no better than to read “Life & Times of Te Rauparaha”, written by Te Rauparaha’a son Tamihana Te. It is an edifying if sometimes gruesome read and recounts in great detail the life of a Maori warrior in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The book itself was written in the 1860s. The book used to be available online but the site now appears defunct. However since you are in New Zealand yourself you will have no trouble at all finding a copy in any major library since it is one of the true New Zealand classic works of literature generally and anthropology in particular. I would encourage everybody who can to read the book, but all Kiwis particularly should read it. It is by far the best single work to provide a background to the Maori Wars as well as presenting a very honest and sympathetic but not sugar coated version of Maori culture.
I will quote a just one of numerous relevant sections from the book that will dispel any doubt whatsoever that Maoris practised cannibalism for food.
The aftermath of a battle about 1820
The book contains numerous such reference to cannibalism and there is never any suggestion that the practice was ritualistic or performed for any reason aside from food. Cannibalism is never described as shameful it is always just mentioned dispassionately and factually as in the above passage. As I have already said the practice was a great insult to the enemy but not in any way ritualistic.
I’m not sure about Maori cannibalism being in dispute. There is some little dispute by some fringe researchers as to the precise motivations behind it but can you provide a reference to one credible author who disputes that it occurred? Even the dispute about motivation is readily dispelled by the accounts of Te Rauparaha, Tregear and even Tamati Walker himself. Maori ate people for nutritional reasons.
Anyway the important point is that there is a huge amount of evidence from all points that state quite clearly that Maori practiced nutritional cannibalism and even engaged in warfare to obtain human meat. That is by far the standard belief amongst anthropologists and historians and is not seriously challenged.
If your original point is that cannibalism was not as widespread as originally thought then you should have said that rather than implying that nutritional cannibalism was never practiced. Nutritional cannibalism has been practiced by people in New Zealand and New Guinea an as well as Europe and the South Western US. The entire body has been eaten in all those places, not just small amounts of vital organs for ritualistic purposes.
I might add that if your original point is that cannibalism was not as widespread as originally thought then I have to ask: “Thought by whom?” I contend that cannibalism is every bit as widespread as I always thought it was.
If you want to continue this discussion MelC I will ask that you start another thread in GD where we can thrash it out with full references rather than hijacking this thread to which it is only slightly related.
Blake, thanks for all the information, you are well read in this area and I am not.
However, I would like to note that the issue of how widespread it was, has been a topic of academic debate in the past, it may well not be now as you are indicating.
For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3254074.stm
"After years of wrangling over its very existence, anthropologists increasingly concur that cannibalism is a tradition which has spanned both cultures and centuries, although the extent to which it has been practised remains an academic battleground. "
Mel you are quite correct that the span of cannibalism has been a matter of debate, but as that article suggests the misunderstanding has usually run the opposite way to what you suggest. It was popularly believed until a few decades ago that cannibalism was restricted to ‘primitives’. It is now accepted that cannibalism occurred in many cultures and all races including ‘modern’ Europeans.
Cannibalism may have been erroneously overstated for some people outside Europe but at the same time it has been heavily understated for many people including those within Europe. It was far more widespread than most people believe rather than less widespread.
Here’s a little cannibal trivia for ya:
The best tasting piece of the human body has been reported by cannibals to be the fleshy part of the palm on the side of the pinky.
Tim Flannery perchance?
Some cannibals maybe. The Crusaders on the other hand had a penchant for the buttock muscles of infants, stripped first of most of the overlying fat, as a kind of human veal. Cannibals from the islands of the Torres Straits expressed a preference for interabdominal fat IIRC. Cannibals from Guinea preferred the abdominal muscles themselves.
Which just goes to show that human cuisine varies fom culture to culture even when the cuisine is human.
Yep. He’s quite an interesting speaker in a dry sort of a way, and far more interesting when speaking on scoiology and philosophy then when he speaks on biology. I think he missed his true calling.
G. Gordon Liddy, huh? I’ll give you one guess. (check general credibility … hmm)
Anyway, the story sounds too much like a joke to carry much authority.