Talk:Gadubanud

Australia: Victoria / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Gadubanud is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The charge that Australian natives practiced cannibalism in the usual acceptance of the word – consuming human flesh for nutriment or to strike terror into one's enemies – is now broadly dismissed as a misinterpretation of a custom restricted to funerary rites.[49]

Tim Flannery, in editing Buckley's account, has commented:

When reading about the Bunyip and Pallidurgbarrans, we need to remember that Buckley was a rural Cheshireman who doubtless believed implicitly in the faeries and hobgoblins of his homeland. Likewise, the Aboriginal people who were educating Buckley about their environment made no clear division between myth and material reality..There is not the slightest impression that Buckley is reporting anything but what he sensed was true, yet for the modern reader there is equally little doubt that bunyips and Pallidurgbarrans are mythical beings.'[50]

I suspect that this section of text is politically motivated. Tim Flannery is on the record as acknowledging that cannibalism of one's enemies certainly did exist among the Wathaurong and other aboriginal tribes in the area. I suspect the person who wrote this is attempting to ascribe a different idea to the idea Flannery was attempting to get across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.231.79 (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equally (though more likely), the removal of the text is politically motivated. The text is important in understanding context. Cannibalism isn't simply about being hungry and eating humans. Flannery here points out that it is a funerary custom. An example of why it needs to remain: males of the Sambia people in Papua New Guinea practice fellatio on older males. Without context, and using your logic, it could simply be assumed to be 'homosexuality'. Yes it is a 'homosexual act' as the above is 'cannibalism'. However, with context, it is simply one part of the male rite of passage and there is no suggestion homosexuality was then common in a heavily gender-role society. As above, in context, it is a funerary rite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6B0B:4B00:A026:FC98:774:45F3 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]