Jump to content

Talk:Human cannibalism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Reference 4 (included about Cannibalism in Australia)

I'm new at this wiki thing - but is this reference the best that we can do? it doesn't appear to have any actual references within itself and reads like someones homepage, full of unsubstantiated opinion. It refers to "handwritten accounts by convicts" and "eyewitness reports" but certainly doesn't reveal where these accounts can be read for themselves and this bit in particular hardly seems the hallmark of a serious or scientific article:

"For a more precise documentary on all the material displayed on this website, the information is available on request by serious researchers - See contact addresses and further information details on the “General Information” page of this website"

The article further claims:

"To support such avid claims, researchers have recorded hundreds of Australian instances where the clan practices once occurred across the continent. These reports state that child eating; the consummation of family members upon sudden death and of an enemy after battle were reasonably common actions."

These reports themselves really need to be referenced in the article, referencing to a website which itself refers vaguely to reports (that are unavailable except upon request) is really no good.

If no further evidence can be found that Indigenous Australians had cannabalistic practices then I think this should be removed from the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.236.200 (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-cannibalistic consumption of human-derived substances

I think this section requires cleanup. Specifically, I think the presumption of placentophagy being a non-cannibalistic practice is debatable and does not belong in a purely factual writeup.

Can somebody with more background in the subject comment or update the article?

East Timor

Back when E.Timor was fighting for it's independence, I recall seing an article in the Straits Times, where rebels actually killed and beheaded their enemies. Within the article, it said that the rebels(cannibals) ate the bodies of their enemies in order to gain their powers. I also saw a vivid colored picture of a man's chopped head being held up by the rebels. Can't find the source within google... Anyone remember it?--sin-man 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for Cannibalism

I think it is necessary to explicitly state in the article that "evidence" for cannibalistic bahaviour is scarce and in most cases highly controversial. The article, furthermore, does not distinguish between cannibalism practiced in extreme situations and so called "reliable" accounts of cannibalism practiced in "primitive" societies. As far as I know there are only reliable accounts of cannibalism existing, where the "cannibals" were either forced by cirumstances to eat human flesh in order to stay alive, or were showing pathological behaviour. The "evidence" cited in the article is in most parts not very convincing and, if not referring to extreme situations, relies on reports without hard evidence. I do think a point should be made that the accounts of societies in which cannibalism is practiced reguarly and at a large scale do not come up with hard evidence and therefore should be marked speculative.


I admit that some evidence for cannibalism is unclear: Knife-marks on bones could as well be cleaning the bones for an ossuary (spelling?) but cracking marrow-containing bones are usually taken as evidence that cannibalism have occured.
I remember when New Scientist had one article stating that there was no evidence for cannibalism that would stand up in court and one reader wrote in that then his grandfather would have his sentence revoked. That was a New Guinea case and an Brittish court.
There was also the case when Idi Amin was accused of cannibalism and he answered "that of course you ate a killed emeny to aquire his force".
I think that the article would be improved if it was clearly stated the different forms of cannibalism:
1. Hunger cannibalism. (Ukraine, snowed in, China cultural revolution etc)
2. Ritual "burial" canniballism. (One member of a tribe practising that form vas heard complaining that it was barbaric to bury dead relatives in cold earth.)
3. "Potlatch cannibalism" practised in nort-west costal USA, possibly other places.
4. Religious cannibalism (Holy comunion and other)
5. The most controversial: As a regular food. Evidence is spare and VERY controversial BUT in my opinion there are some vell documented cases in Paccific.
I may have missed some other form that should have its own class. Seniorsag 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thinking that every society in the world must have thought that something is "wrong" because you think it is wrong is the very definition of ethnocentrism. You may think you are coming off as "enlightened", but to this grandchild of cannibals, you are simply offensive. Macgreco 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Seniorsag wrote "... I remember when New Scientist had one article stating that there was no evidence for cannibalism that would stand up in court...". I believe the article in New Scientist was limited to archaeological claims. I don't think he was writing about modern cannibalism. --MiguelMunoz 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims of cannibalism should be held to a high standard of proof. Most of the first seven citations come from heretical.com, which uncritically presents a great deal of racist material. I'm sure we can come up with better sources. For example one source (not from heretical.com) has this sentence:

In my youth Maori talked about the practice in a light-hearted way. I remember an old Maori causing hilarity by telling an audience that his grandfather was really European - by ingestion. "You are what you eat", he added.

This is evidence? On occasion, I have joked like this when dealing with unruly children: "I love Children. Medium rare." Please don't quote this as evidence of cannibalism. --MiguelMunoz 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of cannibalism in the modern world is that it's mostly endocannibalism. Claims of exocannibalism are much more anecdotal. This is why I added "citation needed" to the sentence in the article's opening that reads "usually in rituals connected to tribal warfare." --MiguelMunoz 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anasazi Cannibalism

I'm aware of the evidence of cannibalism among the Anasazi. However, from what I've read, the evidence doesn't support the claim that it was "ritual" cannibalism. According to my source (Collapse, by Jared Diamond), it appears to be cannibalism during warfare brought on by the food shortages during the collapse of the society's ecosystem. --MiguelMunoz 22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Diamond does argue that it was for subsistence, but why does the need for food preclude its consumption being ritualized? We in the West need food, but what we eat and how we eat it (utensils, 3 meals a day, etc) is ritual. Also archaeologists have put forward various ideas to explain the taphonomic signs of butchery and cannibalism. These range from mortuary defleshing of the body not including the actual consumption of the flesh to sacrificial cannibalistic cult activities brought into the area by Mexican elites (see Turner, Christy G. , 1999 Man corn: Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press and 1995 "Cannibalism in the prehistoric American Southwest: occurrence, taphonomy, explanation, and suggestions for standardized world definition." Anthropological Science v103:1 pp. 1-22.) I take a more middle road myself, drawing from Beth Conklin's work in South America (Consuming Grief: compassionate cannibalism in an Amazonian society) seeing the Anasazi cannibalism as a form of dehumanizing exocannibalism: eating the corpses of vanquished enemies in such a (ritualized) fashion as to demonstrate that these enemies are not human, but animals or less than animals. This is a fabulous book which shows how cannibalism can be a beautiful and cherished part of a culture. Digsdirt 06:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fish

Many fish have absolutely no problem with cannibalising their young simply because they don't distinguish between them and other smaller fish. That hardly counts as an extreme case. If I recall correctly certain higher fossil vertebrates are also cannibalistic (Coelophysis comes to mind) but I can't remember under what cases, so can't update the above. Anyone know?

I believe it is now doubted in the case of Coelophysis: juvenile bones apparently inside adults may have ended up there after both animals had died. --Townmouse 23:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also seriously doubt the claim that cannibalism isn't "normal" in any vertebrate species; I'm not even sure that can be determined in any meaningful way. It clearly can be shown that it exists in many species, even higher mammals. Whether or not it should be considered "normal" is a matter of judgment.

I tried to edit the article with the first paragraph above in mind. I didn't know how to edit the article with the second paragraph in mind--probably, the author of that comment could help. --LMS

Passover has nothing to do with Christ

While certainly Jesus, being Jewish, celebrated Passover, the story of Passover itself, as told in Exodus in the Hebrew Bible has nothing to do with the Christian "messiah". The reference in this article is unclear. A better reference would be to the Catholic concept of transubstantiation where the sacrement becomes the Body of Christ.

For some species, cannibalism under certain well-defined circumstances, such as the female black widow spider eating the male after mating, is a normal part of the life cycle.

You did a good job, but this isn't really true - all the cases of supposedly cannibalism being a normal part of mating, at least, fall through under investigation (Stephen J. Gould did an essay on this). For widows, the female ignores the male as often as not, suggesting that when she does eat him it is because he is a little bug: indistinct voracity rather than instinctive cannibalism. And similar for all the other classic examples. Male mantids, for instance, are only eaten some of the time and try their hardest not to be. This is not especially different from fish eating their young when hungry. I'm not really sure how the above should be tweaked.

I've tweaked it by replacing 'black widow' with 'redback'. In this related species, sexual cannibalism is very common. At the end of mating, the male somersaults, ending up in front of the females mouth, and about 2/3 of the time she eats him. This may provide some nutritional benefit for her, but the male is so much smaller that no effect has been demonstratred. It seems to benefit the male because the female then will not mate again (maybe his body contains an antiaphrodisiac?). Even if not eaten, the male cannot survive long after mating, so he hasn't lost any future mating opportunities.

I plan to add a bit more on nonhuman cannibalism--Townmouse 23:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is worth noting that early reports of human cannabilism are somewhat suspect.

Is this widely-agreed upon, or does the paragraph only give one side of what is in fact a controversy? I don't know, which is why I'm asking. --LMS

The first part:- that many early reports of cannabilism were dubious is as far as I know largely agreed upon, although the extent to which this is true is more controversial as you might expect. The second section, relating to Kuru is much more controversial. The statement made though "has been called into question" is of course true. In other words I am noting that differences of opinion exist, rather than supporting one side.

If someone with a greater knowledge of the field wishes to add further detail then I would be happy. Anthropology is something I have an interest in, rather than an active engagement. PL

I wonder how questionable the "Kuru" is currently. I did watch a program filmed recently and shown on public television wherein these New Guinea natives were having conversations with researchers about the importance of consuming part of the departed in order to keep their spirit alive. Then these same tribespeople were shown first roasting and then grinding the long bones of dead relatives, putting them in a soup, and drinking the soup. A later part of the program covered the spread of Kuru in this tribe. How controversial is this, really? Doesn't that seem like rather thorough documentation?

Here, for instance, in the "virtual hospital," http://www.vh.org/Providers/TeachingFiles/CNSInfDisR2/Text/PInf.CDE.html 

this mechanism of transmission is quite taken for granted.

I can vouch for cannibalistic chimpanzees...I saw a video of it once in school--a group of them ambushed and ate another rival group. Pretty horrible to look at, chewing apart other chimps.

BTW, I once read (somewhere, I think a book about AIDS) that in private interviews, new guinea tribesmen would admit that they wouldn't actually *eat* the meat, but just palm it to make it look like they did, because it repulsed them... The story had to do with how some virus was presumed to have been spread, but it couldn't have considering that the theory was based on consumption of infected humans.

...but the whole thing sounds unverifiable one way or the other--I also read a book on a similar subject by some german guy who contended that human sacrifice stories were invariably made up. It was probably the most unconvincing book in the world, claiming that the aztecs only *drew* depcitions of human sacrifices, wrote stories about them, and that the altars were candy bowls or some crap. -AD.

The archaeological evidence for widespread cannibalism is kind of overwhelming. Someone needs to take a good look at this article. sjc

---

If a New Guinea anthropologist were to travel to this county, and stumble onto a gathering of Catholics at Sunday Mass, imagine how he might report back to his colleagues at home the news that we 'drink the blood' and 'eat the flesh' of Christ. Symbolic indeed, but I recall from my earlier studies of the subject that virtually all accounts of cannabalism among New Guinea (or any other "first world") tribes were (a) symbolic or metaphorical at best, or (b) an attempt to demonize rival clans (western anthropologists traveling in the region were always being informed by one tribe that it was the other tribe who were cannibals; upon meeting the other tribe, said anthropologist was again informed how lucky s/he was to have escaped death at the hands of "those" cannibals). New Guinea tribes are no more cannibals than the Samoans were wife swappers (where, if memory serves, murders did occur, and usually out of jealous rage). Unfortunately, there is no "modern" anthropology of these cultures. At last check, ANTHRO 101 teachers are still reciting Mead, Boaz, Kroeber, Frazer and Levi-Strauss, most of whom last published in the 50's and 60's. -jamesk

I was aware of the change that included anthropophagy and intentionally left it out. Although human cannibals are indeed anthropophagic, it seems that the word is equally well applied to other animals which are reputed to eat humans such as man-eating sharks, tigers, or crocodiles. Eclecticology

Hmm, I've never heard the word used in that sense. (checking) The American Heritage Dictionary agrees with my impression that it refers specifically to humans who eat humans. Brion VIBBER

The citations in the article are not complete, and the explanation is somewhat incoherent. Zoltan, I think you added these citations -- could you provide complete references enumerated at the end of the article? --Eloquence

Also, I remember a case of consensual asphyxiation where the meeting was agreed on over the Net, which should be mentioned here or somewhere else. I think it was a woman who fantasized being asphyxiated by a man. Anyone remember that case / have a reference? It was in the US, and the woman had asked repeatedly in some discussion forums. I remember that other people on the board kept telling here that it was just a fantasy and that she was mad for wanting to do it "for real". --Eloquence

The case is that of Sharon Lopatka.--Eloquence* 01:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

"It is worth nothing that early reports of human cannibalism are somewhat suspect."

Should it perhaps read: "It is worth noting ..."?

S.

  • This is definetly an edit you can make without bringing up on the 'talk' page. Thanks for the consideration, but you don't need to walk on eggshells. That is an edit that few could have a beef with, and if they did they could bring it up on the talk page or just change it back User:Ike9898

Removed " Other similar extreme sexual fetishes involving gutting, beheading, hanging, crucifixion etc. exist." because it seemed to stray from the subject. User:Ike9898

Is that consensual canabalism stuff for real? Honestly. I don't know what the world is coming to. 2toise 19:11, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that somebody called User:Foodman has edited this article.--Error 05:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Among humans, this practice has been attributed to people in the past in Europe, the Amazon Basin, Mexico, Caribbean, Africa, China, Fiji, and New Guinea, including in rituals connected to tribal warfare. The degree to which cannibalism has actually occurred and been socially sanctioned is an extremely controversial subject in anthropology with some anthpologists arguing the cannibalism is almost non-existent and viewing claims of cannibalism with extreme skepticism, while others arguing that is was common in pre-state societies.

The combination of these two sentences can mislead readers. There are two types of records on cannibalism: peports of "barbarians' customs" by "civilized" people, and "civilized" people's own records. The second sentence is talking about the former but the first sentence doesn't distinguish the two. I don't read W. Arens' work, but according to Donald Sutton, who quote it in Consuming Counterrevolution, he questions cannibalism by the Caribs reported by the Spaniards and that in Africa. Both belong to the former. What about the latter? --Nanshu 02:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In addition there are widespread rumors that cannibalism was practiced during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. However, there is no strong evidence outside of literary references that cannibalism was socially sanctioned in ancient China, nor has there been any definitive studies that suggest that cannibalism was common during the 20th century in China.

Are they just "rumors"? It was actually practiced altough it wasn't a nationwide phenomenon.

These two sentences don't correspond with each other too. "there is no strong evidence outside of literary references that cannibalism was socially sanctioned in ancient China" is out of context (aren't you talking about modern history?). And what do you assume for evidences of historical cannibalism other than literary references? It seems pointless to me. --Nanshu 02:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point of view which discounts literal references apparently belongs to the latest evolution in modern frame of mind, that which excels in its scientific rigor of demands on evidence to uncomfortable ideas, but accepts any kind, quality or quantity of evidence on behalf of favourite ones.

Allegations of Chinese cannibalism

I've merged the highly contentious content of the "Chinese cannibalism" page here, please see Talk:Chinese cannibalism for discussion. -- The Anome 21:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so since you've moved this here about two months ago, nothing regarding it has been discussed in Talk. What does it take to get the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag out of here? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 04:50, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Three days later, no response. I'm taking it out. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 00:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...the Chinese cannibalism link looks extremely non-NPOV. The site appears to possess a needlessly nationalistic Japanese stance. So, I'm removing it, in the hopes that more credible sources may replace it. DonQuixote87

Issei Sagawa

The girl killed by Sagawa was Dutch, not German

North Korea

Should some reference be made to alleged cannibalism in the 1990s during the famine in N Korea - a lot of N Korean dissidents refer to it? Jongarrettuk 21:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I recently posted a link to the Discovery Channel special on the lives of North Korean children, which includes a video clip in which children describe human meat being sold. I'm not sure if it is substantial enough to be incorporated into the main article. Smoove K 14:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Cannibalism in war

I recall reading an autobiographical account by an allied soldier who spent a long time behind enemy lines in the second world war of being offered a meat that tasted a bit like monkey by the local indigenous people. He was told it was a Japanese soldier.

I restored my comments about Japanese cannibalism in WWII. Cite? Certainly, Pp 62,152,201,225,226, 230-232, 246-247,311 and others of Flyboys by James Brady, (c) 2003, Little/Brown Publishers Paul, in Saudi 29 June 2005 01:58 (UTC)

FlyBoys hardly counts as "Forensic" evidence. Leave it up if you want, but it's this kind of weak documentation and hyperbole that is exactly the reason why Wikipedia doesn't get taken seriously as reference media. In the future please cite actual peer-reviewed research that supports a claim of "Documentary and Forensic" evidence, or don't make the claim. One man's account of being taken POW in Chichi Jima isn't persuasive evidence. What about accounts from the Japanese soldiers who were there?

(Sorry, I failed to sign my previous comment, but now I am in the awkward position of asking who I am talking to. ) Paul, in Saudi 29 June 2005 01:58 (UTC) (again)

The Chichi Jima incident is a well known case. It was first reported in Robert Lee Sherrod's 1952 book History of Marine Corps Aviation in World War II (published by Combat Forces Press.) Sherrod writes of it on chapter "A study of depravity". The Japanese were tried 1947, and of 30 prosecuted, five were found guilty and hanged. Sherrod lists those executed. Of the five, only one repented the murder and cannibalism, and asked a Buddhist and a Christian priest to be present at the hanging, to ask "forgiveance of the brave men's souls". While James Bradley's book Flyboys is a secondary source, it is a reliable secondary source, and tells exactly the same as Sherrod about the incident. Flyboys lists the names of the eight airmen beheaded, rationed and eaten. The ninth downed airman, Lieutenant Junior Grade George H. Bush, was rescued by USS Finback, and saved. He was later to become the US President.

This subject ('s necessity argument) has been a longtime interesse of mine. I recall a statement 'all party's did it', about ww2, in a statistical research that looked into the pacific. Where both partys tended to eat japanese. I'v also read similar of stalingrad and the germans,(although each party eat theirself). personally i have always taken it for granted that many accounts of canibalism in wars and famines are representative of real incidents. And that it has always (long) been a real taboo. However the western front in ww1 didn't see significant cannibalism, it is not that ritualised it is institutionalised. Also the definition of the militairy term for the result of lack of supply on morale (attrition), leaves room for cannibalism and i would guess always did (you can theoretically have a loss of personal strength before a loss of overall troop condition). Probably ritual cannibalism represents , the removal of edible human meat from the environments foodstaple, animals unused to human meat tend not to eat it. Earlier on humans fed on dead humans perhaps more opportunistically as well. Rites involving ritual cannibalism tend to focus on removal of flesh, skull cults suggest not all the human body was considered equally holy. All in all archeological evidence of canibalism is overwhelming .Pioneering groups (archeolocally) and expeditions (historically) tended to feature it. In these days off GPS ofcourse this got rare. No authority really encourages it, since it can get you sick still. Especially since the necessity argument sortta implies people are already weakened. People have also reported to me, that consensual eating of fellowvictims still happens, during famine through war. My guess is have found about 100 incidents in literature outside archeology.80.57.243.16 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Move "chinese cannibalism" to it's own topic

Doing a quick word count, "Chinese cannibalism" takes up over a quarter of the article.

I understand that it was merged from an article "Chinese cannibalism". Considering the size of the section in relation to the rest of the article, I suggest it be moved back to it's own topic, with a link to it from this page. Possibly with a different title.

My main concern is that focusing the cannibalism article on the chinese may lead the casual reader to believe that Chinese have some sort of a special history with Cannibalism, compared with other cultures. Although the section itself does attempt to be neutral, it's prominence within the article alone would lead to misconceptions. Perhaps if there were sections on cannibalism in other cultures, it wouldn't be so bad, that would be neutralised a bit, but that's unlikely to happen.

I strongly agree with the above (unsigned) comment. I find it especially ironic that the lengthy Chinese cannibalism section follows the "Cannibalism as cultural libel" section. One vote for moving the section back to its own article. Uly 09:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What does "The Chinese hate-cannibalism was reported during WWII also." mean? Is this a mis-edit? -- SJS 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for symbolic interpretations of myth, but is it really a relevant fact that Zoroastrianism portrays the opening to Hell as a mouth? I can see the connection here, but is this pure speculation or is there a more concrete reason to connect this to cannibalism? --Bumhoolery 05:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

The redback section

On this page: spider mythsit appears to say cannibalism among spiders is not as common as it has been said. I am not willing to edit without further approval.

Cannibal! The Musical

I added the movie to the list of Cannibalism In Fiction, since the movie was a fictionalized account of Alferd Packer and his cannibalism. --Jazz Remington 04:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine

It seems to me there are some pretty startling exaggerations in the bit about the Ukraine. For one thing it says seven million died in the famine but that many of the deaths were due to cannibalism - this doesn't mesh with anything I've ever heard on the subject and it defies common sense. I suppose it depends on what you call "many" but I'd like to see some seriously solid evidence to back up the notion that people were specifically murdered en masse to produce food. After all, people were dropping like flies anyway.

It also seems to me that the article quoted suffers from the same basic problem as all other accounts of this period - onlu "other people" were doing it and those talking about it heard it second or third hand when they were children. Doesn't that sound pretty darn similar to the tribal accounts of how all the other tribes are doing it?

I dunno, cannibalism no doubt occurred in the Ukraine during the famine, but this seems an obvious overstatement of the case, imho. Also, why would the Ukraine have the highest number of cannibals today and how do we know? Who the hell is maintaining a list of cannibal populations across the globe? I've heard this said about North Korea, Moldova and various African nations before - always accompanied by the same complete lack of evidence.

Korowai

"The Korowai tribe of southeastern Papua are one of the last surviving tribes in the world to engage in cannibalism."

If we're going to maintain NPOV about the verifiability of cannibalism, this needed to be changed, so I changed it. --babbage 07:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

According to the Korowai article, it is unclear whether or not the Korowai actually still practice Cannibalism... I am not familiar with editing wiki's, so can someone please figure out of this needs to be changed? -zeruty 63.249.22.121 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Taste?

Not to be completey greusome here, but have any modern-day canibals described the taste of human flesh/meat?

Humans are anatomically related to pigs, right? I suppose it'd taste like pork. But I am only guessing. --Webber b July 3, 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Does pork tastes like boar? I am only guessing too. --Error 4 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
According to North Korean refugees as claimed in the linked video clip, it tastes similar enough to pork to fool those who would be unsuspecting.Smoove K 14:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I've heard it's sweet. --Error 4 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
I've read that cannibals are meant to like the taste of snake meat even more than humans, the reason for this being related to the even higher percentage water content (and the reason that humans taste so nice to them to start of with) Mathmo 13:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Internees in Nazi concentration camps have reported (long after the event) that the furnaces smelt of burning pork.
Japanese soliders (again inteveiwed after the event) say that they, euphemistically, called the flesh of other dead soldiers "monkey meat". That any help? Jim Jacobs 12:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Everything tastes like chicken
Clowns taste kind of funny. Gzuckier 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This explains why we shouldnt eat pork, because maybe we get a taste for humans, and why pork is offensive to Muslims and Jews. So next time you smell some pork on the oven, it could be a human--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That explains that you are an idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.184.224.165 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Pork was prohibited by Jews because it was a scavenging animal. The Muslims copied that law from the Jews. It has nothing to do with the taste.

Is that backed up by objective research...i.e. not religious texts, or is it just an assertion? (Not being confrontational, it's a serious question)81.153.62.49 07:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalism in Modern Society

In this section, I (and probably a lot of readers) was expecting something more on the lines of a particular culture or group of people that still practice cannibalism. If there are no groups today that still practice it that is known to man, at the very least, this should be mentioned.

I also recommend that references be made and cited, and there be a list of reference links and sources.

Well the section on Cannibalism as a funeral rite includes a certain sect in India that is known for cannibalism. The reference is cited and also there have been documentations in the BBC of a certain african civil war that involved mass cannibalism. I just can't remember it to put it down here. --Idleguy 09:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think the 'eating afterbirth' section needs ref. I've googled it and have of yet been unable to find reputable sources. Iammaggieryan 06:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a little irrational to include eating afterbirth as cannibalism. I know people who've done that- it's full of iron and B12 which you lose bleeding when giving birth and it's completely natural. Almost all mammals do it.

How could Alferd Packer's cannibalism be proven?

What forensic evidence could possibly conclusively reveal that Packer did engage in cannibalism, considering the huge time gap inbetween the event and the forensic investigation (presumably about 150 years)?

Tchalvak

Didn't you see the movie? It had some really good songs. "Let's build a snowman!"--that's forensic enough to convince me!

You're getting your information by a movie? What are you thinking? And then going on to talk about how it had really good songs? Please, next time you leave a comment, try to show that you have a little buit of common sense. Out of all the things you could say, you make yourself sound like an immature child. And as to you question Tchalvak, I am not really sure how forsenic science can be used to prove this. Obviously not by using a movie. Movies can be faked very easily. I pity the person who left that comment. They sounded immature and childish when they said that. They just proved to me that not everyone can be mature when talking about a MATURE topic. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And the award for "Most Overuse of 'Mature' In A Sentence" goes to...

Psst - I think they may have been joking. There's no need to fly off the handle at them, they were just having a joke. Fair enough if you think that humour has no place in Wikipedia, but you have to respect that some people do and will wish to use humour. A mature way to have dealt with it would have been to just read the comment and not berate them for it... Although I don't know the answer myself. Hopefully someone more versed in forensics could say. But given that it can be seen whether someone lost a tooth naturally, through force, or in the ground after death just by examination of the tooth, it wouldn't be too surprising if they could use forensic evidence to prove it... 80.6.98.250 17:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Did someone change the grammar of that comment about the movie? Robot569 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

cannibalism in the Amazon

You might want to include some info on the Amazon, as much of the myth around cannibalism was tied to the discovery of the Americas (it was the Caribs who told the members of Columbus' expedition of man-eating enemies, which fit the still existant world view of beasts and monsters as chronicled by Plinius in his 'Naturalis Historia'). In anthropological literature (though often making claims based on distorted historical records) the Yanomami and other tribes of the Amazon are said to have practiced ritual cannibalism (ashes, bones or flesh of close kin or enemies, depending on who you want to believe)until not that long ago.

"Myth"? And that "not long ago" for the Yanomani is "today". will you people please leave the cultural biases outo of this? Macgreco 02:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Consented cannibalism

I was just passing by and noticed the personal opinion and challenge by 203.215.105.108, which I'm quoting down here verbatim. I'm not sure whether this is covered somewhere else, though it of course does not belong in the article space in this form. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If everything is permissible between consenting adults, why not? | 5 January 2004
According to the psychiatrist, Heinrich Wilmer, the German cannibal Armin Meiwes, who killed Bernd Brandes and then ate at least 44 pounds of his flesh, is suffering from “emotional problems.” We might say the same, I suppose, of Brandes, who answered Meiwes’s Internet advertisement for “a young, well-built man who wants to be eaten”—though his problems are now past curing. Brandes also had a slightly offbeat sense of humor. On discovering that both he and Meiwes were smokers, he reportedly said, “Good, smoked meat lasts longer.”
The case raises interesting questions of principle, even for those who take the thoroughly conventional view that eating people is wrong. According to the evidence, Meiwes and Brandes were consenting adults: by what right, therefore, has the state interfered in their slightly odd relationship?
Of course, one might argue that by eating Brandes, Meiwes was infringing on his meal’s rights, and acting against his interests. But Brandes decided that it was in his interests to be eaten, and in general we believe that the individual, not the state, is the best judge of his own interests.
Ah, you say, but Brandes was mad, and therefore not capable of judging what was in his own interests. What, though, is the evidence that he was mad? Well, the fact that he wanted Meiwes to eat him. And why did he want Meiwes to eat him? Because he was mad.
There is a circularity to this argument that robs it of force. It is highly likely that Brandes did indeed have “emotional problems,” but if every person with emotional problems were denied the right to determine what is in his own interests, none of us would be self-determining in the eyes of the law, except those of us who had no emotions to have problems with.
Lest anyone think that the argument from mutual consent for the permissibility of cannibalism is purely theoretical, it is precisely what Meiwes’s defense lawyer is arguing in court. The case is a reductio ad absurdum of the philosophy according to which individual desire is the only thing that counts in deciding what is permissible in society. Brandes wanted to be killed and eaten; Meiwes wanted to kill and eat. Thanks to one of the wonders of modern technology, the Internet, they both could avoid that most debilitating of all human conditions, frustrated desire. What is wrong with that? Please answer from first principles only.
I'm pretty sure it's on the same basis that we try to stop suicides. It is generally assumed that the person doesn't really want to die, and will thank us for it afterwards (it's not the kind of decision that can be undone, after all). This is just a rather more gruesome form of suicide, and so the same logic applies.
Oh, and the fact that he wanted to die is usually considered good evidence of either insanity or severe emotional stability. The means just drives the point home, but it doesn't change it in any way.

You want first principles? I 'll give you first principles. "Don't kill other people" is one. "Don't make other people kill you" is another. "Not even if they ask politely" is generally stated as a complementary first principle to both.

OK, more seriously, let's say that I want to die, for whatever reason. There's no law against that, neither is it really punishable (especially if I make it.) However, if you want to kill me, then you are planning murder which is, indeed, a punishable crime. If I am asking you to do it and you agree, I am indeed consenting, but to a crime: my murder, by you. And you are conspiring to murder me, albeit with me.

Consider this line of defense against an accusation of murder: "but, your honour, the victim didn't put up a fight!" (because he/she was sleeping/ drugged/ out/ sick/ whatever) Good luck proving your innocence with something like that.

Consent doesn't really come into this. The "consent" of terminally ill patients who request their doctor's assitance to end their lives does not acquit a doctor who helps a patient on, of the act of murder. Because we believe that it's better to live than to die, to let live than to kill. And because it is practically impossible to prove a person's consent after they have been killed, especially as there are no legal procedures to control the act (the case of we're discussing being a freak exception).

"in general we believe that the individual, not the state, is the best judge of his own interests." I don't know where this comes from but it's an overgeneralisation. Of course the state/ authorities know what is best for the individual, in many different cases. When the individual has not reached the age of consent, the state knows that he or she cannot choose a sexual partner from outside his or her age group. When the individual is pissed blind, the state knows that he or she is not allowed to drive. When the individual is stark raving mad, the state knows that no matter what he says, he should not get eaten. And so on.

"What, though, is the evidence that he was mad? Well, the fact that he wanted Meiwes to eat him. And why did he want Meiwes to eat him? Because he was mad." How does that acquite Meiwes from a murder? If the man he killed and ate was not mad, he couldn't have consented to the act, because no sane person would have, therefore, if we can't prove that Brandes was insane, Meiwes must have done it without his consent, and commited murder. Ooh, that's such fun, innit?

Btw, I think by now the case has been closed and Meiwes is in jail for murder? Stassa 03:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiji? Maori?

I was under the impression that cannibalism was well documented amongst the Fijians and Maori of the Pacific. Aren't there even special implements preserved that are known to be for 'long pig'?

Yes, Maoris at least freely admit to having been cannibals. 3-4 generations ago cannibalism was still fairly common in New Zealand (according to Maori friends), and they have many, many cultural connections to cannibalism, including artifacts. The Haka (the dance they do before sports events for example) illustrates quite vividly threats of cannibalism. I think this article is extremely POV, and is probably total crap! Adding POV tag.Johnpf 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article's unfounded and undocumented claims and illogical reference to Encyclopædia Britannica

Why is there a link to the Encyclopædia Britannica (incorrectly spelled "Encyclopedia")? This article does not mention Britannica at all, not even the fact that B 2000 says more or less the exact opposite of what this article says. I'm pretty sure it'd be OK to quote the entire Britannica article here in the discussion if it is clearly labeled as a citation, but i'd first like to hear another opinion on that. In any case, it is hard to believe that the following claims in the B article are completely unfounded:

1) the Carib are "a West Indies tribe well known for their practice of cannibalism"

2) cannibalism is "a widespread custom going back into early human history" and "has been found among peoples on most continents."

3) "Though many early accounts of cannibalism probably were exaggerated or in error, the practice prevailed until modern times in parts of West and Central Africa, Melanesia (especially Fiji), New Guinea, Australia, among the Maoris of New Zealand, in some of the islands of Polynesia, among tribes of Sumatra, and in various tribes of North and South America"

4) "the spread of modernization usually results in the prohibition of such practices. In modern society cannibalism does occasionally occur as the result of extreme physical necessity in isolated surroundings"

This Wikipedia article cannot just say the opposite, e.g. "modern research has found no trace of the practice", without providing at least one source!

I only have the CD version of B here, but i'm sure the printed version cites sources for its claims. Even if it doesn't, B is not known to publish claims not based on scientific research, and the B article's claims are probably similar to those in other encyclopedias. This entire Wikipedia article is a joke unless it cites sources proving B and probably most other common reference works wrong, and unless it mentions this major and surprising discrepancy. --Espoo 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Rodall 03:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Here are various references CONFIRMING cannibalism and/or Human Sacrifice (Universalis show many cannibalisms are religious) in various continents, here are some :

The practice of human sacrifice does NOT confirm the practice of canibalism... there are diferent things. Nanahuatzin 07:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

YOUNG, Emma. « Mass human sacrifice unearthed in Peru » NewScientist.com News Service, October 2002, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2885

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochica#Religion

POPSON, Colleen P. « Grim Rites of the Moche : Excavations at a pyramid site in northern Peru yield evidence of gruesome ritual sacrifice » in Archeology Magazine, Volume 55 Number 2, March/April 2002 http://www.archaeology.org/0203/abstracts/moche.html

ENCYCLOPÉDIE UNIVERSALIS (France), « Cannibalisme »

« L'Américain cannibale », in L'Agence Science-Presse(Canada), semaine du 11 septembre 2000, http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/archives/cap1109004.html

Susie Mckinnon, « Celtic Sacrifice », in Web site of the School of Art and Design at San Jose State University, Spring 2000

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL, « Cannibalistic Celts discovered in South Gloucestershire » http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Info-Office/news/archive/cannibal.htm

« CHAPTER XVI.SACRIFICE, PRAYER, AND DIVINATION », p.239-240 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac19.htm#fr_820) in The Religion of the Ancient Celts, By J. A. MacCulloch, 1911, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh


Rodall


you must be new around here.

hmm

Do people of different ethinic back rounds taste different MegaloManiac 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, we get it... FiggyBee 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered me. I give up I will just figure it out for myself... MegaloManiac 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The 19th century precedent does not make it clear. --Procrastinating@talk2me 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the 'victim' is dead, I imagine cannibalism falls under the general heading of interfering with a corpse. However most cannibals kill their victims first and so are tried for murder (or manslaughter as with Armin Meiwes) rather than for the cannibalism specifically. FiggyBee 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blood libel and Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Firstly, I don't know if the blood libel should be mentioned here as a sociological consequence of cannibalism. Since the Protocols have been taken up as part of the mission statement of Hamas, it probably bears mentioning for perspective.Freakdog 03:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Freakdog (no offense), blood libel is a MYTH proported that those of the Jewish religion kill someone (usually nowerdays Muslims/Atheists/Christians) and use their blood to bake Passover Matza. This is a VERY old line of bull that has been used by the radiclised Catholic Church during the Middle Ages (ie the victims being Christian babies) to justify the obliteration of several Jewish communities throughout Eurasia and the Near East. Pope John Paul II publically apoligized for this piece of blatent propaganda and the deaths it caused (not like he or most of the Christians alive today had anything to do with it, the real scum are long dead), but still many continue to use it. It is unkown when it was first used, but it is believed that the first useage was a declaration by Ramesses II before the Battle of Kadesh that the Hittites celebrated victories by slowly dismembering their still-alive captives and then using their blood as an ingrediant to many parts of a Hittite victory feast. It is unkown if this speech is real, and if so, how accurate (if at all) the allegation is.

The first confirmed usage of it as an anti-Jewish claim is during the Kitos War (one of the Judean Revolts) when it rapidly spread through Imperial ranks that the Jewish rebels used the blood of Roman civilians to bake a rare bread during a previous Judean revolt (likely the 66-73 revolt) and thus to show no mercy to Jews. To be fair (not that it is likely) it may be possible that SOME of the rebels did this, but there is no concrete evidence and several Roman sources actually repudiate the claim. But, however, it seems that many Anti-Semetics seem to ignore this evidence.

As for the EOZ, it has been proven (not "proven" in a sarcastic way) many, many, many, MANY times over to be the wet dream of a Russian anti-Semtic. I have actually read the book, and it is fascinating. A fraud, but a fascinating fraud, and it seems like a training manual for the radical Islamic terrorist leadership. And just because Hamas has put it in its offical mission statement means diddily squat. Not to get off topic, but Hamas has also officially accused the Israelis of trying to kill Red Cross and Red Cresant workers INTENTIONALLY and are sporting pictures of a nearly intact ambulance with a realitivly small hole in the top of it (and I DO mean small. The only thing I can think of that could cause damage with the description that was provided is A falling debries, or B a antiquated WWI-WWII BOMB (not rocket) that went through the celling of the ambulance but did not land on the trigger on the nose of the bomb.) and a variaty of conflicting stories, Just so you know. ELV

Agreed, and my comment still stands as an informationally relevant addition to the article, regardless of the authenticity or accuracy. Please re-read my comment again and understand is as a rational argument from someone Jewish, no less.Freakdog (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

BSE/Mad Cow including possible human vector

Also, I think mention should be made of BSE/Mad Cow and the theory that it results from feeding cattle parts in cattle feed. I also believe there was a theory bandied about that BSE came from CJD from human bones from bone collectors in India, who incorrectly identified them as cattle bones, which made their way into the bone meal supply.Freakdog 03:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Colin Fanthorpe

I removed this sentence as a) it was added by an anonymous IP apparently belonging to a school internet provider and b) "Colin Fanthorpe" returns no google hits other than this article, unlikely if he is indeed a "famous cannibal". 

Cannibalism may also be due to Colin syndrome, named after the 
famous cannibal Colin Fanthorpe.

FiggyBee 08:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Diego Rivera

I can't find a source for this rather old contribution about Diego Rivera. There is nothing in his article about it. ed g2s • talk 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. ed g2s • talk 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Diego Rivera (1991), "At the San Carlos School of Fine Arts", My Art, My Life: An Autobiography, Courier Dover Publications, p. 20, ISBN 978-0-486-26938-2
{{Citation |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=t6rYXUltJcsC |title=My Art, My Life: An Autobiography |author=Diego Rivera |year=1991 |publisher=Courier Dover Publications |chapter=At the San Carlos School of Fine Arts |chapter-url=http://books.google.com/books?id=t6rYXUltJcsC&pg=PA16&sig=1fir8QruMWOuLlj7DFUYA26pbzY |page=20 |page=20 |isbn=048626938}} -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Corrected chapter-url above. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

fetus

hey there, I think someone should add a sub-section where some people in east asia eat fetuses, check this google link

That was a rather distasteful art project involving a duck and a doll's head. No babies were hurt in the making, though... Rsynnott 23:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. See this. Look on page 18 or search for "duck" -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This section should be seperated into individual sub-sections for references in books and plays, movies, and music. (Ibaranoff24 02:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

weasels

"It is generally accepted that accusations of cannibalism have historically been much more common than the act itself. "

Anthropophagous Does Not Mean Cannibalism

When clicking a link for anthropophagous, it brought me to Cannibalism. Now, cannibalism makes sense to link to anthropophagous in a way, but anthropophagous does not necessarily relate to cannibalism. It should not link. Freebytes 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal discussion in the intro

As noted before, cannibalism is not uncommon during times of war; it is said that in the 3rd century BC, during the Punic Wars, the Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca fed on those that had perished from the harsh Alpine conditions. He is said to have also encouraged those remaining alive to adopt cannibalism as a means of avoiding starvation.

The prior paragraph sounds like pure crap, if true there should be a citation RBobicus 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be the inspiration for the naming of the fictional cannibal Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter.

This sounds like mere speculation. Do you suppose that Hannibal rhymes with Cannibal has anything to do with it? RBobicus 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would remove both, but being a newbie, I don't want to get involved in a edit war. RBobicus 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This IS pure crap and i will delete it. "Some have said", "has been aledged" is not enough to discredit the image of a legendary leader. Present sources from renowned historians and i will add it myself (God knows there are thousands of books about Hannibal and the Punic Wars).86.104.216.79 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Haka

I've removed the section on the Haka, because as well as having little to do with cannibalism, it's factually incorrect. The final motion in the new All Blacks haka is not a throat slitting gesture, but drawing the breath of life ('hauora'). The connotation is unfortunate, but doesn't have a place in this page. Tell me to get back to work! 23:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the bloody sports dance. I was talking about the "I'm going to tear your heart out and eat it in front of you" haka done before battle. Talk to some old people (the real old people) not the cultural revisionists redefining culture for the tourist industry. Johnpf 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Long pig

"Long pig" redirects to this article, but the term (and its origins) are not discussed. Mike Dillon 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was a punctuation thing... The article only has "long-pig", not "long pig". Mike Dillon 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

anthropophagism/y as title

?

controversies

the alleged controversies surrounding the 'classical' descripions of cannibalism in early colonial times need to be detailed more closely. As far as I gather, it is undisputed that

  • cannibalism was indeed practiced as part of religious/animist rituals in certain tribal societies
  • Early Modern ethnographers tended to over-emphasize such practices

Now what is the spectrum of academic views on Caribbean / South-American rituals of human sacrifice involving anthropophagy, what are the controversies, and what is established as certain or credible? I would also like to point out that such rituals may be seen as completely sane and respectable within the framework of a Neolithic tribal warrior society, and that implications of cannibalism being despicable etc. are unwarranted in Wikipedia's voice. Cannibalism outside societal norms (by deranged maniacs etc.) is something entirely different. In this vein, I think that the Garifuna shouldn't see reports of such rituals as a blemish upon their national honour any more than the Irish should see reports of human sacrifice among the ancient Celts as 'blood libel'. The important thing is that the evidence is reviewed critically and realistically, separating fact (or likelihood) from over-excited colonialist fancy. dab (ᛏ) 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't commentate on the anthropology of this matter, but I intend to look into it. What I DO know is how I am infuriated by the prejudice-disguised-as-political correctness and condescension of severeal posters on this page. Macgreco 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical References

I would just like to add that there is indeed a first-hand account of the Aztec's institutionalised cannibalism. In "The Conquest of Mexico" one of the original Conquistadores, Bernal Diaz del Castillo describes how the priests in Tenochtitlan would carve up the bodies of their sacrifices (humans) and then distribute the meat to the markets for people to buy and take home to eat. During the siege of Tenochtitlan by Ernan Cortez and his men, Diaz reports that the Spaniards could see their comrades that were taken captive during the fighting being sacrificed and then carved up and eaten. He also reports that part of the human sacrifice rituals involved the heart of the offering being cut off his body and consumed by the priests. Numerous depictions of gods eating humans exist in ancient Mexican art, which is a good indication that cannibalism was indeed part of the ancient Mexican religion.

I will attempt to add that information to the article once I 've sorted out my sources properly. In the meantime, allow me to add that Diaz also describes the Aztec priests as quite pious and devoted to their religion, and the way he tries to make sense of their cannibalism, and the human sacrifices seems quite sincere and is very hard to reconcile with the idea of a guilty conscience trying to excuse the atrocities commited by the Conquistadores against the natives. For that matter, Diaz's account never tries to make any excuses; he is, for instance, quite clear on the greed that ceized the Spaniards when they found Moctezuma's gold, and generally never tries to beatify the whole expedition, describing it from the beginning as an opportunistic hunt for the richess of the natives. Stassa 03:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So from the article...

We can assume that Europeans will never admit that anyone of their own ever engaged in cannibalism, but quickly accuse others (through the diaries and texts of racist past "explorers") of doing so. Hmm. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.24.132 (talk • contribs)

"of their own"? hm, in ancient times, certainly, there is for example a debate on ritual cannibalism in the Minoan civilization. Or more recently? Armin Meiwes is certainly an EU citizen. dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Removed

  • The earliest reliable account of cannibalism in North America was in the early 1600's, in Jamestown, VA. One man killed and salted his wife.[citation needed]

I removed this because I could see it being an easy miscommunication... "One man assaulted and killed his wife," could easily become "One man killed and salted is wife." Since this item has no reference, I've taken it out. —XSG 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Social stigma of cannibalism

a serious section is needed on cannibalism and the propaganda of accusing ones enemy of this act. Also a look at the innate horror associated with cannibalism, i,e the physiology of cannibalism.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By "innate" you mean "learned", right? Macgreco 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New cannibalism case in France

There is some news about french prisoner who ate parts of his cellmate available on CNN site http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/05/france.cannibal.reut/index.html via Reuters.

Fafek2 (talk page) 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalism in INDIA

Incident occured in NOIDA, 20 km far from capital of India, New Delhi. http://in.news.yahoo.com/070105/211/6avpc.html Guddu 12:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Cannibalism during the crusades

Where is the cannibalism that happened during the crusades as an act of terror?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Have middle-easterners finally stopped this activity? Hoserjoe 07:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Armin Meiwes?

I don't think this man was convicted of murder, in any case he is certainly not a 'serial killer'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.125.106 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

First it was "manslaughter" then "murder", because the dead one was insane and A.M. (a former soldier in german army with OR-6 NATO-rank) was able to recognize that and to behave different than he did... according to some judges... See: Armin Meiwes#The_case --Homer Landskirty 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

anthropophagism / health

In some US TV series was the statement, that human muscles make ill if eaten... --Homer Landskirty 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a Cannibalism in popular culture main page, why is the section here so big? Is this all repeated information? Midnightdreary 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine?!?!?

Why is this in the category of Cuisine? It just seems weird to see "Human Body Parts" after bread on the category bar.

I happen to agree that that was something I expected to see on uncyclopedia, but not here. Sure, it's food of sorts, but it really shouldn't be filed under cuisine...that's just kind of night right from a Western civilization point of view. Apolloae (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aghori

This entry has no mention of the cannibalistic Aghori sect, even though there is plenty of information cited in the Wikipedia entry on Aghori. It seems like this should be addded, since it is a modern still-practicing cannibal group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeywicked (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Psychological Aspects

The article should have something one the psychological aspect of cannibalism. For example why do people commit cannibalism? OR what religious/ superstitious beliefs that compel certain primitive ethnic groups to commit cannibalism? etc.

-Bill

April 27, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.127.45 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Cannibalism in Engineering

In Engineering (Planes, Trains and other Transport) they also call it Canninalism when parts of an old engine are taken to repair a newer or better one, or indeed, two old engines are taken to make a complete new one. I found no reference to this on this page. Someone should make a reference to this. - quatzalcoatl 22:14 31/5/2007 UTC

"Tribe"

There was a BBC program called "tribe", where an Englishman would spend a week or two living with a highly secluded tribe for the fascination and bemusement of all who may be watching. I cannot remember which tribe it was, as I tuned in half way through, but there was definitely a culture of cannibalism, even if it wasn't shown. What happened was there were in fact two rival tribes with almost identical cultures, who would regularly compete, and one of the tribe members admitted to the presenter that he ate a member of the rival tribe in order to consume his soul and prevent him reaching the afterlife. I wish I could elaborate more on this, but it was a long time ago. Does anybody know more about this?

Henry Ford

why is Ford in this section?

Good question - neither Henry Ford nor Google throws up any obvious reason, so I suspect it's vandalism, and have removed the entry from the list. Barnabypage 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heretical.com citations

I sincerely doubt heretical.com, run by neo-nazi Simon Sheppard, is a reliable source, yet it is referenced three times or more in the introduction. Could someone please do something about this? Black-Velvet 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. You could've done it yourself, as well. Nik42 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I know, sorry. I'm a lazy git. Black-Velvet 06:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Was There Ever a Proper Name for Human Meat?

One thing I've noticed about meats in general is that there is typically a fancier more appealing name in which to describe where it originated from.

For example:

Cow = Beef, Pig = Pork, Deer = Venison, Birds = Poultry


Have cannibalistic people and societies ever use a more appealing name for human meats?

That's largely a quirk of teh English language, using different words, and cannibalism has never been common among English-speakers. In addition, even in English, many meats have no special word. Chicken, turkey, fish (both in general and specific species), etc. all use the same words for the animal and the meat Nik42 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


You have a point, but bird-based meats like chicken and turkey can be labeled as Poultry and fish is a technically form of Seafood. I've noticed that most food items here have a way of sort of "tastefully masking" where the meat actually comes from, even if they just use the same name in another language. Snails as Escargot, fried goose liver as Foi Gras, etc...

The fish angle does bring out a good point though, fish is fish. But from what I've gathered, there has never been any real need to mask where fish comes from as most people don't consider it to be a "cruel meat." After all, fish are slaughtered by simply removing them from the water. There is so little cruelty associated with the practice that some cultures don't even consider fish to be "meat", Catholics would be an example.

I know the examples used in this post are specific to English, but I'm sure that there have to be other language dialects that must do something similar. After all, english isn't the only language that has undergone structural metamorphasis.

Just to clear up my qesution, I'm not talking strictly about english but about language cultures in general.

It just intrigues me to think that no cannibalistic culture has ever thought of a more appetizing name for human meat.

Well, there are other languages that have alternate names for various meats. Japanese, for example, uses Chinese-origin words for at least some kinds of meat (e.g., cow is ushi but beef is gyuuniku, gyuu being from the Chinese word for cow). And there's a term sakuraniku for horse flesh which translates literally as cherry blossom meat, after its color.
I would doubt that most cultures with cannibalism would have special names for human flesh simply because having special names for meat seems to be a feature of cultures such as ours where there is psychological distance between the dinner table and the farm. Most people today do not raise their own food, after all. Cultures where people are not separated from the killing necessary to produce meat are unlikely to feel the need to euphemize the origin of the meat they eat, and those cultures that have practiced cannibalism are generally either hunter-gatherer cultures or agrarian cultures where all but a tiny minority are farmers and/or herders. Nik42 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an issue of euphemisms. In the middle ages, the upper class spoke French, while the lower class spoke English (or, at least, what became English). So English words were used to describe animals as the lower class experienced them (alive) while French words were used to descibe animals as the upper class experienced them (meat).Heqwm (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Aztec cannibalism in error

The section on Aztec cannibalism must be part of the material incorporated from the public domain since it has a number of erroneous statements. 1) the "flower wars" were not the greatest examples of human sacrifice or of cannibalism. The greatest numbrs of human sacrifices occurr ed at the dedications of temple expansions- for example in 1487. 2) There are a number of descriptions of human cannibalism not just 2. 3) It is not true that human meat was considered worthless or that military honors substituted for it. They were separate events. 4) It is not true that there is only one picture of human sacrifice and that it is in the Florentine codex-- there are several pictures in the Florentine as well as in the Codex Maggliabechiano and elsewhere. This entire section is rife with errors. I would recommend that the section in the entry in Aztec human sacrifice be substituted for this one.Itzcoatl (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Aquatic cannibalism

The following statement is meaningless without further limitation:

Cannibalism seems to be especially prevalent in aquatic communities, in which up to ~90% of the organisms engage in cannibalism at some point of the life cycle.

in particularm "~90% of the organisms." Are seaweed and plankton cannibalistic? 66.234.51.139 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalistic herbivores?

From the Non-human cannibalism section of the article:

Cannibalism is also not restricted to carnivorous species, but is commonly found in herbivores...

I've added a fact tag there. I'm not disputing the claim, but obviously it could confuse non-biologists like me. It might be better if someone gave an example/explanation, or at least cite a source. focoma (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I found out that some herbivorous insects cannibalize due to lack of protein. focoma (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_cannibalism/Archive_1&oldid=1136805093"