The problem is that historic accounts of cannibalism from both Europeans and Indigenes in the South Pacific and from ethnographic research by anthropologists are too common to ignore as evidence of actual behavior. G. Gillison, for example, describes the consumption of male human flesh by the women of the Gimi tribe in Papua New Guinea<ref>1980. "Cannibalism Among the Women in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea," in Brown and Tuzin (ed.s) '''The Ethnography of Cannibalism''', Special Publication of the Society of Psycological Anthopology''', pp. 33-50.</ref> That the idea of missionaries being consumed causes psychic discomfort among armchair experts is a poor criterion for judging the historical accuracy of accounts. The claim that human flesh was actually devoured does not depend on the identity of its original owner as an agent of Western European cultural imperialism.
- Well, it makes sense, it's just really weak sense. In effect, the person is trying to counter a "new revised history" argument that there wasn't REALLY that much canibalism, it was just that freaked out missionaires were describing things they though of as canniableism, but realy might not have been. Of course NEW, new revised history (vs. revisionist) suggest that we have lots of neat ol tools like studies of bone to identify who was eating whom, and we do now know that cannibalism was far more common than ever thought. I'm sure that will be revised some time in the future, too. ;-) GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
do we care if this is a real article?
is this topic at all of interest to RaT wiki? cause as it stands right now, it's not only vague, it's fairly inaccurate picture of what we now think about ancient cannibalism. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a single mention. We're going to hell in a handcart... Scherben 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This might make me a pariah, but here goes nothing.
Now, I've considered the question of cannibalism over and over again, mulling it over endlessly. And my nagging thought is: what exactly is wrong with human cannibalism? All the difference is is that the meat you are eating happens to be human. The only ethical problem I can possibly imagine is where you get the meat. The only legitimate source I can imagine is executed criminals (capital punishment debate notwithstanding), which only means that it'll be a luxury item. I mean, if I didn't murder the subject, then what's wrong with eating it?
- In addition, I have occasionally gotten the urge to eat human. I mean, cannibals describe it as being very delicious, and I get cravings for it. And why not? The only opposition, aside from the above stated, is that it's "taboo". So can somebody help me understand these cravings?
Whew, I'm glad to have that out. Just so you know, I'm ashamed to feel this way, and I have a nagging sense that this is wrong. But that is why I have asked you for advice. 107Ag47 03:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I erred in reverting this stuff, and I immediately put it back. I should be in bed -- I thought it was on the article page and then saw it was talk. (But it's some weird shit there dude.)---Mona- (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are reasons to be opposed to cannibalism that don't boil down to it being taboo. First, it seems very disrespectful to eat someone without their consent. It is generally agreed that your body is your property and you can choose what to have done with it after death. Second, someone is now directly benefiting from a person's death. This is not an incentive that will be good for society. (Imagine the human-meat lobby attempting to broaden the death penalty.) Third, as mentioned above, there are a number of nasty diseases that can easily spread this way.--TiaC (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)