Cannibals and Kings by Marvin Harris.

Ophelia · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:49 am Post subject:

I'll quote the following site not for the writing, but for the illustrations of cannibalism and the Aztec
Actually, the writing makes me appreciate Harris's dispassionate point of view all the more.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/lifestyles.htm

Wikipedia also gives illustrations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

Ophelia · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject:

Camacho wrote:

Ophelia · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject:

The change from cannibalism to non-canibalism.

The articles I have read on the net say that cannibalism may have been widespread.
I wondered if one reason for the change could have been that people realized cannibalism could lead to disease in humans, just as happened with bovines and mad cow disease in the 1980's.

It seems that there are no certainties about this. Here is what I found:

President Camacho · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject:

i wrote a response to your first post but it has disappeared??? I'm super pissed!!!!! I'll type it up later. From now on I'm going to use microsoft word so that this doesn't happen again. Wow, I am really mad.

Ophelia · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject:

Camacho I'm sorry your post was lost.

It's happened to me too, and I keep telling myself to write my posts on WORD first, and then copy them. But I feel more motivated doing it the old way and writing on the Booktalk page directly.

I hope you won't cannibalize your computer out of anger... Wink

President Camacho · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject:

What I was trying to say in my original post is that cannibalism isn't necessarily a moral issue. The taboo of cannibalism is more an issue of ethics. It's wrong to eat people because society has made it so. Sacrificing someone is a moral and ethical issue. Somehow I think you're mixing up cannibalism with the practice of sacrificing people.

Take for instance your list. You list cannibalism with murder and torture. How is the consumption of inanimate flesh worthy of comparison with murder?

In my lost post I described the practice of cannibalism aboard ships lost at sea. Cannibalism was something that was taboo but everyone generally knew it occurred. It was so frequent that those aboard the Mignonette described their horrific ordeal to anyone that cared to hear the story until they were charged with murder. This was the first time anyone had been officially charged for the act of cannibalism by necessity. This was in 1884!!! Many crews lost at sea have resorted to drawing straws. The Essex tragedy is a good example of this and it was used in the trial of the Mignonette's crew as a precedent.

I also elaborated on Cortes in my lost post. He sunk in loads of his own money, left to conquer Mexico without approval from Velasquez, and sunk his own ships to ensure none of his soldiers would escape. He then claimed to be the "Satanic" god Quetzalcoatl and held Montezuma hostage. Some Aztecs were angry with Cortes and killed some of his soldiers. That group was rounded up and burned alive. The list goes on as I'm sure you know.

I think it's common knowledge that things we don't know are frightening and that these things commonly get blown out of proportion. Cortes was just accustomed to a different kind of evil. I'm sure the Aztecs thought Cortes was more brutish and barbaric than they were; a plague.

Ok, that quote you posted is garbage. I'm sure you know it is bologna.

President Camacho · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject:

I'm glad I got that out. Recapping everything I said in the original post makes my blood run hot.

To elaborate a little more on the issue of cannibalism being an ethical rather than a moral issue, I'll bring up the transubstantiation issue. Jesus asked the Apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Whether this was metaphorical or not - they ate and drank. The act can be seen as a way of bringing Jesus inside of them. The same can be said of cannibalism. If I ate a dead relative, I could say that I wanted their "spirit" or "courage" or what have you, inside of me. The act, for me, would be morally correct and at the same time unethical within my American culture. Why? Because of group belief, not individual belief.

In my original post I proposed a way around the whole psychological brainwashing necessary to make cannibalism ethical. Take meat production today. Cows are raised, fed, killed, butchered, inspected, and packaged at centralized locations far removed from most of the population. The only thing people see is the end product and once in a while there is a special on tv that shows how barbaric the slaughtering actually is. Everyone is so removed that no one thinks twice about buying meat. I bet people would think different about eating a cheeseburger after actually watching the slaughtering, butchering... etc. in person.

So people could be processed the same way. The meat could even be called something different rather than "human" meat so that there would be a delineation between human and food. All anyone would see would be cheap, packaged meat at the supermarket. I'm sure after a while people would buy it as they do cow meat. If it were more expensive than ruminant meat, it could easily become a delicacy and maybe even popular.

It's not immoral to eat a dead human being. It's immoral to kill a person in order to eat them. There is a HUGE difference. Why bury people if we can consume them. Put them (respectfully) to some good use. Burying them in air-tight, expensive caskets is a stupid waste of resources.

President Camacho · Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject:

After reading your posts, I'm inclined to think that the probable cause for Aztecs to cannibalize humans was a combination of show of force and hunger.

I seem to think that if there was enough animal protein available, the cost/benefit of eating people wouldn't be enough to sustain cannibalism. Vegetable proteins are different. They are incomplete, unlike animal proteins. Aztecs would have needed to find the right vegetables to get all their amino acids. Besides, who wants to eat grass every day. I know I don't.

Eating smaller animals like dogs could have easily been something that was socially unacceptable or (more likely) wasn't a profitable way of producing meat. Like Harris says, dogs eat meat - unlike many ungulates.

The combination of terror and food is most likely. Why wouldn't they just rip the body apart and hang different pieces of it everywhere? Why did they need or want to eat some of it? There would be no need if it weren't for hunger. Of course politics was central to sacrificing people. Religion was very powerful and sacrificing people was an integral part of their religion. Like in other parts of the world, their religion was probably used for political gains. It all ties in together. The end result is probably less important than why it actually began. What prompted or motivated these people to eat other people?

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:14 am Post subject:

President Camacho · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:35 am Post subject:

Thanks Ophelia... the computer is safe... for now Wink

hehehe

I don't really have time now to write a proper response to your post. I know for a fact that killing and eating a person for survival is illegal. Eating human flesh in the United States is not illegal. Many people today lost at sea still eat human flesh. Cuban rafters coming to the United States share stories of how they've had to eat their dead to survive. Were they really "dead" ....? Or are they trying to relay a tragic ordeal without threat of prison time for murder?

Read this article. It'll make you smile!

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=29283&pid=1546

The quote I referred to was the one about Cortes conquering Mexico on behalf of the Church. Bullsh*t! Laughing

Did you read chapter 11 yet??? It's like Harris knew we would be trying to refute his cost/benefit claims and availability of protein. He used the different types of amino acids available in plant protein to help his defense. I am leaning in his direction. Prisoners of war might have been killed but there would be no real need to eat them. The whole society wouldn't have been built on ritualistic sacrifices and cannibalism if there were plenty of animals to eat. The whole Aztec civilization was built on human consumption. So... I think he may be right.

I'll read chapter 12 tomorrow. Today I have to go to a BBQ where I will eat mass amounts of animal proteins. Smile

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:00 am Post subject:

Whenever you make a post click the "Copy to Clipboard" button prior to clicking the "Submit" button. You won't lose posts this way.

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:46 am Post subject:

Thanks Chris.
Can somebody tell me where the "Copy to Clipboard" button is?

Penelope · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject:

Ophelia and Pres. C Just to let you know I am watching this discussion.

(It is a bit like watching a Boris Karloff Film....) Surprised

I think 'Copy to Clipboard' is just to the right of the screen, after you click on 'Post a Reply' - Yes....there it is.....

Then, underneath. there are buttons which say 'Preview' or 'Submit'.

Ophelia · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject:


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT