True Story and Description of a Country of Wild, Naked, Grim, Man-eating People...

[Mister D]

Didn't read it, as it says at the outset that all it is doing is stirring up the pot. Reigniting a controversy does not prove anything.

That's not what it says.

Scientists have found what they say is the first direct evidence of cannibalism among prehistoric Indians in the American Southwest, belying the image of these people as steadfastly peaceful farmers.
The finding may well reignite a long-smoldering controversy over whether ancestral Indians ever made it a practice to eat human flesh, a conclusion deeply resented by their descendants.

[Mister D]

No, actually they do not reveal much of anything. What they seem to do is fire up imaginations.

It's fairly common for combatants in war to eat the hearts of their vanquished enemies. That has occurred into and including the Vietnam war and probably the various ME misadventures. That is to say, you have to rule that out -- you have to rule out this sort of behavior that is definitely not typical of a population. Better yet, bring on more definitive corroborating evidence that cannibalism was a common practice of the Anasazi.

Source?
Yeah, I heard the Pentagon was saving millions by just having our troops eat Arab body parts. ROFL

[Lummy]

Source?
Yeah, I heard the Pentagon was saving millions by just having our troops eat Arab body parts. ROFL

It's certainly within context of the unique morality of war that combatants could and would do this.

Here are a couple of sources:
https://www.historytoday.com/richard...ing-your-enemy
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-1539816.html

[Mister D]

It's certainly within context of the unique morality of war that combatants could and would do this.

Here are a couple of sources:
https://www.historytoday.com/richard...ing-your-enemy
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-1539816.html

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Anyway...

From your first article:

How does the cannibalism described by McCall in Iraq compare with the man-eating of tribal societies? Most US citizens would distance themselves from such behaviour, whereas the cannibalism of the Tupinamba, the Iroquois and the Fiji islanders was accepted by all members of those societies, even by its victims.

Ba Bang! lol

In any case, the Iraq story seems bogus. OTOH, the many observations of Indian life are (further) supported by hard evidence. Also, that cannibalism was common in war is not contested. The Native Americans seemed rather fond of the practice.

[Chris]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Anyway...

From your first article:



Ba Bang! lol

In any case, the Iraq story seems bogus. OTOH, the many observations of Indian life are (further) supported by hard evidence. Also, that cannibalism was common in war is not contested. The Native Americans seemed rather fond of the practice.

Fond, indeed, Hans Staden in his book relates how delicious: " that the Tupinambá were cannibals, gave vivid eyewitness accounts of the killing, preparing and eating of war captives. According to one anecdote, the Indians at one point gave him a delicious soup; after finishing his dinner, he found in the bottom of the cauldron some small skulls, which he later found out to be those of the boys in his choir." @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Staden#Cannibalism

But even if he was making it up there's too much scientific evidence support cannibalism in the New World to deny it.

[Mister D]

Fond, indeed, Hans Staden in his book relates how delicious: " that the Tupinambá were cannibals, gave vivid eyewitness accounts of the killing, preparing and eating of war captives. According to one anecdote, the Indians at one point gave him a delicious soup; after finishing his dinner, he found in the bottom of the cauldron some small skulls, which he later found out to be those of the boys in his choir." @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Staden#Cannibalism

But even if he was making it up there's too much scientific evidence support cannibalism in the New World to deny it.

Damn that's chilling.
Exactly.

[Lummy]

IBa Bang! lol

I didn't say it was a good source, just supportive.

Native Americans simply were not cannibals, at least as a rule, and had no reason to be, and until you can show some evidence of the accusation, they remain innocent outside the treachery of The Church and Christian power, approximately where Adam once stood.

[Lummy]

Fond, indeed, Hans Staden in his book relates how delicious: " that the Tupinambá were cannibals, gave vivid eyewitness accounts of the killing, preparing and eating of war captives. According to one anecdote, the Indians at one point gave him a delicious soup; after finishing his dinner, he found in the bottom of the cauldron some small skulls, which he later found out to be those of the boys in his choir." @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Staden#Cannibalism

A child's skull is not small. A spider monkey's skull is small.

[Mister D]

I didn't say it was a good source, just supportive.

Supportive of what? Indians eating their captives? That's sort of our topic. I agree. It does support that contention.

Native Americans simply were not cannibals, at least as a rule, and had no reason to be, and until you can show some evidence of the accusation, they remain innocent outside the treachery of The Church and Christian power, approximately where Adam once stood.

What in the $#@!?

Anyway...as far as cannibalism is concerned that Indians "had no reason" to be cannibals is precisely the point! It was very common ritualistic behavior. It is well attested and supported by hard scientific evidence. They weren't eating human flesh because they were starving unlike the Donner Party.

[Mister D]

A child's skull is not small. A spider monkey's skull is small.

A child's skull is typically and noticeably smaller than an adult's. Was this meant to be a serious response?