Monday, January 21, 2008
After reading Sara Corbett's culturally relative discussion of the The Lighter Side of Female Genital Mutilation, I decided to see what cultural relativism had to say about another unhealthy, brutal crime against humanity: cannibalism.
Is it possible that the tolerant multiculturalists of academia and the media could mau-mau the West into loving people-eating? One multi-culturalist, Beth Conklin, author of Compassionate Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society, is giving it the old college try, using a full bag of cultural relativism's tricks:.
First, she shows the lighter side of cannibalism:
"We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act," objects Beth A. Conklin, an associate professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University. "But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings and motives that are not that far from our own experience."...
..."When I decided to study the Wari' I was a vegetarian and the last thing I was interested in studying was cannibalism," Conklin recalls. Her attitude changed as she talked to Wari' about their experiences with the deaths of family members...
"I hope that this book will make people think more deeply about the meanings that the body has in human relationships, and to consider that other cultures may have understood those in ways that made the destruction and transformation of the body through cannibalism seem to be the best, most respectful, most loving way to deal with the death of someone you care about."
Then she uses moral equivalence:
At the same time that Europeans were condemning various native peoples as cannibals, however, they were practicing a form of cannibalism themselves. Use of medicines made from blood and other human body parts was widespread in Europe through the 17th century...
...Conklin sees irony in the fact that scholars who insist that all accounts of cannibalism must be false are actually perpetuating the negative stereotypes of it. "They seem to assume that cannibalism is by definition a terrible act-so terrible, in fact, that could only have been invented by outsiders who wanted to denigrate or exoticize native peoples. A healthier, more realistic approach would be to recognize that various peoples, including western Europeans, have consumed human body substances for different reasons in different times and places. Let's try to recognize the positive, not just negative meanings of these practices," ..she says.
And, of course, one must find a way to blame colonialism
Historically, charges of cannibalism were used by European nations to help justify their colonization efforts.
She declares that her opinions are "challenging"..
"Cannibalism is a difficult topic for an anthropologist to write about, for it pushes the limits of cultural relativism, challenging one to define what is or is not beyond the pale of acceptable human behavior,"
Then she blames us for the narrowness of our views:
...Wari' ethnography highlights the fact that different groups of people had a variety of motives for practicing cannibalism, ranging from love and respect to hate and anger. "If we listen to what indigenous people like the Wari' say about how they experienced funerary cannibalism," Conklin notes, "we begin to see the narrowness and ethnocentrism of our own views."...
and she wraps it up by downplaying the horrors and deadly aspects of this charming indigenous and non-colonialist custom
...In 1999, Christy Turner of Arizona State University published a book presenting extensive evidence for prehistoric cannibalism at Anasazi sites. White and Turner's research has been highly praised within the field and strongly criticized by scholars who maintain that it is impossible to determine the motives of the people who appear to have cut up the bodies of a number of people, stripped off the flesh and cooked the bones in a clay pot.
If cannibalism did take place at Anasazi sites, it was associated with torture, murder and mutilation. That's the kind of thing that gives cannibalism a bad name," Conklin says. "To my mind, the killing and torture is more abhorrent than the alleged consumption of human flesh. And it's worlds away from the funerary practices I've studied, in which consuming the body honored the person who was eaten."
...Another area of debate regarding cannibalism is whether it may spread infectious diseases. Animal studies have suggested that cannibals may be at greater risk for being infected by parasites and diseases from members of their own species than from other prey...
Conklin downplays those long-established medical facts by stating that there are 'serious questions' about them, while neglecting to mention that these 'serious questions' were apparently only raised by Conklin, who says that she didn't see any disease among the Wari.
Of course the Wari haven't been cannibals for years. They stopped eating people back in the 1960's, when government workers and missionaries forced them to abandon the practice.
Note that they were 'forced' to abandon the practice. Government workers and missionaries didn't gently work with local leaders and opinion-makers to gradually shift the public discussion of people-eating away from from its indigenous positive meanings. They literally forced cannibals to stop eating people. Whoa, harsh.
Sara Corbett, the cultural relativist in charge of putting a pretty face on child mutilation in Indonesia, is trying to convince us that "You cannot make change that way."
Wrong again.
Two cannibals were eating a missionary, one top down and the other bottom up, figuring they would meet in the middle. One asks the other, "How are you doing"? He replies, "I'm having a ball." The first one then says, "You're eating too fast."
Excellent analysis, Sol.
I'm reminded of the "sympathetic magic" of cannibals who believe they take on the strength of slain enemies by eating them.
The left seems to employ this technique in their insidious Gramscian efforts to destroy Western civ to promote their Utopian project.
Amusing, Sol. No. Appalling. Vanderbilt used to be a reputable univeristy.
Thanks, but this one was written by Mary. :)
It is amusing, but it is a shame that this pro-cannibal activist is from Vanderbilt.
Out of respect for the institution (and the general subject of academia) you wouldn't believe all the cannibal jokes I left out..
Mary, Mary . . .
People should get two things straight in their heads:
1. The various cultures of the world, including our own American culture, are all generally good as far as cuisine, architecture, music, art, literature, etc. are concerned.
2. The various morals and value systems of the world are not all good, particularly as to how women and minority groups are treated. The Judeo-Christian value system of America is better than that of Communists, Nazis, Terrorists, Islamists and Cannibals - because we are taught to treat all people with dignity and respect - because all people are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Don't link to that NY Times article - unless you want to host a victimology-fest by male anti-circumcision trolls.
Don't say I didn't warn you....
Actually, the PC thing to do is to deny cannibalism ever existed.
See this page and the links there.
Of course, subsequent archeology has laid waste to denialism.
this is retarded shit you right
I really don't see a problem with cannibalism as long as the person died of natural causes.