Exocannibalism and endocannibalism become so concentrated in a group of people that they promote human prion disease. Because these two types of cannibalism cause the brain eating disease Kuru, these two types of cannibalism cannot be perpetuated. Survival cannibalism, however, in life-or-death situations could be necessary and should be accepted. It is a one-time event and lacks prion mutation concentration; thus, it promotes no human prion disease. Therefore, there are no physical consequences for survival cannibalism.
However, when judging these three types morally, exocannibalism should be the most immoral. This type of cannibalism was used to desecrate the body and spirit of the prisoner of war. It was used to trap the victim’s soul; therefore this type was only used for malicious and devious purposes. It should only be considered as immoral. On the other hand, endocannibalism was used to love, cherish, and honor a dead family member. The ultimately goal of endocannibalistic people was benign, and if it were not for the deadly disease Kuru, this cannibalism could well be acceptable. Survival cannibalism should be seen as a last resort. Western society should take pity on those who are forced to be this type of cannibal.
Much like the Andes survivors of the crash in the Andes Mountain, also in the 1970’s, Vietnam Veterans returned to the United States and were treated like second class citizens. Both groups experienced stigmatization and great anxiety because they acted in ways that should have been excusable. Under the circumstances both groups really had not other choice to act in the way that they did. With those in the Andes crash, they had to surivive by eating the flesh of other people. The survival instinct kicked in and overrode all other emotions or feelings, including disgust. In the case of the Vietnam Veterans, the American government forced them to fight in highly unsupported war by the American people (and possibly the troops themselves). The Veterans had no other choice due to the draft system. In both cases, because of the stigmatization that the media and American society placed on them, they developed post-traumatic stress disorder and other disorders that affected their dissonance and feelings of humanity.
Because of these accounts, Americans should become more understanding to those who must become cannibals in order to survive. In order for the evolution of American society to continue, society must look objectively at an entire situation that turned someone into a cannibal, and judge it on the lines of the criteria outlined in this essay. If an act of cannibalism is moral, and it promotes no human prion disease, that it should be treated delicately and understanding and compassion should be the evoked emotion. Ultimately, the Andes crash survivors were made out to be monsters, but society has learned from its mistakes of disloyalty and misunderstanding and will react differently in the future.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Intro and Thesis
Throughout the history of man, there exist those humans that indulge on the flesh of other humans. These humans are known as cannibals. According to Roland Littlewood, there are three types of cannibalism: endocannibalism, exocannibalism, and survival cannibalism. endocannibalistic peoples, such as the Fore, believed it was unthinkable to eat the dead as if they were animals or enemies. During their cannibalistic ceremonies, the bodies were treated as delicately as possible. The deceased would be eaten slowly as to be mourned and their life celebrated. However, taking part in a mystic ritual, the exocannibals of Papua New Guinea (contrast to the Fore people) would devour their enemies in order to trap their souls as well as to gain super natural powers. These rituals involved torture and disembowelment of the prisoner of war in order to disgrace their body. With survival cannibalism, humans eat other humans to survive. The discussions in today’s society often evaluate the morality of cannibalistic rituals and cannibalism relevant to the survival instinct. In debating the morality of three types of cannibalism, endocannibalsim and survival cannibalism should be seen as morally acceptable. However, on the physically destructive level, it will be proven that only survival cannibalism will not cause physical harm to an individual. Society will provoke the idea that all cannibalism is wrong without any in depth study of the topic or circumstances that surround those who are or forced to become cannibals. Because survival cannibalism will satisfy both requirements along the lines of morality and physical health, it is the only acceptable form of cannibalism under the circumstances.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
BBC investigate Cannibalism tribe
I found this interesting video discussing Cannabalistic Past and now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DeVovHw1RY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DeVovHw1RY
Thursday, July 9, 2009
second paper
Jeff Goodman
Professor Adolph
English 1000
9 July 2009
A Cannibalistic Mentality
Throughout the history of man, there exist those humans that indulge on the flesh of other humans. These humans are known as cannibals. According to Roland Littlewood, there are three types of cannibalism: endocannibalism, exocannibalism, and survival cannibalism. Today’s society often evaluates the morality of cannibalistic rituals and cannibalism in regard to the survival instinct. Society will provoke the idea that all cannibalism is wrong without any in depth study of the topic or circumstances that surround those who are or forced to become cannibals. Further analysis leads me to believe that out of the three types of cannibalism, survival cannibalism is the only acceptable form under the circumstances.
As Richard Rhodes discusses in Deadly Feast, Endocannibalistic peoples, such as the Fore, believed it was unthinkable to eat the dead as if they were animals or enemies. During their cannibalistic ceremonies, the bodies were treated as delicately as possible. The deceased would be eaten slowly as to be mourned and their life celebrated. However, taking part in a mystic ritual, the exocannibals of Papua New Guinea (contrast to the Fore people) would devour their enemies in order to trap their souls as well as to gain super natural powers. These rituals involved torture and disembowelment of the prisoner of war in order to disgrace their body.
Stories of survival cannibalism have become engrained into American society. Most Americans have heard of the Donner Party. In the late 1840’s, a group of families set out for California, became trapped in the cold winter of the Sierra Nevada, and resorted to eating the remains of their dead loved ones and friends. Western society would show revulsion because of this, but then realize that this was only a brief moment of savagery performed by the individuals of a pre-evolved society. However, this “savagery” has occurred a little closer to the twenty-first century and within our own civilized society.
As stated in the History Channel special “Cannibals,” In October of 1972, a rugby team and some members of their families set out for Chile for an international competition; unfortunately, their plane crashed in the Andes Mountains and fifteen died on impact. In thirty degree below weather, they all huddled together for warmth and started getting a little desperate. On the tenth day of their unfortunate situation, their food supply ran out; the same day that they overheard on their radio that the search for them had been abandoned. On December 23, 1972, they were saved! “Twenty-six chose to live by eating their dead loved ones,” and interviews with the survivors today reveal that they would do it again if necessary even though the media called them murders. (“Cannibals”). In times of dire emergencies people get desperate. Desperation often leads humans to exert such behaviors that they are not necessarily proud of, but do anyway to survive. The survival instinct is powerful enough to override the disgust emotion acquired by societal conditioning.
According to Conflict Theory, any frenzy caused by cannibalism is indicative of the society’s views of morality and disgust. Because cannibalistic societies had conditioned their citizens to find pleasure in devouring or mournfully eating victims, those people, although some were physically stricken by the Kuru disease, were not mentally damaged. Because this was a social norm, Conflict Theory played no role in this situation with these people. However, in American society a man was convicted of murder, not because the evidence of the trial pointed to homicide, but because he openly admitted that he had resorted to cannibalism to survive. Conflict theory argues that all types of cannibalism are unacceptable in American society. Through this case study and the previous one, we can see how fact can be skewed into abominable fictional legends. Hype around these scenarios always entailed mass hysteria. Emotion becomes dominant over reason, and conflict is elevated to scapegoating as the situation becomes “popularized” by the news. J.S Kidd argued that during the 1970’s, “cannibalism –an exotic topic to begin with…entered the same set as Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, and flying saucers” (Kidd 5). The media devoured those who survived in the Andes like it convicted Alfred Packer in the 1880’s.
In 1883, Alfred Packer and five others set out west to find gold in the river valleys of California. Before they crossed the Sierra Nevada, a native tribe urged them to wait in the tribe camp until the winter had passed; their lust for gold and prosperity, however, forced them to forge on. Freezing in the cold winter wind and running low on food, they were immobilized in a campsite while trying to cross the mountains. After five days of waiting, Packer began to feel a little uneasy. He continued up the mountain to try to find a shelter not far off from where the camp believed they were. However, he was unsuccessful, and when he returned, he found his friends murdered by the largest of the group and cooking their flesh in a tin cup. The large man lashed out at Parker with an ice pick, but Parker shot him. Parker lived off the remains of his friends while traveling to the shelter where he was charged with murder.
The town turned into a circus. The court proceeded under the guise of innocent until proven guilty, but everybody who stepped into that courtroom already knew the outcome. Parker was sentenced to death for the murder of three men. In his testimony, Parker said he now wished he would have died on the mountains with his friends. This is because of the negative pressure that was placed on him. Conflict theory argues that “societies are made up of groups with conflicting values, and those with the most power will define certain behaviors of the weaker groups [or in this case the submissive being parker]” (Pontell 107). The prosecutor’s, part of the power structure that ultimately dominated Parker, questions were aimed to dehumanize Parker while trying to subdue him into a guilty penance. On a technicality, Parker was sentenced to life in prison where he confessed that he would never be the same again. “I tasted the salty flesh of my friends, and not a day goes by in this forsaken pit that I regret it.” There was no evidence that actually proved that he had killed those men. The jury, the judge, and the people of the courtroom were all influenced by mass hysteria.
Humans naturally fight for their survival. It is a trait that has been engrained in our genetics since the dawn of our species. Although society tries to remove the necessity of those primal instincts, they will always be there regardless of how far and how advanced our species and our society evolves. As conflict theory explains, society’s anti-cannibalistic value ultimately dominated over the innate individual’s lust to live. I, now, am writing my analysis under the conditioning of our close-minded society which has taught me that all cannibalism, whether it tender endocannibalism, barbaric exocannibalism, or necessary survival cannibalism, is never acceptable under any circumstances. However, there is another way to break conditioning and that is an in depth analysis of a topic of which society has, on the surface, forbidden the study. But my pursuit of knowledge and fascination of the psychological ramifications of this cannibalistic topic has allowed me to re-open a closed book.
When events in history arise that go against the grain of societal norms, the general public tends to rely more on rumors than on fact. Because of societal conditioning, any idea, event, or act that goes against what is considered in the realm of normal is automatically deemed immoral and unjustified. Two values were in conflict here – the most basic to humanity being survival and also the eating of human flesh. Conflict Theory discord within society derived heavily from the hyperbole the media perpetuates. Even today, there are people whose fear of the outside world affects their daily lives due to the news sensationalizing patterns of crime and deviance.
Works Cited
“Cannibals.” Larry Engel. 2005. Television. The History Channel, 2007.
Kidd, J.S. "Scholarly Excess and Journalistic Restraint in The Popular Treatment of
Cannibalism." Social Studies of Science 18(1988).
Pontell, Henry N. "Conflict theory."5th ed. 2005.
Littlewood, Roland. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Mar 2000 155. Web. 2
Jul 2009.
Rhodes, Richard. Deadly Feasts. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Turkington, Carol. "Human Prion Diseases." The Journal of the Brain and Brain
Disorders, Second Edition. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2002. Facts On File, Inc. Health Reference Center..
Warwick, Andrew. "The Possession of Kuru: Medical Science and Biocolonial Change."
Cambridge University Press 42(2000).
Professor Adolph
English 1000
9 July 2009
A Cannibalistic Mentality
Throughout the history of man, there exist those humans that indulge on the flesh of other humans. These humans are known as cannibals. According to Roland Littlewood, there are three types of cannibalism: endocannibalism, exocannibalism, and survival cannibalism. Today’s society often evaluates the morality of cannibalistic rituals and cannibalism in regard to the survival instinct. Society will provoke the idea that all cannibalism is wrong without any in depth study of the topic or circumstances that surround those who are or forced to become cannibals. Further analysis leads me to believe that out of the three types of cannibalism, survival cannibalism is the only acceptable form under the circumstances.
As Richard Rhodes discusses in Deadly Feast, Endocannibalistic peoples, such as the Fore, believed it was unthinkable to eat the dead as if they were animals or enemies. During their cannibalistic ceremonies, the bodies were treated as delicately as possible. The deceased would be eaten slowly as to be mourned and their life celebrated. However, taking part in a mystic ritual, the exocannibals of Papua New Guinea (contrast to the Fore people) would devour their enemies in order to trap their souls as well as to gain super natural powers. These rituals involved torture and disembowelment of the prisoner of war in order to disgrace their body.
Stories of survival cannibalism have become engrained into American society. Most Americans have heard of the Donner Party. In the late 1840’s, a group of families set out for California, became trapped in the cold winter of the Sierra Nevada, and resorted to eating the remains of their dead loved ones and friends. Western society would show revulsion because of this, but then realize that this was only a brief moment of savagery performed by the individuals of a pre-evolved society. However, this “savagery” has occurred a little closer to the twenty-first century and within our own civilized society.
As stated in the History Channel special “Cannibals,” In October of 1972, a rugby team and some members of their families set out for Chile for an international competition; unfortunately, their plane crashed in the Andes Mountains and fifteen died on impact. In thirty degree below weather, they all huddled together for warmth and started getting a little desperate. On the tenth day of their unfortunate situation, their food supply ran out; the same day that they overheard on their radio that the search for them had been abandoned. On December 23, 1972, they were saved! “Twenty-six chose to live by eating their dead loved ones,” and interviews with the survivors today reveal that they would do it again if necessary even though the media called them murders. (“Cannibals”). In times of dire emergencies people get desperate. Desperation often leads humans to exert such behaviors that they are not necessarily proud of, but do anyway to survive. The survival instinct is powerful enough to override the disgust emotion acquired by societal conditioning.
According to Conflict Theory, any frenzy caused by cannibalism is indicative of the society’s views of morality and disgust. Because cannibalistic societies had conditioned their citizens to find pleasure in devouring or mournfully eating victims, those people, although some were physically stricken by the Kuru disease, were not mentally damaged. Because this was a social norm, Conflict Theory played no role in this situation with these people. However, in American society a man was convicted of murder, not because the evidence of the trial pointed to homicide, but because he openly admitted that he had resorted to cannibalism to survive. Conflict theory argues that all types of cannibalism are unacceptable in American society. Through this case study and the previous one, we can see how fact can be skewed into abominable fictional legends. Hype around these scenarios always entailed mass hysteria. Emotion becomes dominant over reason, and conflict is elevated to scapegoating as the situation becomes “popularized” by the news. J.S Kidd argued that during the 1970’s, “cannibalism –an exotic topic to begin with…entered the same set as Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, and flying saucers” (Kidd 5). The media devoured those who survived in the Andes like it convicted Alfred Packer in the 1880’s.
In 1883, Alfred Packer and five others set out west to find gold in the river valleys of California. Before they crossed the Sierra Nevada, a native tribe urged them to wait in the tribe camp until the winter had passed; their lust for gold and prosperity, however, forced them to forge on. Freezing in the cold winter wind and running low on food, they were immobilized in a campsite while trying to cross the mountains. After five days of waiting, Packer began to feel a little uneasy. He continued up the mountain to try to find a shelter not far off from where the camp believed they were. However, he was unsuccessful, and when he returned, he found his friends murdered by the largest of the group and cooking their flesh in a tin cup. The large man lashed out at Parker with an ice pick, but Parker shot him. Parker lived off the remains of his friends while traveling to the shelter where he was charged with murder.
The town turned into a circus. The court proceeded under the guise of innocent until proven guilty, but everybody who stepped into that courtroom already knew the outcome. Parker was sentenced to death for the murder of three men. In his testimony, Parker said he now wished he would have died on the mountains with his friends. This is because of the negative pressure that was placed on him. Conflict theory argues that “societies are made up of groups with conflicting values, and those with the most power will define certain behaviors of the weaker groups [or in this case the submissive being parker]” (Pontell 107). The prosecutor’s, part of the power structure that ultimately dominated Parker, questions were aimed to dehumanize Parker while trying to subdue him into a guilty penance. On a technicality, Parker was sentenced to life in prison where he confessed that he would never be the same again. “I tasted the salty flesh of my friends, and not a day goes by in this forsaken pit that I regret it.” There was no evidence that actually proved that he had killed those men. The jury, the judge, and the people of the courtroom were all influenced by mass hysteria.
Humans naturally fight for their survival. It is a trait that has been engrained in our genetics since the dawn of our species. Although society tries to remove the necessity of those primal instincts, they will always be there regardless of how far and how advanced our species and our society evolves. As conflict theory explains, society’s anti-cannibalistic value ultimately dominated over the innate individual’s lust to live. I, now, am writing my analysis under the conditioning of our close-minded society which has taught me that all cannibalism, whether it tender endocannibalism, barbaric exocannibalism, or necessary survival cannibalism, is never acceptable under any circumstances. However, there is another way to break conditioning and that is an in depth analysis of a topic of which society has, on the surface, forbidden the study. But my pursuit of knowledge and fascination of the psychological ramifications of this cannibalistic topic has allowed me to re-open a closed book.
When events in history arise that go against the grain of societal norms, the general public tends to rely more on rumors than on fact. Because of societal conditioning, any idea, event, or act that goes against what is considered in the realm of normal is automatically deemed immoral and unjustified. Two values were in conflict here – the most basic to humanity being survival and also the eating of human flesh. Conflict Theory discord within society derived heavily from the hyperbole the media perpetuates. Even today, there are people whose fear of the outside world affects their daily lives due to the news sensationalizing patterns of crime and deviance.
Works Cited
“Cannibals.” Larry Engel. 2005. Television. The History Channel, 2007.
Kidd, J.S. "Scholarly Excess and Journalistic Restraint in The Popular Treatment of
Cannibalism." Social Studies of Science 18(1988).
Pontell, Henry N. "Conflict theory."5th ed. 2005.
Littlewood, Roland. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Mar 2000 155. Web. 2
Jul 2009.
Rhodes, Richard. Deadly Feasts. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Turkington, Carol. "Human Prion Diseases." The Journal of the Brain and Brain
Disorders, Second Edition. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2002. Facts On File, Inc. Health Reference Center.
Warwick, Andrew. "The Possession of Kuru: Medical Science and Biocolonial Change."
Cambridge University Press 42(2000).
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Rough draft second paper
According to Conflict Theory, any frenzy caused by cannibalism is indicative of the society’s views of morality and disgust. Because cannibalistic societies had conditioned their citizens to find pleasure in devouring or mournfully eating victims, those people, although some were physically stricken by the Kuru disease, were not mentally damaged. Because this was a social norm, Conflict Theory played no role in this situation with these people. However, in American society a man was convicted of murder, not because the evidence of the trial pointed to homicide, but because he openly admitted that he had resorted to cannibalism to survive. Conflict theory argues that all types of cannibalism are unacceptable in American society. Through this case study and the previous one, we can see how fact can be skewed into abominable fictional legends. Hype around these scenarios always entailed mass hysteria. Emotion becomes dominant over reason, and conflict is elevated to scapegoating as the situation becomes “popularized” by the news. J.S Kidd argued that during the 1970’s, “cannibalism –an exotic topic to begin with…entered the same set as Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, and flying saucers” (Kidd 5). The media devoured those who survived in the Andes like it convicted Alfred Packer in the 1880’s.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
First Paper
Jeff Goodman
Professor Adolph
English 1000
2 July 2009
A Cannibalistic Mentality
“Down in the garden in the flaring firelight, the dead woman’s daughters ringed her wrists and ankles, sawed through the tough cartilage, disjointed the bones and passed the wrinkled dark hands and splayed feet of her brother’s wife… They opened the woman’s chest and slack belly and the smell of death wafted among the sweet-potato vines. Out came the heavy purple liver, the small green sac of the gallbladder cut carefully away from the underside and its bitterness discarded. Out came the dark red heart gory with clotting blood. [And] out came the looping coils of intestines, dully shining” (Rhodes 22). This vivid, and to most cultures, morbid scene was established by Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Rhodes pertaining to the endocannibalistic Fore People of Papua New Guinea. The scenery depicts only one of, according to History.com, three types of cannibalism: endocannibalism, exocannibalism, and survival cannibalism.
While endocannibalism was a sign of love and compassion for dead relatives or members of one’s own tribe, brutal exocannibalism refers to eating humans who are not members of one’s own tribe in times of war; obviously, with survival cannibalism, humans eat other humans to survive. The discussions in today’s society often evaluate the morality of cannibalistic rituals and cannibalism relevant to the survival instinct. Society will provoke the idea that all cannibalism is wrong without any in depth study of the topic or circumstances that surround those who are or forced to become cannibals. Further analysis leads me to believe that out of the three types of cannibalism, survival cannibalism is the only acceptable form under the circumstances
With endocannibalistic peoples such as the Fore, it was unthinkable to eat the dead as if they were animals or enemies. During their cannibalistic ceremonies, the bodies were treated as delicately as possible. The deceased would be eaten slowly as to be mourned and their life celebrated. However, taking part in a mystic ritual, the exocannibals of Papua New Guinea (contrast to the Fore people) would devour their enemies in order to trap their souls as well as to gain super natural powers. These rituals involved torture and disembowelment of the prisoner of war in order to disgrace their body.
In Deadly Feasts, Richard Rhodes discussed anthropologist Dr. D. Carleton Gajdusek who came to Papua New Guinea in 1957 to investigate the “strange, deadly disease the Fore called Kuru” (Rhodes 27). The natives thought that Kuru was caused by sorcery, but Dr. Gajdusek knew better. Kuru, the human form of mad cow disease was causing the Fore people to basically decompose. Closely related to the brain destroying Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, someone with Kuru would degenerate in five stages: kuru laik i- kamap nau, wokabaut yet, sindaun pinis, slip pinis, and klostu dai nau respectively. First they would come down with the shakes and walk unsteadily; then the person was unable to walk and soon lost the ability to swallow. Once these symptoms set in, death was eminent; the person would swell up and die a painful death. Dr. Gajdusek was the first to “officially” show a connection between cannibalism and the deadly Kuru. According to Warwick Anderson, Gajdusek made this connection through noticing a concentration of Kuru within the Fore population. This discovery led him to view Kuru as an infectious disease passed through some medium. This medium was found to be an encephalitis, infection of the brain, that was passed on by a human prion disease, “diseases primarily affecting the nervous system that are characterized by microscopic holes and pits in brain tissue (spongiform degeneration) and an abnormal form of a protein called a prion. Prions are a normal component in brain tissue, but mutant forms of these proteins become deformed and resist to being broken down into normal proteins, instead building up in the brain. The prion diseases can be spontaneous (sporadic), transmitted by infection (acquired), or inherited” (Turkington). In this case, it was discovered that Kuru was an acquired prion disease and transmitted through cannibalism.
Exocannibalism and endocannibalism become so concentrated in a group of people that they promote human prion disease. Because these two types of cannibalism cause the brain eating disease Kuru, these two types of cannibalism cannot be perpetuated. Survival cannibalism, however, in life-or-death situations could be necessary and should be accepted. It is a one-time event and lacks prion mutation concentration; thus, it promotes no human prion disease. Therefore, there are no physical consequences for survival cannibalism.
However, when judging these three types morally, exocannibalism should be the most immoral. This type was used to desecrate the body and spirit of the prisoner of war. It was used to trap the victim’s soul; therefore this type was only used for malicious purposes and should be considered immoral. On the other hand, endocannibalism was used to love, cherish, and honor a dead family member. The ultimately goal of endocannibalistic people was benign, and if it were not for the deadly disease Kuru, this cannibalism could well be acceptable. Survival cannibalism should be seen as a last resort. Western society should take pity on those who are forced to be this type of cannibal.
Works cited
“Cannibals.” Larry Engel. 2005. Television. The History Channel, 2009.
Kidd, J.S. "Scholarly Excess and Journalistic Restraint in the Popular Treatment of Cannibalism." Social Studies of Science 18(1988).
Littlewood, Roland. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Mar 2000 155. Web. 2 Jul 2009..
Rhodes, Richard. Deadly Feasts. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Professor Adolph
English 1000
2 July 2009
A Cannibalistic Mentality
“Down in the garden in the flaring firelight, the dead woman’s daughters ringed her wrists and ankles, sawed through the tough cartilage, disjointed the bones and passed the wrinkled dark hands and splayed feet of her brother’s wife… They opened the woman’s chest and slack belly and the smell of death wafted among the sweet-potato vines. Out came the heavy purple liver, the small green sac of the gallbladder cut carefully away from the underside and its bitterness discarded. Out came the dark red heart gory with clotting blood. [And] out came the looping coils of intestines, dully shining” (Rhodes 22). This vivid, and to most cultures, morbid scene was established by Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Rhodes pertaining to the endocannibalistic Fore People of Papua New Guinea. The scenery depicts only one of, according to History.com, three types of cannibalism: endocannibalism, exocannibalism, and survival cannibalism.
While endocannibalism was a sign of love and compassion for dead relatives or members of one’s own tribe, brutal exocannibalism refers to eating humans who are not members of one’s own tribe in times of war; obviously, with survival cannibalism, humans eat other humans to survive. The discussions in today’s society often evaluate the morality of cannibalistic rituals and cannibalism relevant to the survival instinct. Society will provoke the idea that all cannibalism is wrong without any in depth study of the topic or circumstances that surround those who are or forced to become cannibals. Further analysis leads me to believe that out of the three types of cannibalism, survival cannibalism is the only acceptable form under the circumstances
With endocannibalistic peoples such as the Fore, it was unthinkable to eat the dead as if they were animals or enemies. During their cannibalistic ceremonies, the bodies were treated as delicately as possible. The deceased would be eaten slowly as to be mourned and their life celebrated. However, taking part in a mystic ritual, the exocannibals of Papua New Guinea (contrast to the Fore people) would devour their enemies in order to trap their souls as well as to gain super natural powers. These rituals involved torture and disembowelment of the prisoner of war in order to disgrace their body.
In Deadly Feasts, Richard Rhodes discussed anthropologist Dr. D. Carleton Gajdusek who came to Papua New Guinea in 1957 to investigate the “strange, deadly disease the Fore called Kuru” (Rhodes 27). The natives thought that Kuru was caused by sorcery, but Dr. Gajdusek knew better. Kuru, the human form of mad cow disease was causing the Fore people to basically decompose. Closely related to the brain destroying Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, someone with Kuru would degenerate in five stages: kuru laik i- kamap nau, wokabaut yet, sindaun pinis, slip pinis, and klostu dai nau respectively. First they would come down with the shakes and walk unsteadily; then the person was unable to walk and soon lost the ability to swallow. Once these symptoms set in, death was eminent; the person would swell up and die a painful death. Dr. Gajdusek was the first to “officially” show a connection between cannibalism and the deadly Kuru. According to Warwick Anderson, Gajdusek made this connection through noticing a concentration of Kuru within the Fore population. This discovery led him to view Kuru as an infectious disease passed through some medium. This medium was found to be an encephalitis, infection of the brain, that was passed on by a human prion disease, “diseases primarily affecting the nervous system that are characterized by microscopic holes and pits in brain tissue (spongiform degeneration) and an abnormal form of a protein called a prion. Prions are a normal component in brain tissue, but mutant forms of these proteins become deformed and resist to being broken down into normal proteins, instead building up in the brain. The prion diseases can be spontaneous (sporadic), transmitted by infection (acquired), or inherited” (Turkington). In this case, it was discovered that Kuru was an acquired prion disease and transmitted through cannibalism.
Exocannibalism and endocannibalism become so concentrated in a group of people that they promote human prion disease. Because these two types of cannibalism cause the brain eating disease Kuru, these two types of cannibalism cannot be perpetuated. Survival cannibalism, however, in life-or-death situations could be necessary and should be accepted. It is a one-time event and lacks prion mutation concentration; thus, it promotes no human prion disease. Therefore, there are no physical consequences for survival cannibalism.
However, when judging these three types morally, exocannibalism should be the most immoral. This type was used to desecrate the body and spirit of the prisoner of war. It was used to trap the victim’s soul; therefore this type was only used for malicious purposes and should be considered immoral. On the other hand, endocannibalism was used to love, cherish, and honor a dead family member. The ultimately goal of endocannibalistic people was benign, and if it were not for the deadly disease Kuru, this cannibalism could well be acceptable. Survival cannibalism should be seen as a last resort. Western society should take pity on those who are forced to be this type of cannibal.
Works cited
“Cannibals.” Larry Engel. 2005. Television. The History Channel, 2009.
Kidd, J.S. "Scholarly Excess and Journalistic Restraint in the Popular Treatment of Cannibalism." Social Studies of Science 18(1988).
Littlewood, Roland. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Mar 2000 155. Web. 2 Jul 2009.
Rhodes, Richard. Deadly Feasts. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Rough Draft of first paper
Jeff Goodman
Professor Adolph
English 1000
2 July 2009
A Cannibalistic Mentality
“Down in the garden in the flaring firelight, the dead woman’s daughters ringed her wrists and ankles, sawed through the tough cartilage, disjointed the bones and passed the wrinkled dark hands and splayed feet of her brother’s wife… They opened the woman’s chest and slack belly and the smell of death wafted among the sweet-potato vines. Out came the heavy purple liver, the small green sac of the gallbladder cut carefully away from the underside and its bitterness discarded. Out came the dark red heart gory with clotting blood. [And] out came the looping coils of intestines, dully shining” (Rhodes 22). This vivid, and to most cultures, morbid scene was established by Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Rhodes pertaining to the endocannibalistic Fore People of Papua New Guinea. The scenery depicts only one of, according to Rolan Littlewood, three types of cannibalism: endocannibalism, exocannibalism, and survival cannibalism.
While endocannibalism was a sign of love and compassion for dead relatives or members of one’s own tribe, brutal exocannibalism refers to eating humans who are not members of one’s own tribe in times of war; obviously, with survival cannibalism, humans eat other humans to survive.
The discussions in today’s society often evaluate the morality of cannibalistic rituals and cannibalism relevant to the survival instinct. Society will provoke the idea that all cannibalism is wrong without any in depth study of the topic or circumstances that surround those who are or forced to become cannibals. Further analysis leads me to believe that out of the three types of cannibalism, survival cannibalism is the only acceptable under the circumstances.
With endocannibalistic peoples such as the Fore, it was unthinkable to eat the dead as if they were animals or enemies. During their cannibalistic ceremonies, the bodies were treated as delicately as possible. The deceased would be eaten slowly as to be mourned and their life celebrated. However, taking part in a mystic ritual, the exocannibals of Papua New Guinea (contrast to the Fore people) would devour their enemies in order to trap their souls as well as to gain super natural powers. These rituals involved torture and disembowelment of the prisoner of war in order to disgrace their body.
In Deadly Feasts, Richard Rhodes discussed anthropologist Dr. D. Carleton Gajdusek who came to Papua New Guinea in 1957 to investigate the “strange, deadly disease the Fore called Kuru” (Rhodes 27). The natives thought that Kuru was caused by sorcery, but Dr. Gajdusek knew better. Kuru, the human form of mad cow disease was causing the Fore people to basically decompose. Closely related to the brain destroying Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, someone with Kuru would degenerate in five stages: kuru laik i- kamap nau, wokabaut yet, sindaun pinis, slip pinis, and klostu dai nau respectively. First they would come down with the shakes and walk unsteadily; then the person was unable to walk and soon lost the ability to swallow. Once these symptoms set in, death was eminent; the person would swell up and die a painful death. Dr. Gajdusek was the first to “officially” show a connection between cannibalism and the deadly Kuru. According to Warwick Anderson, Gajdusek made this connection through noticing a concentration of Kuru within the Fore population. This discovery led him to view Kuru as an infectious disease passed through some medium. This medium was found to be an encephalitis, infection of the brain, that was passed on by a human prion disease, “diseases primarily affecting the nervous system that are characterized by microscopic holes and pits in brain tissue (spongiform degeneration) and an abnormal form of a protein called a prion. Prions are a normal component in brain tissue, but mutant forms of these proteins become deformed and resist to being broken down into normal proteins, instead building up in the brain. The prion diseases can be spontaneous (sporadic), transmitted by infection (acquired), or inherited” (Turkington). In this case, it was discovered that Kuru was an acquired prion disease and transmitted through cannibalism.
Exocannibalism and endocannibalism become so concentrated in a group of people that they promote human prion diseases that affect the brain and are unnecessary in the evolution of our species and our societies. Survival cannibalism, however, in life-or-death situations could be necessary and is acceptable. It is a one-time event and lacks prion mutation concentration; thus, it promotes no human prion disease. Therefore, there are no physical consequences for survival cannibalism.
Professor Adolph
English 1000
2 July 2009
A Cannibalistic Mentality
“Down in the garden in the flaring firelight, the dead woman’s daughters ringed her wrists and ankles, sawed through the tough cartilage, disjointed the bones and passed the wrinkled dark hands and splayed feet of her brother’s wife… They opened the woman’s chest and slack belly and the smell of death wafted among the sweet-potato vines. Out came the heavy purple liver, the small green sac of the gallbladder cut carefully away from the underside and its bitterness discarded. Out came the dark red heart gory with clotting blood. [And] out came the looping coils of intestines, dully shining” (Rhodes 22). This vivid, and to most cultures, morbid scene was established by Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Rhodes pertaining to the endocannibalistic Fore People of Papua New Guinea. The scenery depicts only one of, according to Rolan Littlewood, three types of cannibalism: endocannibalism, exocannibalism, and survival cannibalism.
While endocannibalism was a sign of love and compassion for dead relatives or members of one’s own tribe, brutal exocannibalism refers to eating humans who are not members of one’s own tribe in times of war; obviously, with survival cannibalism, humans eat other humans to survive.
The discussions in today’s society often evaluate the morality of cannibalistic rituals and cannibalism relevant to the survival instinct. Society will provoke the idea that all cannibalism is wrong without any in depth study of the topic or circumstances that surround those who are or forced to become cannibals. Further analysis leads me to believe that out of the three types of cannibalism, survival cannibalism is the only acceptable under the circumstances.
With endocannibalistic peoples such as the Fore, it was unthinkable to eat the dead as if they were animals or enemies. During their cannibalistic ceremonies, the bodies were treated as delicately as possible. The deceased would be eaten slowly as to be mourned and their life celebrated. However, taking part in a mystic ritual, the exocannibals of Papua New Guinea (contrast to the Fore people) would devour their enemies in order to trap their souls as well as to gain super natural powers. These rituals involved torture and disembowelment of the prisoner of war in order to disgrace their body.
In Deadly Feasts, Richard Rhodes discussed anthropologist Dr. D. Carleton Gajdusek who came to Papua New Guinea in 1957 to investigate the “strange, deadly disease the Fore called Kuru” (Rhodes 27). The natives thought that Kuru was caused by sorcery, but Dr. Gajdusek knew better. Kuru, the human form of mad cow disease was causing the Fore people to basically decompose. Closely related to the brain destroying Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, someone with Kuru would degenerate in five stages: kuru laik i- kamap nau, wokabaut yet, sindaun pinis, slip pinis, and klostu dai nau respectively. First they would come down with the shakes and walk unsteadily; then the person was unable to walk and soon lost the ability to swallow. Once these symptoms set in, death was eminent; the person would swell up and die a painful death. Dr. Gajdusek was the first to “officially” show a connection between cannibalism and the deadly Kuru. According to Warwick Anderson, Gajdusek made this connection through noticing a concentration of Kuru within the Fore population. This discovery led him to view Kuru as an infectious disease passed through some medium. This medium was found to be an encephalitis, infection of the brain, that was passed on by a human prion disease, “diseases primarily affecting the nervous system that are characterized by microscopic holes and pits in brain tissue (spongiform degeneration) and an abnormal form of a protein called a prion. Prions are a normal component in brain tissue, but mutant forms of these proteins become deformed and resist to being broken down into normal proteins, instead building up in the brain. The prion diseases can be spontaneous (sporadic), transmitted by infection (acquired), or inherited” (Turkington). In this case, it was discovered that Kuru was an acquired prion disease and transmitted through cannibalism.
Exocannibalism and endocannibalism become so concentrated in a group of people that they promote human prion diseases that affect the brain and are unnecessary in the evolution of our species and our societies. Survival cannibalism, however, in life-or-death situations could be necessary and is acceptable. It is a one-time event and lacks prion mutation concentration; thus, it promotes no human prion disease. Therefore, there are no physical consequences for survival cannibalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)