mothra wrote Today at 7:06am:
All of this cannibalism stuff was dealt with when the odious Hanson creature made her ridiculous claims in what she called a book.
Bet Gonads bought it and it sits proudly on his bookshelf ... if he has one.
The only verifiable incidences of cannabalism in First Nations peoples were as a part of a funeral rite where close kin partook respectfully of small parts of the deceased through the course of a complicated funeral ritual ... or in the case of maybe one group of people who ate parts of warriors they had defeated. According to academics, this practice was met with revulsion by other First Nations people when they were told o it.
But i've said all this before. ... backed it up ... provided the links ... offered pathways to further research .... alll before.
Got me nowhere.
You're all precisely where i left you.
All of this cannibalism stuff was dealt with when the odious Hanson creature made her ridiculous claims in what she called a book.1 it is History recorded many times by many people in many places - it is not mere stuff.
2 "the odious Hanson creature" is dehumanisation and devaluing a human being which shows you are mentally ill.
3 "ridiculous claim" it is not a claim and not ridiculous but factual telling of History.
4 "what she called a book" is actually a book.
So you are seriously mentally ill and you clearly show this with your words. Narcissism - you dehumanise and devalue people and gaslight.
Has there ever been Cannibalism with Australian Aborigines? YES!
Any recent cases? YES!
Does it still occur now? Possibly!
But arguing with a Narcissist is pointless.
The only verifiable incidences of cannabalism in First Nations peoples were as a part of a funeral rite where close kin partook respectfully of small parts of the deceased through the course of a complicated funeral ritual ... or in the case of maybe one group of people who ate parts of warriors they had defeated. According to academics, this practice was met with revulsion by other First Nations people when they were told o it.
No not at all - you are 100% wrong - It was also recorded for food - even recently - dead children went into the pot.
Historical account:
"Only children of tender age—up to about two years old—are considered fit subjects for food, and if they fall ill are often strangled by the old men, cooked, and eaten, and all parts except the head, which is skinned and buried, are considered a delicacy. Parents eat their own children, and all, young and old, partake of it."
Here the children were murdered first once they fell ill they were strangled.
and more recent accounts:
the late Dr C.G. von Brandenstein, who learnt at least four Pilbara languages, said once that in hard times, dead infants would routinely go ‘into the pot’.
It was recorded by both Brandts.
William D. Rubinstein
Sep 25 2021
“Cannibalism is practised by all natives on the north coast with whom I have come in contact, with the exception of a very small tribe inhabiting the immediate neighbourhood of Port Essington … The eating of grown-up people—that is, of natives—is, as far as I can ascertain, not practised. Only children of tender age—up to about two years old—are considered fit subjects for food, and if they fall ill are often strangled by the old men, cooked, and eaten, and all parts except the head, which is skinned and buried, are considered a delicacy. Parents eat their own children, and all, young and old, partake of it. The only instance I have heard where grown-up people have been eaten, was that of two Europeans who were out exploring in the neighbourhood of the Tor Rock, about forty miles inland from Mount Norris Bay; this was in 1874. These unfortunate travellers were, according to the statements of the friendly natives, killed by the ‘Tor Rock’ tribe, cooked and eaten; and…
In the late 1920s, the anthropologist Géza Róheim heard from Aboriginals that infanticidal cannibalism had been practised especially during droughts. "Years ago it had been custom for every second child to be eaten" – the baby was roasted and consumed not only by the mother, but also by the older siblings, who benefited from this meat during times of food scarcity. One woman told him that her little sister had been roasted, but denied having eaten of her. Another "admitted having killed and eaten her small daughter", and several other people he talked to remembered having "eaten one of their brothers".[13] The consumption of infants took two different forms, depending on where it was practised:
When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure.[14]Usually only babies who had not yet received a name (which happened around the first birthday) were consumed, but in times of severe hunger, older children (up to four years or so) could be killed and eaten too, though people tended to have bad feelings about this. Babies were killed by their mother, while a bigger child "would be killed by the father by being beaten on the head".[15] But cases of women killing older children are on record too.
Forum
Pages: 
