Borderline cannibalism
Published by: Wrathnar the Unreasonable on 3rd Dec 2011 |
View all blogs by Wrathnar the Unreasonable
What constitutes cannibalism? Obviously, if you kill and eat your
next-door neighbour, that's cannibalism, but in other cases it's
not so clear cut.
The word comes from the Spanish word for the Carib people, 'Canibales'. Another term for the consumption of human flesh by another human is 'anthropophagy'.
Surprisingly, cannibalism is not specifically a crime in most countries, although those who practice it may be charged with desecration of human remains. A British 'performance artist', Rick Gibson, publicly consumed a donated human tonsil in Walthamstow High street in 1988, and also publicly consumed a legally-purchased slice of human testicle a year later; he was not arrested or charged with any crime. However, when he attempted the same stunt in Canada, he was arrested, although he was later released without charge, and went on to eat the slice of testicle in Vancouver.
New York Times reporter William Seabrook obtained a portion of human flesh from a hospital porter in order to eat it 'as an experiment'. He wrote that it tasted exactly like veal.
Although there are abundant examples of cannibalism in history as a normal cultural practice, cannibalism in modern times is usually thought of as the result of a sexual perversion (vorarephilia, often abbreviated to 'vore'), or as rare cases where cannibalism has been resorted to in an emergency situation, such as that of the survivors of a plane crash in the Andes in 1972. However, cannibalism is still widely practiced in Africa, Asia and South America, and there are numerous reports of isolated incidents of cannibalism in Eastern Europe. For example, in 2009 three homeless men in Perm, Russia, were arrested for the murder of a 25 year old man. They had cooked and eaten some of his body, and sold the rest to a local kebab house! Another modern example: cannibalism is practised as a religious ritual by the Aghori Hindu sect of northern India who eat slices of flesh which have been ritually washed in the Ganges, and also drink from human skulls.
Some people have claimed that the Christian practice of the Eucharist is cannibalism. My opinion is that it isn't, since what is consumed is merely bread and wine; however, the branches of Christianity which practice the ritual (not only Catholic, but also various Eastern Orthodox and Protestant sects) hold that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). In which case the question is: if their beliefs are true, then does the Eucharist constitute cannibalism? Jesus told his disciples at the last supper to "do this in remembrance of me" (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Epistle to the Corinthians) so presumably one cannot practice Christianity without the Eucharist unless one interprets this as an instruction to the apostles only. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible which specifically forbids cannibalism.
Then we have the increasingly common practice (among the middle classes of some Western countries) of consuming the human placenta (afterbirth).
Some might say this isn't cannibalism, as the placenta is a product of the human body, rather than an integral part. I think I would have to disagree - it is human flesh, therefore its consumption is anthropophagy.
There are many recipes given on the Internet for the placenta, including placenta lasagne, placenta pate, and even a placenta smoothie!
A Japanese scientist, Mitsuyuki Ikeda, has developed a way to produce synthetic meat from human faeces. He was approached by Tokyo Sewage because of an 'overabundance of sewage mud'. They asked him to see if he could find a use for it, and he came up with a method to extract protein from the sewage and form it into steaks coloured with red food dye and flavoured with soy extracts, which have been called 'poop burgers'. Test subjects have reported that it tastes remarkably similar to beef. But is it cannibalism? Is it even coprophagy? Where do we draw the line?
Are there any circumstances under which you would resort to cannibalism?
The word comes from the Spanish word for the Carib people, 'Canibales'. Another term for the consumption of human flesh by another human is 'anthropophagy'.
Surprisingly, cannibalism is not specifically a crime in most countries, although those who practice it may be charged with desecration of human remains. A British 'performance artist', Rick Gibson, publicly consumed a donated human tonsil in Walthamstow High street in 1988, and also publicly consumed a legally-purchased slice of human testicle a year later; he was not arrested or charged with any crime. However, when he attempted the same stunt in Canada, he was arrested, although he was later released without charge, and went on to eat the slice of testicle in Vancouver.
New York Times reporter William Seabrook obtained a portion of human flesh from a hospital porter in order to eat it 'as an experiment'. He wrote that it tasted exactly like veal.
Although there are abundant examples of cannibalism in history as a normal cultural practice, cannibalism in modern times is usually thought of as the result of a sexual perversion (vorarephilia, often abbreviated to 'vore'), or as rare cases where cannibalism has been resorted to in an emergency situation, such as that of the survivors of a plane crash in the Andes in 1972. However, cannibalism is still widely practiced in Africa, Asia and South America, and there are numerous reports of isolated incidents of cannibalism in Eastern Europe. For example, in 2009 three homeless men in Perm, Russia, were arrested for the murder of a 25 year old man. They had cooked and eaten some of his body, and sold the rest to a local kebab house! Another modern example: cannibalism is practised as a religious ritual by the Aghori Hindu sect of northern India who eat slices of flesh which have been ritually washed in the Ganges, and also drink from human skulls.
Some people have claimed that the Christian practice of the Eucharist is cannibalism. My opinion is that it isn't, since what is consumed is merely bread and wine; however, the branches of Christianity which practice the ritual (not only Catholic, but also various Eastern Orthodox and Protestant sects) hold that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). In which case the question is: if their beliefs are true, then does the Eucharist constitute cannibalism? Jesus told his disciples at the last supper to "do this in remembrance of me" (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Epistle to the Corinthians) so presumably one cannot practice Christianity without the Eucharist unless one interprets this as an instruction to the apostles only. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible which specifically forbids cannibalism.
Then we have the increasingly common practice (among the middle classes of some Western countries) of consuming the human placenta (afterbirth).
Some might say this isn't cannibalism, as the placenta is a product of the human body, rather than an integral part. I think I would have to disagree - it is human flesh, therefore its consumption is anthropophagy.
There are many recipes given on the Internet for the placenta, including placenta lasagne, placenta pate, and even a placenta smoothie!
A Japanese scientist, Mitsuyuki Ikeda, has developed a way to produce synthetic meat from human faeces. He was approached by Tokyo Sewage because of an 'overabundance of sewage mud'. They asked him to see if he could find a use for it, and he came up with a method to extract protein from the sewage and form it into steaks coloured with red food dye and flavoured with soy extracts, which have been called 'poop burgers'. Test subjects have reported that it tastes remarkably similar to beef. But is it cannibalism? Is it even coprophagy? Where do we draw the line?
Are there any circumstances under which you would resort to cannibalism?
14 Comments
Another case that deserves a mention is something I came across whilst studying law. The case of R v Dudley and Stephens involved a group of shipwrecked sailors resorting to killing and eating the cabin boy in order to survive. This is completely different as, despite that fact he was probably dying, the men actually killed him before eating him to satisfy their hunger.
Whether I would resort to such means is hard to say - I guess you just have to be in that situation...
As for poo burgers - that is just taking the piss!
How about breast milk? That's part of me, and my kids had nothing else for the first 6 months of their life... ;-)
Then there are those that eat others as a mark of respect - they eat their dead as a way to preserve the strength of the tribe, and the wisdom of their elders. Again, is it a cultural perspective thing? Or does it depend upon the intention?
There are several cultures where the brains of the deceased are consumed in order to pass on their wisdom. This can result in a condition known as 'kuru', a prion disorder similar to CJD.
Now that Ely mentions breast milk- I'm wondering if the placenta falls under the same heading. I've caught my kids picking and eating their own bogeys (sorry) that isn't cannibalism though is it. My boys were breast fed too though so perhaps that's to blame!
The poem is subtitled a realistic burlesque and is a debate between old style religion and Christianity. i am not sure, but I think the influence had been Byron and the intent, partly comic.
In today's religious climate, cannibalism has to be given equal weight to Christianity - what about drinking the blood of Christ etc. What would a descendent or modern Fijian think of the poem? Would he be upset at it's comic effect? Would the Fijian proclaim their own fatwa against the poet?
I live a solitary life but discussed cannibalism with an intelligent female artist who had become temporarily marooned in my workplace and neither of us could think of any 'theological' argument against cannibalism and could think of moral and environmental arguments for it. Mind you, an argument could also be put forward for the abolition of toilets, for a similar environmental reason.
And yet, methinks, earth’s busy worms are things
Of greater shame than bowels of mighty kings!”
Breast milk is a product of the human body (as are bogies), but they aren't actual flesh, whereas placenta is.
Mike: 'abolition of toilets'? So, you'd just poo on the carpet, or what?
Why am I spending a Sunday afternoon discussing poo burgers? Gah.
. Ms Whisks. It is raining outside. I will inflict 'Word Clouders' with a blog!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16081214
Click here to sign up now.