View previous topic | View next topic


Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Would you eat someone?
If absolutely necessary to survive.
 50%  [ 1 ]
If custom permitted
 50%  [ 1 ]
For fun
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 2

16102.  Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:20 am Reply with quote

Also, Jehova's Witnesses will not tolerate blood transfusions, as they essentially consider it to be a form of cannibalism. God has the monopoly on drinking blood, apparently. From
God himself explained the principle underlying those sacrifices: "The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: 'No soul of you must eat blood.'"—Leviticus 17:11, 12.
Good grief. Browsing around there is like watching a road accident - you just can't look away...

16105.  Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:16 am Reply with quote

I like those Biblical pronouncements which are phrased like syllogisms so as to have an air of being un-contradictable, but actually make no sense at all.

16121.  Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:52 am Reply with quote

Louis de Rougemont (1847 - 1920) 'The King of the Cannibals' wrote and published The Adventures of Louis de Rougemont, As Told by Himself and it was such a ripping story that it was serialised in World Wide magazine.

His life story told of his shipwrecking near New Guinea (on a pearling expedition) and his subsequent escape to a desert island where he lived for three years on bird's eggs and turtles, amusing himself by becoming a proficient acrobat.

A somewhat bedraggled party of Australian Aborigines was later washed ashore, and they taught him to make a boat, and sailed back to their homeland where de Rougemont became 'a supreme white spirit from another world'. He constantly confounded the existing witch doctor with his tricks, predictions and advanced knowledge, and soon became known as a god.

Another tribe's chief had two white women as wives, Blanche and Gladys Rogers (they had been shipwrecked as well), and when de Rougemont met them, they begged him to take them away with him. He challenged the chief to a fight and won, winning the two women with whom he travelled on many further exciting expeditions in the outback. They were both, however, eaten by crocodiles on a subsequent journey.

As the tales grew taller, The Daily Chronicle launched a full investigation into his claims, and soon discovered that Louis de Rougemont was really Henry Louis Grin, born in Switzerland and come to london as a boy to work as a manservant. He had made up the story and peppered it with facts collected from the British Library Reading Room.

He had indeed been shipwrecked on a pearling expedition, but only been lost for three years at most. They found his abandoned wife in Sydney, along with his their daughters, Blanche and Gladys. He died in poverty in 1920, selling matches on street corners.

Source: William Donaldson's Rogues, Villains & Eccentrics - a fascinating, hilarious book which will no doubt provide many more tasty morsels...

And here:

16122.  Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:54 am Reply with quote

And here's the text, from Project Gutenberg!

16123.  Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:12 am Reply with quote

Is the implication of the title that people regarded Australian aboriginals as cannibals at the time the story was being serialised?

16127.  Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:36 am Reply with quote

Yes, I imagine he (or, more likely, his publishers) knew that having 'cannibal' in his title would sell the book, because enough people would have that preconception of uncivilised foreigners as being at least 'potential cannibals'. Whether the publishers cottoned on to his impostor-ness at any point is probably irrelevant.

However, one of the discrepancies in de Rougemont's story which was picked up on (and which helped to start his inevitable downfall) was that he mentioned that the Aborigines were, without provocation, fired upon by white settlers at one point, which one Colonel Greenway strongly protested would never have happened.
...white men never attack a black camp except as a punitive measure.

This suggests that at least the foreign office knew the aborigines to be harmless, although the British populace may well have preferred their own exotic imaginings.

16139.  Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:20 pm Reply with quote

Relevant story in today's Guardian:,2763,1438551,00.html

16745.  Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:16 am Reply with quote

There's the interesting case of George Psalmanazar (1680 - 1763) who made up an entire life story about himself having come from Formosa (now Taiwan). Backed by one Rev Innes, he published An Historical and Geographical Description of Formosa, detailing the strange customs of those people and the two of them made quite a bit of money out of the venture, safe in the knowledge that no Englishman had ever ventured that far.

Cannibalism was included amongst their practices, and Psalmanazar frequently ate raw meat to give his story the credibility he needed to sustain it. He lectured at Oxford with a large snake around his neck (to keep cool - another strange custom), but in time, certain members of the scientific community (notably I. Newton and E. Halley) found some inconsistencies in his ramblings, and were no doubt suspicious of the blatant use of cannibalism (then very popular amongst impressionable audiences) to sell the story.

Edmund Halley trapped him by asking why he was not dark skinned, and Psalmanazar replied that he, as a member of the Formosan aristocracy, had lived underground. Asked what angle the sun made as it came down the chimney at different times of the year, Psalmanazar had made wildly inconsistent replies, and was eventually forced to admit his hoax.

Possible links to Comets, Confidence tricksters, Charlatains...

Source: here (amongst many others) and Brewer's R, V & C.

16749.  Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:41 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Has anybody looked into the Scottish cannibal Sawney Bean? Apparently there was a TV programme on about them a while ago:

It looks like he might be a myth, according to a nice article by Sean Thomas in Fortean Times #195 (April 2005), which cites Ronald Holmes, The Legend of Sawney Bean, Muller Books, 1975. The story comes from a sensational pamphlet published in Carlisle in 1700, but there is an entire absence of corroborative evidence in the form of official / judicial records.

16759.  Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:39 am Reply with quote

As King James I (or VI of ye're Scots) is supposed to have led the 400 who captured him, it should be easy to track, shouldn't it. There should be an official record of his trial and hanging too... What parts does the Fortean Times question?

From this quite thorough treatment:
In the 1930s the legal historian William Roughead wanted to include the case of Sawney Bean in his Notable British Trials series. Roughead reported that he had ‘sought diligently for Sawney in the official records of the time in contemporary journals, diaries and memoirs, in the pages of gossiping annalists and of grave historians’, but failed to find ‘either in print or in manuscript the slightest mention of him’, and concluded that Bean was a completely fictional character

Source: 'The Monster of Ballantrae' in Juridical Review, 45, 1933

16765.  Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:40 am Reply with quote

.. there is a paucity of contemporary documentary evidence. What's more, there should be such records: throughout Scottish history, the various doings of the monarch were minutely recorded. ... Yet in the entire royal records of Scotland there is not one mention of the sensational Sawney Bean arrest and execution. This absence is particularly stark in the case of James VI, as he was a paranoid man obsessed with demonology and witchcraft: he would have found a truly Satanic case like Sawney Bean's as satisfying as it was disturbing - yet he published nothing on the subject.

Thomas, op cit

16810.  Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:58 am Reply with quote

Gray Wrote:

There's the interesting case of George Psalmanazar

For an excellent account of his life (and many others) try Banvard's Folly By Paul S Collins. Quality Book.

17887.  Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:59 am Reply with quote

Cannibalistic table manners:

Apparently it was considered taboo in Fiji for cannibals to touch longpig with their fingers.

Cannibal Fork This unusually ornate wooden utensil was used by the cannibals of the Fiji Islands back in the 1800's, who considered it taboo to eat a corpse with one's hands

For centuries in the Fiji Islands, tribal officials would bring out their best utensils for special people, not to serve them, but to eat them. The tribal officials were cannibals, and the special people were the meal.

The cannibal fork, or iculanibokola, was used by attendants during ritual feasts to feed individuals considered too holy to touch food.

(I can’t see you tricking a panel member into eating human meat with their fingers though!)

17898.  Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:49 am Reply with quote

But you could ask why the Fiji islanders would get out their best cutlery.

17939.  Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:52 am Reply with quote

I expect it would be even worse manners to put someone else's elbows on the table too.

(Possible link to the Prince Charles, Corfu question there...)


Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group