Talk:Cannibalism in the Americas/Archive 1

The Conquest of New Spain
I translated Bernal Díaz’s The Conquest of New Spain from the original work in Spanish:

[…] comer carne humana, así como nosotros traemos vaca de las carnicerías, y tenían en todos los pueblos cárceles de madera gruesa a manera de casas, como jaulas, y en ellas metían a engordar muchas indias e indios y muchachos, y estando gordos los sacrificaban y comían.

Since I don’t have the translated English book in my personal library I hope that another editor quotes the translated text directly from the published book of Bernal Díaz in English: the above quotation appears in chapter CCVIII. —Cesar Tort 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1
This article is rather self- conflicting; stating at first "there is a lack of scholarly consensus as to whether cannibalism in pre-Columbian America was widespread." and then providing many factual evidence supporting they did indeed consume human flesh. It's almost comical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.208.204 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to read the article, and the sentences you quote, more thoroughly. None of the alleged "factual evidence" – even if we grant it may be reliable – supports the idea that cannibalism in pre-Columbian America (not just among the Aztecs!) was widespread (as opposed to an occasional occurrence). Note the following two sentences: At the other extreme, William Arens doubts whether there was ever any systematic cannibalism and According to skeptics such as James Q. Jacobs, questions remain about whether such evidence exists to the extent that Harner and others claim, and about the veracity of ethnohistorical accounts authors alleging cannibalism considered evidentiary. The sources written by Spaniards are all subject to some doubt in principle, because the Spaniards were biased against indigenous people of the Americas, especially the Aztecs, accusing them of "primitive" or "backward" "barbarians", and allegations of cannibalism, all too often supported by fabricated and purely fictitious eyewitness accounts, have always been a favourite means of justifying such accusations, and in turn, conquest and colonisation. None of them can be taken at face value and they do not constitute "factual evidence" at all. I may also note that the remaining evidence is not supported by citations.
 * The real problem with the article – apart from lacking sources – is its title and scope, which glaringly conflict with each other: it purports to be about pre-Columbian America in general, but in fact treats only the Aztecs. Therefore, the title is quite misleading. --Florian Blaschke (talk)

When you read the article, that's where the comedy comes in. There is just so much forensic evidence that cannibalism was widespread, that it becomes absurd to quote much older articles suggesting it was just propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.91 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Bartolome de las Casas questioned the authenticity and veracity of the claims that these rituals were practiced by indigenous peoples and argued that the reason behind them was to defame and dehumanize indigenous peoples in order justify European atrocities. If these rituals were practiced in the Americas, it was only by some indigenous populations and highly unlikely to be widely spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Cannibalism in pre-Columbian Caribbean
The Wikipedia article "Voyages of Christopher Columbus" discusses cannibalism reported by Columbus in the Caribbean.

However, I get the impression that on neither Columbus nor his men ever actually witnessed cannibalism themselves but rather reported having heard about it from indigenous people they encountered. Moreover, those reports were based on questionable interpretations: The Spaniards had nobody who understood well the indigenous languages they encountered. And none of the indigenous people with whom they spoke were fluent in Spanish!

And, as others have suggested, the Spanish had a conflict of interest: They wanted to be good, honest Christian merchants making money. If they could claim that the local indigenous people were cannibals and otherwise not good and honest, that relieved them of the responsibility to be good and honest

Moreover if subordinate tribes in the Caribbean or the American continents routinely had to provide some of their own people to be eaten by Caribs, Aztecs, or Incas, they could easily be convinced to support foreigners who promised they would no longer have to submit to that mistreatment.

Shouldn't the Caribbean be discussed in this article also? Or at least shouldn't the article "Voyages of Christopher Columbus" include a discussion about the questionable veracity of the different sources?

I don't know enough to comment on this. I'm hoping some of those who have contributed to this article might. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)