There have been some indigenous cultures that genuinely practiced cannibalism such as the Wari', but to imply it was commonplace is not only incorrect but also doing the work of (ironically cannibalistic) European colonizers.
thinking back to a shipwreck i read about where the survivors decided to take a longer route to safety bc they thought the closest inhabited island was filled with scary cannibals
The W* (which is how you should refer to it because invoking it's name is frowned upon) isn't just some monster horror story. In my tribe and others it is a cannibalistic spirit that may possess you if invoked. That being said there are several tribes where folks do eat their ancestors as a part of their funeral practices.
Yeah its origin is probably closer to an uncanny valley "thing looks human but doesn't act human and is dangerous."
There's usually a kernel of truth in a lot of the old indigenous legends and stories. These become traditions and rituals over time but likely started as practices to guard against actual dangers. Like funerary practices. If you go with exposure you don't leave the body near where you live. Or you bury the dead. You might do this to "respect the spirits" but it also prevents disease and/or attracting undesired animals to your location.
That one is super frustrating too - they just don’t give a shit about the origins at all, just treat it as a indigenous peoples themed slenderman why not
So in these stories, a person doesn't "become" the creature but is instead possessed by it? Does doing cannibalism also in some manner attract or invoke it?
Also, you are referring to it in the singular. Is there just one or is it sort of an "uncountable" presence or emanation or something?
There are lots of ways to attract it like being greedy, performing or talking about cannibalism, or saying or thinking it's name, probably other stuff. Lot of Native kids grow up horrified of it because it's basically our version of Bloody Mary. Even if I don't believe in it, it still scares me.
I refer to it in the singular yeah, in most stories if it is a spirit there is only one of that kind. I can't speak on the monstrous version but I assume that there can be multiple of them. It's important to remember that there are a lot of different versions of these stories.
This makes sense, thanks. Yeah, I wasn't asking about the Stephen King version because that's basically a werewolf with extra steps.
In any case, I always assumed that this was still a species of spirit (such that there could be multiple at a time) rather than an individual spirit. I suppose it's sort of like what another religion might classify as a lesser deity or a specific, named demon like these.
it's almost like different cultural traditions are different. It's not a big ask that you when referencing a culture that has been the subject of sustained efforts to destroy it respect their terminology
you don't have to believe it. It's not imposing a belief on you to ask you to take your shoes off when you enter a mosque or your hat off in church. This is equivalent
it's asking for a small courtesy out of respect for their beliefs
never using a word because of a superstition* is not at all similar to a norm about not tracking dirt into a place, or a i don't even know what you're talking about hats, people wear hats in church all the fucking time.
stop imposing your athiesm on them
i don't think a "version of bloody mary" is a deity.
it's asking for a small courtesy out of respect for their beliefs
you'll note i have not used the specific word, despite my position, but she said she doesn't even believe in the thing. my understanding ore broadly of that sort of "spirits" superstition around the world is that the vast majority of people from cultures that have them don't actually believe in them, so it's incredibly weird to me that neurotypicals want this norm of treating with respect superstitions that aren't even believed in by their culture of origin.
no hats in church is a rule at least where I am from and is a very old tradition. No shoes in a mosque is not just about mud it's primarily about respect which is why churches ask you to take your hat off because you are supposed to treat the building with the respect you would someone's home.
It's just a courtesy signifying respect across cultures to not violate small traditions like this. The rule itself is not important it is the following that signifies that you care about their feelings and cultural values because you care about their culture. Not following the rule signifies deliberate disrespect.
Think it's stupid all you want but there are social conventions for good and important reasons and they ease tensions across cultures. The conventions are a form of communication and if you don't follow the convention people are going to assume you mean the same thing as the people who don't follow the convention as a mark of deliberate disrespect.
It doesn't matter whether or not you can understand why they value this rule they have told you it is important to them
It doesn't matter whether or not you can understand why they value this rule they have told you it is important to them
that's all fine and dandy but again, "never use that (non-slur) word for a thing none of us actually believe in" is way more of an imposition on the rest of us than participating in norms at a specific place and time.
Where did I say none of us actually believe in it? Plenty of people do, especially more traditional folks. When you say that word to someone you're putting SERIOUS bad medicine on them and they're entirely within their rights to be offended. If you go around with this attitude you'll find it hard to make friends with people from other cultures.
Catfish just explained that her tribe believes that the thing possesss you if you invoke it. She's just trying not to get possessed by a cannibal spirit.
cannibalism has factually been practiced by many groups, including some indigenous to the americas. limiting it to US-occupied peoples i can't think of any examples, but that isn't what the OP asserted.
they're the most prominent example i was thinking of, but generally not included in what angloamericans call 'native americans' so i was tryin to be diplomatic with the terms
Generally yes? Most of the native/indigenous people I know only organize around/within the community theyre in, let alone another country(s). Most of the indigenous peoples i know though are from really small tribes though so Most anglos also dont even know what native tribes were once local in their area too
Isn't cannibalism as a practice more a thing in Indonesia on the other side of the world? Like kuru is a thing and if you need a word for disease from eating people's brains, then there's probably a non-insignificant amount of eating people. Not like mayos don't ever eat people though. Europeans would grind up mummies and drink a tincture of the dust as a miracle medicine, which is pretty weird and gross.
On top of everything else saying native Americans were cannibals is uniquely offensive.
The whole idea of wendigos is its what happens to you if you consume human flesh.
Entire villages committed mass suicide before winters if they didn't have enough food so no one would have to resort to cannibalism.
There have been some indigenous cultures that genuinely practiced cannibalism such as the Wari', but to imply it was commonplace is not only incorrect but also doing the work of (ironically cannibalistic) European colonizers.
thinking back to a shipwreck i read about where the survivors decided to take a longer route to safety bc they thought the closest inhabited island was filled with scary cannibals
you'll never guess what happened next~
the whaleship essex
that's the one! thanks for the name, i was drawing a serious blank
Papists do weekly ritual cannibalism according to their own doctrine
deleted by creator
The W* (which is how you should refer to it because invoking it's name is frowned upon) isn't just some monster horror story. In my tribe and others it is a cannibalistic spirit that may possess you if invoked. That being said there are several tribes where folks do eat their ancestors as a part of their funeral practices.
Really wishing it never got picked up by the internet spoopy creepypasta culture and turned into some zombie deer thing.
Yeah its origin is probably closer to an uncanny valley "thing looks human but doesn't act human and is dangerous."
There's usually a kernel of truth in a lot of the old indigenous legends and stories. These become traditions and rituals over time but likely started as practices to guard against actual dangers. Like funerary practices. If you go with exposure you don't leave the body near where you live. Or you bury the dead. You might do this to "respect the spirits" but it also prevents disease and/or attracting undesired animals to your location.
well possessed by a spirit of unquenchable murderous greed is not an unfair description of our society
I mean fair, but most of these internet depictions aren't that so much as "big spooky deer what lives in the woods and eats u because"
That's the idea behind the film Ravenous (1999), which I can only recommend
That's the fault of Stephen King, not creepypastas, but now creepypastas endlessly imitate it just like most other spoopy things King wrote.
Oh fr? I didn’t know he had a story with them, that makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, it's in multiple books but most notably Pet Semetary.
They did the same thing to skinwalkers, too.
That one is super frustrating too - they just don’t give a shit about the origins at all, just treat it as a indigenous peoples themed slenderman why not
So in these stories, a person doesn't "become" the creature but is instead possessed by it? Does doing cannibalism also in some manner attract or invoke it?
Also, you are referring to it in the singular. Is there just one or is it sort of an "uncountable" presence or emanation or something?
There are lots of ways to attract it like being greedy, performing or talking about cannibalism, or saying or thinking it's name, probably other stuff. Lot of Native kids grow up horrified of it because it's basically our version of Bloody Mary. Even if I don't believe in it, it still scares me.
I refer to it in the singular yeah, in most stories if it is a spirit there is only one of that kind. I can't speak on the monstrous version but I assume that there can be multiple of them. It's important to remember that there are a lot of different versions of these stories.
This makes sense, thanks. Yeah, I wasn't asking about the Stephen King version because that's basically a werewolf with extra steps.
In any case, I always assumed that this was still a species of spirit (such that there could be multiple at a time) rather than an individual spirit. I suppose it's sort of like what another religion might classify as a lesser deity or a specific, named demon like these.
Removed by mod
it's almost like different cultural traditions are different. It's not a big ask that you when referencing a culture that has been the subject of sustained efforts to destroy it respect their terminology
imposing spiritual and supernatural beliefs on non-adherents isn't respect.
you don't have to believe it. It's not imposing a belief on you to ask you to take your shoes off when you enter a mosque or your hat off in church. This is equivalent
it's asking for a small courtesy out of respect for their beliefs
stop imposing your athiesm on them
never using a word because of a superstition* is not at all similar to a norm about not tracking dirt into a place, or a i don't even know what you're talking about hats, people wear hats in church all the fucking time.
i don't think a "version of bloody mary" is a deity.
you'll note i have not used the specific word, despite my position, but she said she doesn't even believe in the thing. my understanding ore broadly of that sort of "spirits" superstition around the world is that the vast majority of people from cultures that have them don't actually believe in them, so it's incredibly weird to me that neurotypicals want this norm of treating with respect superstitions that aren't even believed in by their culture of origin.
no hats in church is a rule at least where I am from and is a very old tradition. No shoes in a mosque is not just about mud it's primarily about respect which is why churches ask you to take your hat off because you are supposed to treat the building with the respect you would someone's home.
It's just a courtesy signifying respect across cultures to not violate small traditions like this. The rule itself is not important it is the following that signifies that you care about their feelings and cultural values because you care about their culture. Not following the rule signifies deliberate disrespect.
Think it's stupid all you want but there are social conventions for good and important reasons and they ease tensions across cultures. The conventions are a form of communication and if you don't follow the convention people are going to assume you mean the same thing as the people who don't follow the convention as a mark of deliberate disrespect.
It doesn't matter whether or not you can understand why they value this rule they have told you it is important to them
that's all fine and dandy but again, "never use that (non-slur) word for a thing none of us actually believe in" is way more of an imposition on the rest of us than participating in norms at a specific place and time.
Where did I say none of us actually believe in it? Plenty of people do, especially more traditional folks. When you say that word to someone you're putting SERIOUS bad medicine on them and they're entirely within their rights to be offended. If you go around with this attitude you'll find it hard to make friends with people from other cultures.
Catfish just explained that her tribe believes that the thing possesss you if you invoke it. She's just trying not to get possessed by a cannibal spirit.
Bad take
Every time I fucking laugh at this emoji
cracker
cannibalism has factually been practiced by many groups, including some indigenous to the americas. limiting it to US-occupied peoples i can't think of any examples, but that isn't what the OP asserted.
The Aztecs practiced Cannibalism
they're the most prominent example i was thinking of, but generally not included in what angloamericans call 'native americans' so i was tryin to be diplomatic with the terms
Do angloamericans only include people that used to live within the borders of the US and Canada or something?
Generally yes? Most of the native/indigenous people I know only organize around/within the community theyre in, let alone another country(s). Most of the indigenous peoples i know though are from really small tribes though so
Most anglos also dont even know what native tribes were once local in their area too
Isn't cannibalism as a practice more a thing in Indonesia on the other side of the world? Like kuru is a thing and if you need a word for disease from eating people's brains, then there's probably a non-insignificant amount of eating people. Not like mayos don't ever eat people though. Europeans would grind up mummies and drink a tincture of the dust as a miracle medicine, which is pretty weird and gross.
Because all Native Americans are Algonquian?
Yup that's exactly what I said thank you for highlighting that.
I mostly thought they're just Indigenous people talking about white people: