The problem is that historic accounts of cannibalism from both Europeans and Indigenes in the South Pacific and from ethnographic research by anthropologists are too common to ignore as evidence of actual behavior. G. Gillison, for example, describes the consumption of male human flesh by the women of the Gimi tribe in Papua New Guinea<ref>1980. "Cannibalism Among the Women in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea," in Brown and Tuzin (ed.s) '''The Ethnography of Cannibalism''', Special Publication of the Society of Psycological Anthopology''', pp. 33-50.</ref> That the idea of missionaries being consumed causes psychic discomfort among armchair experts is a poor criterion for judging the historical accuracy of accounts. The claim that human flesh was actually devoured does not depend on the identity of its original owner as an agent of Western European cultural imperialism.
- Well, it makes sense, it's just really weak sense. In effect, the person is trying to counter a "new revised history" argument that there wasn't REALLY that much canibalism, it was just that freaked out missionaires were describing things they though of as canniableism, but realy might not have been. Of course NEW, new revised history (vs. revisionist) suggest that we have lots of neat ol tools like studies of bone to identify who was eating whom, and we do now know that cannibalism was far more common than ever thought. I'm sure that will be revised some time in the future, too. ;-) GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 do we care if this is a real article?
is this topic at all of interest to RaT wiki? cause as it stands right now, it's not only vague, it's fairly inaccurate picture of what we now think about ancient cannibalism. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 Soylent Green
Not a single mention. We're going to hell in a handcart... Scherben 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)