Meade just read that out loud to me, and it caused me to do a search for the word "cannibals" in the book I had open in Kindle, Kurt Vonnegut's "Welcome to the Monkeyhouse." I was delighted to find that old Kurt had used the word in his delightful collection of stories, and the line is even one that other readers — 3 to be precise — have highlighted. (Kindle lets you see other people's highlighting.)
But he faced the problem that complicates the lives of cannibals — namely: that a single victim cannot be used over and over.The "he" is not, of course, a cannibal, just a man with a problem that cannibals have, the need to look for more victims.
As for that Finley Peter Dunne quote, Meade said it puts a different spin on the old saying "You are what you eat." If you are what you eat, you're a cannibal. That seems like something that's been said before, but the closest I get, Googling that, is somebody at Yahoo Answers asking "If you are what you eat then are Cannibals the only True Humans?" Before answering that yourself — assuming you feel so inclined — please read Michel de Montaigne's "On Cannibals":
I am not so concerned that we should remark on the barbaric horror of such a deed, but that, while we quite rightly judge their faults, we are blind to our own. I think it is more barbaric to eat a man alive than to eat him dead, to tear apart through torture and pain a living body which can still feel, or to burn it alive by bits, to let it be gnawed and chewed by dogs or pigs (as we have no only read, but seen, in recent times, not against old enemies but among neighbors and fellow-citizens, and--what is worse--under the pretext of piety and religion. Better to roast and eat him after he is dead.Recent times... in 1580.
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
Isaiah 40:6
According to Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler, you do not have a fundamental right to consume the food you grow or own or raise.
Quite the year for the state of Wisconsin, Professor.
DARN IT- forgot the Via Instapundit!
I read the Omnivore's Dilema last month. It was a good read. I recommend it.
If "all flesh is grass," we Americans tend to be a lot of corn. A lot. More so than even Mexicans.
The Meadhouse Harvest Cafe
If tasty, stay away.
Recall that Joseph Campbell had a story of some Catholic missionary visting New Guinea in the 20th century. The natives took a young maiden who laid down inside what was essentially a big mouse trap and every young man in the village had sex with (in front of the tribe). When the last male youth in the tribe was in union with her, the trap were set and both were killed. The tribe then ate them in a great feast.
Campbell noted that while the missionary were obviously horrified by the ritual, he was surprised they did not recognize the symbolism of the mass in the ceremony. Although I can sort of understand why that might have slipped his mind at that moment.
Another ethical question to be solved today is whether eating your children is better than selling them into sexual slavery.
Atheist culture has certainly progressed.
I really like that higher ethic to always make sure that you kill your children first before you start eating or cooking them.
If only Planned Parenthood could evolve so far.
"If nature won’t draw a line around human appetite, then human culture must step in, as indeed it has done, bringing the omnivore’s eating habits under the government of all the various taboos (foremost the one against cannibalism), customs, rituals, table manners, and culinary conventions found in every culture. There is a short and direct path from the omnivore’s dilemma to the astounding number of ethical rules with which people have sought to regulate eating for as long as they have been living in groups."
Pollan, Michael (2006-04-11). The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (p. 298). Penguin. Kindle Edition.
"As the Clintons prepared to travel to Virginia’s funeral in Arkansas, Dole’s office made public a letter he had written to Reno, pushing for a special prosecutor. “It is in the president’s interest for you to stop hiding behind the fact that the Independent Counsel Act has not been reauthorized,” Dole wrote, though he had voted against reauthorizing the act when the Senate considered it in November. [endnote:] Carolyn Skorneck, “White House Decries ‘Cannibalism’ in Attacks on Clinton,” Associated Press, January 7, 1994."
Bernstein, Carl (2007-06-05). A Woman in Charge . Knopf. Kindle Edition.
"Thomas Aquinas, the official philosopher of the Catholic Church, discussed lengthily and seriously a very grave problem, which, I fear, modern theologians unduly neglect. He imagines a cannibal who has never eaten anything but human flesh, and whose father and mother before him had like propensities. Every particle of his body belongs rightfully to someone else. We cannot suppose that those who have been eaten by cannibals are to go short through all eternity. But, if not, what is left for the cannibal? How is he to be properly roasted in hell, if all his body is restored to its original owners? This is a puzzling question, as the Saint rightly perceives."
Outline of Intellectual Rubbish by BERTRAND RUSSELL, in The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever (p. 181). DaCapo. Kindle Edition.
"Students in the seventh and eighth grades are asked how “Columbus’s description of the peaceful and pleasant nature of the Carib Indians contrasted] with his treatment of them?”7 One wonders whether students are to be informed that the Caribs’ predations against their Indian neighbors forced the latter to migrate or that the Caribs were cannibals who tortured and ate their male captives. Never mind, since Columbus was a European, it is the Caribs on whom victim status is bestowed."
Bork, Robert H. (2010-11-16). Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (p. 254). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
This is why I look like a meatball.
If we're talking about men being eaten, does that make it sexual?
A interesting attempt at duplicating Montaigne's style, but even though he'd digress, he had the habit of returning to his original theme and bringing all the digressions together.
It added a sense of order to the seeming chaos.
The natives took a young maiden who laid down inside what was essentially a big mouse trap and every young man in the village had sex with (in front of the tribe). When the last male youth in the tribe was in union with her, the trap were set and both were killed. The tribe then ate them in a great feast.
I find myself strangely aroused!
"Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are."
--Brillat-Savarin
Much more sensible than "you are what you eat".
Montaigne put himself in the place of the man being eaten alive. That was a huge step in the ascent of man. To this day the ascent almost exclusively of western man alone. But the important thing if you wanna be in with the in crowd is to repeat endlessly: all cultures equal all cultures equal all cultures equal all cul....
Totally Off Topic: Run don't walk to the nearest cineplex and catch Moneyball. Great great film.
How is he to be properly roasted in hell, if all his body is restored to its original owners?
Ha ha ha. Good one.
The "if" makes it ridiculous. Only a portion of the the consumed cannibals went into the formation of living cannibals, the residual portion was pooped out, and presumably flushed in cannibal toilets, whatever that amounts to. The portion of consumed cannibal that was pooped isn't restored to its' original owner either, so why would Thomas Aquinas worry over consumed flesh restoration?
"If you are what you eat then are Cannibals the only True Humans?"
Only if the people you eat are also cannibals
@ChipAhoy: you have got it backwards. There is plenty of matter pooped out of cannibals to reconstitute the victims, so they may be roasted in hell or eleated to heaven without problem. However, every biomolecule in the cannibals body was once his meal. If they were returned to the original owner, there would not be anything left to reconstitute the cannibal and roast him in he'll.
I suupose there might be minerals absorbed through drinking water that get turned into bones and such, unless the cannibal only subsisted by drinking the tears of his victims.
"A interesting attempt at duplicating Montaigne's style, but even though he'd digress, he had the habit of returning to his original theme and bringing all the digressions together."
Thanks for the semi-compliment, but I wasn't trying to imitate Montaigne. The post was written in the order it appears, and I didn't read the Montaigne until I got to it.
But I was influenced long ago by Montaigne, about 20 years ago, when I was into the "personal essay" trend of the time, and, strangely, I happened to have mentioned that last night at a little speech about blogging that I did on campus.
"Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are."
So as of a couple of hours ago, I'm rice, vegetables and Chinese dumplings?
I agree that it would be nice to pull it all together in some cool way.
I guess I could do an update. That's allowed in blogging but not in traditional essay writing.
Maybe you guys could suggest a way to tie up the end.
There's vegetarianism, which appeared at the top and never recurred.
Maybe some kind of idea like that Googling and searching in Kindle is a diminished sort of life, like the diminished food experience of the vegetarian and connect that to the the cannibals who, per Montaigne, were not as bad as torturers because they acted upon the dead body. There's a range from life to death and in the middle is this diminished life, a vegetarian life.
Help me out.
Anything can be connected up. It's an old game. Makes things seem coherent.
We have this fetish for coherence, but a lot of coherence is a tricky game played by people who are good at manipulating ideas and words.
I can play that quite well, actually. If you find it entertaining, encourage me and I'll do it more.
Althouse: Thanks for the semi-compliment...
I try to not be too harsh. And I do love me some Montaigne.
Whoa! If you are what you eat, then you are not yourself until you have eaten yourself. That, like, raises Godelian ontological issues, or something.
somefellar: "Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are."
So as of a couple of hours ago, I'm rice, vegetables and Chinese dumplings?
The idea is that we can guess what type of person you are by what you eat.
You called them "Chinese dumplings", so I'm guessing you aren't Chinese or even Asian.
I'm thinking you don't live in a rural area (Chinese food for lunch), and are a professional (take out, working on a Saturday), and middle class (nothing extravagant), and careful with your money or watching your weight.
Sounds average!
Something related to the Thomas Aquinas problem of the resurrected cannibal:
"I have been interacting with theologians and professors of religious studies for some six years now, and I have gotten the impression that, with only a few exceptions, they are quite ignorant of eschatology. Let me justify my accusation by recounting one of my recent experiences. In the fall of 1990 the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion happened to be held in New Orleans. I attended a plenary lecture by a famous Columbia University historian of the Middle Ages, who spoke on medieval beliefs about life after death. She discussed at length an analysis by St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the medieval theologians, of a technical problem which arises with the idea of the resurrection of the dead: if the universal resurrection is accomplished by reassembling the original atoms which made up the dead, would it not be logically impossible for God to resurrect cannibals? Every one of their atoms belongs to someone else! The audience, several hundred theologians and religious studies professors, thought this quaint “problem” hilarious, and laughed loudly.
"I didn't laugh. When I first read Aquinas’ analysis, which I came across when I first began to consider seriously the technical problems associated with a universal resurrection, I did laugh. But I soon realized that Aquinas’ cannibal example was subtly chosen to illustrate the problem of personal identity between the original person and the resurrected person; establishing this identity is the central problem to be solved in any theory of resurrection of the dead. Any scholar who has seriously thought about the resurrection of the dead would almost certainly have come across Aquinas’ analysis, be completely familiar with the cannibal example, and not laugh when it was mentioned. I infer that the typical American theologian/religious studies professor has never seriously thought about the resurrection of the dead. Eschatology has been left to the physicists."
Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality
"Smilin' Jack said...
Whoa! If you are what you eat, then you are not yourself until you have eaten yourself."
Then I guess that Ron Jeremy is the only guy who is actually himself?
You called them "Chinese dumplings", so I'm guessing you aren't Chinese or even Asian. I'm thinking you don't live in a rural area (Chinese food for lunch), and are a professional (take out, working on a Saturday), and middle class (nothing extravagant), and careful with your money or watching your weight.
Nicely done! Though thankfully I'm not working this Saturday, just having some leftovers.
What is it about cannibalism that we abhor? If it is eating the flesh of a human, then why is it that good Catholics feel good after taking the Eucharist? It is supposedly not figuratively transformed into the flesh of Christ, but literally so.
He gives it willingly, unlike the victims of a cannibal's meal.
(as we have no only read, but seen, in recent times, not against old enemies but among neighbors and fellow-citizens, and--what is worse--under the pretext of piety and religion. Better to roast and eat him after he is dead.
Even in 1580 they had problems closing parenthetical statements.
During the siege of Leningrad, cannibalism was widespread. It's not the kind of thing that people brag about, but it's a choice that many make. I would bet that it happened during the potato famine in Ireland. That would explain so much about my family tree......I don't want to be judgemental about cannibals, but there is one practical problem: Who's next? I read about some prison convicts who escaped to the outback. They didn't have any source of food and resorted to eating each other. After the first couple of victims, everyone ran away. Cannibalism is very bad for group cohesion.
Religious scholars claim that the Christian faith was hijacked by the Dionysian heretics. At the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus dispensed with fish and loaves. This is how he wished to be remembered, not with all this gothic blood and flesh stuff. In the reformed mass, parishioners are offered tuna fish on pita bread to celebrate his presence among us.
"We have this fetish for coherence, but a lot of coherence is a tricky game played by people who are good at manipulating ideas and words"
This is basically what the field of theology is all about, creating coherence between all sorts of otherwise disparate bits of information.
I suspect that's a major part of being a legal scholar too. There's just all these different facts, lots of which offer almost paradoxical demands, but you have to tie them all together in a way that makes sense for actual life and functioning.
The earliest Christians were often charged with cannibalism. That and incest.
They used to call their earliest meal centered services "love feasts". So, a Christian would talk about going to the love feast with their brothers and sisters, culminating in the eating of the body and blood of their Lord. Well, that caused some misconceptions.
People have trouble with symbolic behaviors then and now. But for sometimes different reasons. The Jews had troubles with it because, well, a person isn't kosher. While the Romans I think had trouble with it because it was only symbolic and the Christians tended to be frustratingly moral in reality.
The whose body is it question reminds me of Matthew 22:
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
I'm sure how that would relate to cannibalism. It just reminded me of it. Maybe it comes down to the idea that we just don't have a model for answering that question. It's a different sort of reality than our present.
Or maybe it's not at all like the who is she married to question and will be a lot more like a timeshare, or a crowded apartment. Cannibals and Christians would have to learn to get along if they're sharing the same molecules.
William: Cannibalism is very bad for group cohesion.
But if you lived in a place where eating people from other groups was the norm, it would greatly encourage you to stick with the group you were in and not go off on your own.
Vegetarians are the topic, and nobody has brought up the ol' "Vegetarian is an old Indian word that means 'poor hunter'" joke?
Eating one's self is being discussed, and Steven King's tale about the doctor who is on a deserted island and ends up amputating his own body parts for food has yet to be mentioned?
+3 Internet points for me.
My husband is a vegetarian and he looks like the military guy that asked frothy mixture the question in the republican debate.
I remember a story (from the 1970's, I think.) Of a guy that only ate carrots. And, he turned orange.
What no one wants to understand, today, is what life was like before refrigeration.
Sure. Back in the 1940's, I remember our (wooden) ice box. And, the iceman would come and sell my parents a block of ice, that he carried in using giant "tongs."
Then? I think what follows in the 1950's ... are TV dinners!
Which, of course, was advertised as "convenience food" ... on TV commercials. Birdseye, I think, had the first frozen vegetables.
But you really did see seasons. Fruits and vegetables came and went. (Today, you can make a pumpkin pie in the middle of a hot summer day. By buying the puree canned. Or even "better." Frozen!)
You want to know what people are getting fatter? SELECTION!
Back when only kings ate well ... (And, could have all the sugar they wanted.) First to go were the teeth.
Today, we not only have dentists. We have stuff put in our water that prevents cavities. But instead of cane sugar, Congress went and wrote the law that says we can have corn syrup, instead.
Life would be better if all politicians weren't lying, scoundrel, thieves.
And, we can't even kill them off with too much sugar! I wonder if the king of france got to fear the man who came to pull out a rotten tooth? Or was he grateful?
What no one wants to understand, today, is what life was like before refrigeration.
True. Sweeny Todd (he may have been real) made meat pies and sold them. Dahmer put his victims in the refrigerator.
Then again, what would Rickey Branch do?
Vegetarian baby killers.
“...your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”
“Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans ... are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit.”
Anthony Bourdain
Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter-faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn.
To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living.
Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food. The body, these waterheads imagine, is a temple that should not be polluted by animal protein. It's healthier, they insist, though every vegetarian waiter I've worked with is brought down by any rumor of a cold.
Oh, I'll accomodate them, I'll rummage around for something to feed them, for a 'vegetarian plate', if called on to do so. Fourteen dollars for a few slices of grilled eggplant and zucchini suits my food cost fine.”
Anthony Bourdain
I can go all day on this post with Bourdain quotes that are spot on, like these:
“We know, for instance, that there is a direct, inverse relationship between frequency of family meals and social problems. Bluntly stated, members of families who eat together regularly are statistically less likely to stick up liquor stores, blow up meth labs, give birth to crack babies, commit suicide, or make donkey porn. If Little Timmy had just had more meatloaf, he might not have grown up to fill chest freezers with Cub Scout parts.”
or this
“I could eat bloody Elvis - if you put enough vinegar on him.”
Maybe you guys could suggest a way to tie up the end
Like a sausage!
There was the woman in Candide who sacrificed a buttock during a siege of her city.
By the way, Jacques Barzun -- author of 'Dawn to Decadence' -- turns 104 in late November.
"By the way, Jacques Barzun -- author of 'Dawn to Decadence' -- turns 104 in late November."
I imagine he'd be tough, stringy and not very tasty, though possibly good for stock.
If we are what we eat, then a few of my favorite commenters are eating way too much ham.
And the others are eating nothing but fruit and nuts.
That belief that the atoms in the molecules of our foods makes us into something like the diet they come fromt seems like an old wives tale.
Eat what you like to eat with zero guilt and make the old wives up their game.
Today I ate a Haas avocado, 500 grams of strained non-fat yogurt mixed with minced Scotch Bonnet peppers and a can of chick peas, a tomato with coarse sea salt and pepper, and about 250 grams of raw yellow fin tuna marinated in lemon juice, olive oil, salt & pepper and minced capers.
I also drank two quarts of water and about 12 ounces of espresso.
Jason, care to profile me based on that?
Palladian, nice!
I just made a side of fresh quacamole (sweet onion, avacado, a serano pepper, and some lemon, kosher salt, fresh ground pepper, cumin and cilantro), a grass fed rib eye (grilled, rested and sliced cross ways thin), some fresh corn and a salad (this is not just for me but for the wife and kids too). Oh and red cabbage apple cider vinegar cole slaw with granny smith and raisins.
People- the Other Red Meat
minced capers
That's so gay.
Fred, your own grandmother in a cole slaw defiled with raisins?
They were golden raisins. They plump.
To tell you the truth, I was inspired by Michael Yon.
I’ve traveled to about sixty countries and 48 states, and eaten a ton of grapes along the way. Not a single grape from Sonoma to France to Italy can match the grapes in this area. These are, by far, without comparison, the best grapes I’ve had in the world. The texture of the skins and the fruit of the grape are just right and perfect. The sweetness is harmonic and no seeds spoil the moment. These are not just great grapes but fine fruit. The experience of eating grapes has never been memorable other than in Afghanistan and the imminent combat makes a perplexing juxtaposition of complimentary bitterness that can rarely be found in normal supermarkets.
Michael Youn
Yon
namely: that a single victim cannot be used over and over.
Isn't that true for any "single victim" of foodstuff consumed in eating?
But he faced the problem that complicates the lives of cannibals — namely: that a single victim cannot be used over and over.
I never met my grandmother. She could do amazing things with a turkey after Thanksgiving.
He never met my grandmother. My bad. I of course met her. She was great on left overs.
They still do it in parts of Africa. The albino individual is considered a delicacy and a potent elixir.
They also do it in parts of China, where through the normalization of abortion, developing human life has become disposable and edible.
The principal principle is individual dignity. Unless we assign dignity to other life forms, then they are not due the same consideration. But we are also not barbarians, and our civilization long ago rejected many (or most?) barbaric practices.
And no, we are not what we eat. We do not assume the form of material we process and consume. We do, however, reflect behavior in our personality.
Our constituent physical components are recycled following death and loss of cohesion. Those components are subsequently present in not just animals, but plants, minerals, etc.
If we are to accept the intellectually ineffective argument "you are what you eat", then we are all cannibals. However, cannibalism is not merely consumption of a particular material, but also a process.
Yanomamies are still cannibal or practice antropofagy. Women and children eat the corpses while men eat the scarce food.
You can read it in the book by the materialist heir of Montaigne's cultural relativism,Marvin Harris:Cannibals and Kings. The book is seen like Mein Kamp by the left in Venezuela.
In 1993, 23 yanomamies were killed by garimpeiros , brazilian illegal minners, but no body was found. An antropologist said: they ate them , thats normal for them. While they call Harris a liar.
BTW: since the late 70 , in the most civilixed and powerful countries there were cases of cannibalism:
Denme, the Milwauke cannibal( What is wrong with Wisconsin?)
In the Soviet Union a man was executed accused of cannibal. After the execution, there were more cases. They killed the wrong man.
A japanese student in Germany ate his girlfriend
And a german two years ago, invited gay men to date and ended eating them.
But of course,ythe more famous case was the Andes survival
Jason wrote:
[quoting Brillat-Savarin] "Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are."
Much more sensible than "you are what you eat".
Not much, really. "You are what you eat" or any approximation of that bromide is basically rubbish. One usually hears this on the lips of some vegetarian/whole food/raw food/organic food bigot directed as a snide remark at someone with a "perfectly normal for humans" diet, i.e. meat and potatoes. (Or if one soars in the the rarefied air of the Washington governing class, wagyu steak and arugula.)
One is what one eats, eh? Are vegans just ambulatory turnips? Are lions really zebras under the tawny hide? Is that Great White merely a re-configured wind surfer?
Carol Underscore Herman wrote:
What no one wants to understand, today, is what life was like before refrigeration... [and on and on, eventually arriving at] ...I wonder if the king of france got to fear the man who came to pull out a rotten tooth? Or was he grateful?
Yeeesh, what a rant. I noticed she put the word tongs within quotes. That really bothered me. Did she mean the iceman used Chinese gangsters to carry the ice.
I may be irremediably dense, but I her point(s) elude me yet, even after half a dozen increasing painful re-reads. The best I can gather is refrigeration and nutritional variety are bad, and that we'd be much happier and healthier eating nothing but barley gruel like 18th century French peasants, or else such a diet would put us in a revolutionary mood, or something. I give up.
traditionalguy --
"If we are what we eat, then a few of my favorite commenters are eating way too much ham.
And the others are eating nothing but fruit and nuts."
So... You eat a lot of pious?
Just coming off my daughter's first stint (2 weeks) as a vegetarian. I want to be supportive, given what girls go through at this age with body image and food issues, but damn, it's nice not cooking two meals each dinner.
Why won't cannibals eat divorced women?
They're very bitter.
Why do cannibals prefer eating readers to writers?
Because writers cramp but readers digest.
What did the cannibal do after he had dumped his girlfriend?
Wiped his ass.
Two cannibals just finished a big meal and one turns to the other while rubbing his stomach with his fist and say, "You know, I just ate my mother-in-law, and she still doesn't agree with me!"
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?"
When do cannibals leave the table?
When everyone's eaten.
The first cannibal asked the 2nd cannibal, "Aren't you done eating yet?" The 2nd cannibal replied, "I'm on my last leg now."
Did you hear about the cannibal who loved fast food?
He ordered a pizza with everybody on it.
One cannibal to another: I never met a man I didn't like!
What is a cannibal's favorite type of TV show?
A celebrity roast.
Have you heard about the cannibal restaurant?
Dinner costs an arm and a leg.
Where do cannibals shop for fine furniture?
Eatin' Allen's.
What do cannibals eat for dessert?
Chocolate covered aunts.
What is a cannibal's favorite game?
Swallow the leader.
What do cannibals make out of politicians?
Bologna sandwiches.
What did the cannibal get when he was late for dinner?
The cold shoulder.
A man gets captured by cannibals and every day they poke him with spears and use his blood to wash down their food. Finally the guy calls the chief over and says, "You can kill me or you can eat me, but I'm tired of getting stuck for drinks."
Did you hear about the cannibal who was expelled from school for buttering up his teacher?
Two cannibals were sitting by a fire. The first says, "Gee, I hate my mother-in-law." The 2nd replies, "So, try the potatoes.
Some years ago, on this very blog, I cracked this joke:
Two cannibals are eating a clown when one says, "Does this taste funny to you?"
Two cannibals were eating a missionary. One started at the head, the other at the feet.
First cannibal asks "How are you doing?"
Second cannibal "I'm havin' a ball."
First cannibal "SLOW DOWN!"
When the last male youth in the tribe was in union with her, the trap were set and both were killed.
How did they decide who was going last?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा