It was extremely widespread and common practice. And it was usually children who were eaten. This wasn't done out of desperation.>AUSTRALIA> Infanticide was practised as a means of population control amongst Aboriginals and because mothers had trouble carrying two young children not yet able to walk, and various sources indicate that killed infants were often eaten.>"When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure." - Anthropologist Géza Róheim, who lived amongst the Aboriginals in Australia>Usually only babies who had not yet received a name (which happened around the first birthday) were consumed, but in times of severe hunger, older children (up to four years or so) could be killed and eaten too, though people tended to have bad feelings about this. Babies were killed by their mother, while a bigger child "would be killed by the father by being beaten on the head".[75] But cases of women killing older children are on record too. In 1904 a parish priest in Broome, Western Australia, stated that infanticide was very common, including one case where a four-year-old was "killed and eaten by its mother", who later became a Christian.
>Up to the late 19th century, cannibalism was practised widely in some parts of the Congo Basin, with slaves being frequent victims. Many "healthy children" had to die "to provide a feast for their owners".>In order to ensure a regular supply, "the chiefs raise herds of [children], like we do with sheep or geese at home", stated a missionary after a trip along the Ubangi.[93] Several accounts indicate that children were indeed fattened and slaughtered on a regular basis. While one or two victims per village and week seem to have been typical, Augouard also mentions "a village which I know well, [where] a child aged ten to twelve was sacrificed every day to serve as food for the chief and the principals of the area," thus also indicating that the regular enjoyment of such dishes was a privilege of the influential and well-connected.[94] The killing of slave children for culinary purposes is also documented for various other parts of the Congo Basin, including the north and northeast,[95] the Maniema region in the east,[96] and the Kasai region in the south.>In Maniema, the body of a slave child was considered an appropriate "pièce de résistance" (chief dish) for banquets held among the wealthy even during the early years of colonial rule. Congo Free State official Guy Burrows once rescued a young slave boy from this fate after the boy had managed to run away and beg for help. Burrows's local colleague did not understand why he had bothered, pointing out that such banquets were often held in the area without the Free State getting involved
>The German ethnologist Leo Frobenius recorded that young children caught in raids were "skewered on long spears like rats and roasted over a quickly kindled large fire", while older captives were kept alive to be exploited or sold as slaves.[95] In 1863, the English explorer Samuel Baker talked with a member of a Swahili–Arab raiding party, who told him that their local Azande allies routinely killed and ate the children captured in raids:>"Their custom was to catch a child by its ankles, and to dash its head against the ground; thus killed, they opened the abdomen, extracted the stomach and intestines, and tying the two ankles to the neck they carried the body by slinging it over the shoulder, and thus returned to camp, where they divided it by quartering, and boiled it in a large pot.[101][102]"
>Children born to enslaved mothers could meet the same fate. The German ethnologist Georg A. Schweinfurth once saw a newborn baby among the ingredients assembled for a meal. He learned that the baby, whose mother was a slave, would soon be "cooked together with the gourds", since capturing slaves was more convenient than raising them from birth. He also heard persistent rumours that little slave children were frequently served at the table of the Azande king>Generally, slaves and their flesh were not expensive in the Congo region. In some areas, human flesh was up to twice as expensive as that of animals, while elsewhere the prices of both were comparable.[106] Accordingly, a girl of six or ten years could be purchased for the price of a dwarf goat, or sometimes even cheaper,[107] and people do not seem to have regarded the consumption of one as more morally troubling than the consumption of the other, though they generally preferred the taste of the child.[108][109] Missionaries observed that a living slave child was nevertheless "worth less than a quarter of a hippopotamus or of a buffalo", due to the much smaller amount of meat the child would yield.[110]
>There are also reports of the consumption of young slaves and victims of slave raids from other parts of Central and Western Africa. Around the Cuanza River in today's Angola, children caught in raids but too young to be profitably sold as slaves were butchered in public, their fresh flesh then sold to passers-by, according to the Hungarian explorer László Magyar, who states that he repeatedly saw such scenes himself.[120] In regions that today belong to Nigeria, the baked bodies of deliberately fattened slave children were served as delicacies, as young children's flesh was said to be "the best [food] of all".[121] Oral accounts indicate that around the beginning of the 20th century, children playing outside were still at risk of "being kidnapped and either killed and eaten or sold away or sacrificed to one god or the other."this was still widespread up until the 1950s, by the way.
>>539374210Leopold did nothing wrong
>>539373728Aboriginal history:During pre-history, wave after wave of them arrived from Asia and exterminated the preceding tribes. This went on for millennia until the Strait became uncrossable.The tribes in Australia were hunter gatherers who conflated their camp with their country, and they constantly massacred other tribes over hunt and forage. Then they would seasonally migrate and use the forest fire system ("fire-stick farming") to wipe out whole other tribes; Either burn them out or the others will burn you out.The Aboriginal use of fire burned down all the trees that could die from fire, hence why most trees, especially gum trees, in Australia today don't germinate unless burnt because fire is part of their lifecycle. Therefore, Aboriginals evolved to destroy everyone and everything else around them, and gum trees evolved to destroy every other life-form that isn’t a gum tree. Similar to how "Native Americans" burned down the forests of the Central Plains to access buffalo, turning the Great Plains into grasslands, resulting in giant herds because of extreme habitat alteration.The centre of the continent originally housed a rainforest, which doesn't exist anymore because Aboriginals burned it, repeatedly, until every bit of biomass and soil organic matter was destroyed. The inland region subsequently became a desert that no weather system can cross. Most of Central Australia's water went underground in the late Pliocene, so a billabong likely feeds what remains of this primordial forest.Aboriginals have never been noble custodians of the land, quite the opposite. Moreover, Aboriginals don't have an endogenous concept of ownership or nationhood; such things originate from Western man, but they are happy to use these concepts as claims of being the "First Nations" people and "Traditional Owners" of the land otherwise known as Australia.
>>539376344Humans rather than climate the primary cause of Pleistocene megafaunal extinction in Australiahttps://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14142Overdone overkill – the archaeological perspective on Tasmanian megafaunal extinctionshttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440310001718Arid Australian Interior Linked To Landscape Burning By Ancient Humanshttps://www.colorado.edu/today/2005/01/24/arid-australian-interior-linked-landscape-burning-ancient-humansKey evidence (Gifford Miller et al., 2005):- Increased charcoal in sediments around human arrival.- Shift from broad-leaf/drought-tolerant vegetation to more fire-resistant desert scrub.- Widespread burning reduced vegetation cover and evapotranspiration, weakening monsoon penetration into the interior, contributing to desertification.Some other examples of "Aboriginal" culture:Aboriginals have a tradition where they slice their penises in half to resemble a vagina.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_subincisionAnd the so-called "Stolen Generations' were an attempt to remove children from being victims of ritualistic rape and cannibalism by their own families and tribes. But then again, Christian do-gooders just can't help themselves.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tOkb1y7hEs&t=96s
but whites are the evil ones
>>539373728>>539373834>>539373920>>539374022>>539374210It begs the question, what is wrong with it? It kept their numbers in check and it is environmentally sound in that it leaves no waste or pollutes the environment, and is entirely self-contained.
>>539375550He did. He created more of them.
>>539376760Well you offer yourself up to abos and apefricans next drought/famine
>>539373728It was also common in China and India.
>>539376872Same with Russians
>>539376760>>539376760i dont care if they eat eachother.i just think people should know about it.
>>539373728How else am I supposed to absorb the power of my enemies if I can't have a cheeky nibble on their man flesh?
>>539376760It gives white women the ick
>>539376872>It was also common in China and India.only in times of famine.in africa and australia it was the norm.
>>539376820missing the point
>>539376872>>539377270new whiteness test
>>539377362Non-Europeans everywhere have common histories of widespread cannibalism and regular famine. Endogenously, they are incapable of achieving equilibrium with the surrouding environment and fail to establish complementary habitats. Them starving to death en masse and eating half of each other is only natural. It keeps their numbers in check.
>>539377540ok, but this was done in africa and australia outwith times of famine, which is the point.did you even read what OP posted?
>>539373834>>539373920West Africans are a species of the Homo or Panhomo genus that specializes in hunting primates. Cannibalism as a prime target only makes sense.
>>539377540anyway, i would contest you to find any accounts of widespread cannibalism in western europe.and there wasn't a lack of severe famines during the middle ages in europe.but again i remind you, aborigonals and west africans were eating their own children not out of desperation, but as a matter of routine.
>>539373728They only stopped doing it because of Kuru
>>539373728Is growing kids for canibalism really efficient? Humans grow slow with long gestation periodsIts like a 10 year investmentNon whites deserve to be obliterated
Also look up the Moriori and how fucking barbaric Maori-niggers really are
>>539377776yes because they can be used for menial labor.a goat can't dig a ditch or gather crops.
>>539373920>>539373834And these niggers have the audacity to cry about King Leopold.
>>539377765I knowNot sure if you've properly read what I posted. Historically, Europeans have interferred with non-European existence basically by feeding them and proliferating their numbers, calling it morality and civilization. I'm saying it's ignorant hubris. Let them eat each other.
>>539376344Only 4 species of the 230 gums have fire proof lignotubers the idea that Australia was was burnt from end to end has zero evidence.The deserts are all topographical.
>>539376369Australias interior is fossil coral laden limestone it was Under sea water and was never a forest.Name a single forest elsewhere on on earth 15m below sea level.
>>539373728>It was extremely widespread and common practiceforgets india, china, sea, asia, latam, mexico
