The term anthropophagy, which derives from the Greek anthrōpophagía,
refers to the act of ingesting meat from a human being. People
who eat meat from other humans are known as man- eaters or cannibals.
Although the dictionary of the
attributes anthropophagy to the human being (that is, to men who eat other men),
the concept is also often used to name animals that eat human flesh.
If we focus on people, it is important to note that
man-eating is currently prohibited, although several ancient
peoples engaged in this practice.
In America, some aboriginal cultures practiced
anthropophagy for a religious or ritual purpose. Historians have found that the Aztecs, Guarani and Caribs used
to develop this type of cannibalism.
Anthropophagy could be understood as an offering to the divinities. In
some cases, certain groups ate enemies they defeated in battle as a way to keep
their strength. From psychology, it has been explained that
anthropophagy could be linked to an intention of domination.
In recent decades, there have been isolated cases of man-eating. They are
generally linked to subjects with mental imbalances, although
some also appeal to man-eating as a method of survival in some
extreme situations. Regarding this last feature, it is worth mentioning what
happened in 1972, when the survivors of a plane crash that
occurred in the Andes Mountains ate the meat
of the deceased since they were isolated in the mountains and without the
possibility of accessing another type of food.
Anthropophagy is one of the least talked about topics in the media, partly
because it is a rare practice, but also because it is especially unpleasant for
the general public. The normal thing is to feel a deep disgust when thinking,
just for a second, about a person eating human meat. However, this brings us to
the eternal controversy of carnism and veganism: what
difference is there between the life of a cow, that of a dog and that of a
human? Why can we only accept the killing of the cow as well as its use for food
There are various stories of murders that were covered up using the bodies of
the victims to prepare food, which in some cases was consumed by people outside
the crime, without knowing that it was not beef. It may seem like the perfect
plan to erase the traces of a crime, or something tremendously
unbearable for the weakest of stomachs. Therefore, killing a person is a crime,
and eating it is a disgusting act, while killing an animal is a right, and
eating it is a necessity. Animalists do not think the same.
We are immersed in a vortex of contradictions, which largely takes place
because we do not ask ourselves many questions, but rather allow the giants to
manipulate us and tell us what to do, when and how. Today, smoking is
good; today, it causes cancer. Today, bovine milk is necessary
to take care of health; Today, it has contraindications that no one had noticed,
and it also carries a wave of torture and slaughter that the media hide and make
up behind the smile of a cow.
Every now and then we find isolated reports of cases of anthropophagy, of
people "with psychological problems" who eat their partner, of people "under the
influence of strong illegal drugs" who do not resist human flesh, as if it were
a horror movie that has transcended the cinema screen. Those who buy the tray of
meat in the supermarket, which comes from the subjugation of
millions of innocent animals, do not have mental disorders or use drugs, but
they support an equally unpleasant act. Could only one of the two parties be