Holy fuck lel aboriginals BTFO

holy fuck lel aboriginals BTFO

Other urls found in this thread:

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/
books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Mardudjara_aborigines.html?id=XetUzjnY-tgC
amazon.com/Children-Desert-Geza-Roheim/dp/0465010423
repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/894303
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1981.83.2.02a00120/pdf
nma.gov.au/collections-search/results?QueryTerms=PaintESA&app=tlf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Wow, racist much?

They were never particularly sophisticated, but welfare absolutely destroyed what culture they had.

Waddup Francesca

NOPE.

The early infanticidal childrearing mode of Australian Aboriginals has been arguably the most abusive and neglectful of all tribal cultures. It is possible that the poor environment of the Australian desert is partially responsible for their lack of progress in childrearing, though New Guinea was nearly as stuck as they are in early infanticidal mode childrearing and they have had a far better environment than Australia. The origins of the very violent personalities of Aboriginals are, of course, in no way caused by genetic differences, only developmental. Thousands of Aboriginals have been removed from their parents and brought up by modern city parents and they turn out to have personalities indistinguishable from others in their adoptive families.

The custom of raping Aboriginal children, eating “every second child” and making the older children also eat them is termed “a quite favorable picture” by Roheim.96 Mothers regularly forced their children to eat their newborn siblings “in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure.”97 Sometimes the fetus would be “pulled out by the head, roasted and eaten by the mother and the children” and sometimes “a big boy would be killed by the father by being beaten on the head” and given to the mother to eat.98 Since most newborns in the Pacific area, from Hawaii to Tahiti, were murdered by their mothers,99 and since their siblings were forced to participate in the killings, all adults had Killer Mother alters implanted in their amygdalan fear networks which they were compelled to reenact. Hippler says Australian children “attacked infants unceasingly” while “the mother rarely intervenes…Children’s attacks become so common that one often hears adults saying ‘Don’t kill the baby.’ But no one interferes and the child is increasingly made subject to violence and stress.”100 He also says “children are abused by their mother and others…routinely brutally…jerked roughly, slapped or shaken…verbally abusive using epithets such as ‘you shit’ [frightened by] a dangerous world full of demons, though in reality the real dangers are from his caretakers…children are terrified to leave the presence of their mothers.”101 Fusion with the Killer Mother is guaranteed by all these practices, plus the mother’s choking the infant with her milk during nursing, the constant masturbation by mother of her children’s penis and vagina while she lies on top of them, twisting and pinching them as we saw was the practice in New Guinea.102

The mutilation of young girls’ vaginas is also practiced by the Aboriginals, “in which old men roll emu feathers with a loop of hair. This device is put into the vagina and then removed, pulling away a large part of the womb. The rest of the womb is then cut horizontally and vertically with a stone knife. When this wound is healed, the girl is then circumcised and made to have intercourse with many young men. The mix of blood and semen is collected and given to frail tribesmen as a fortifying elixir.”103 Again, the fusion with the Killer Mother’s blood is imagined to increase the strength of the male who is uncertain of his masculinity. Males marry many wives and even rape their own daughters104 in order to fortify their masculinity, and fathers often have “boy-wives” to absorb some of their maleness.105 It is not surprising that with both boys and girls “almost their only, and certainly their supreme, game was coitus,” particularly “licking the vagina of girls” to increase their strength.106 Gang raping is constant among Aboriginals, as it is in all tribal cultures.107 Roheim calls the constant rape of Aboriginal children “far more ‘normal’ than the sexuality of the European male” since “their repression of sexuality need not be as deep as it is among Europeans.”108

The initial ritual of Aboriginal boys is accomplished by throwing them into a trench called “The Old Woman” with a bull-roarer called “The Mother” (her womb), repeating their birth by going through a birth tunnel with an umbilical rope attached, being covered by “the menstrual blood that can cause you to die,” and then sub-incising them with “a slit made on the underside of his penis” that is said to create a powerful vagina.109 The men then have intercourse in the split on the underside of the penis, “like a split-open frankfurter.”110 Equipped with a vagina and with the powerful blood of the “Old Serpent Woman” who roams the desert in search of people to eat, warriors go out to kill anyone they can find, living “in dread of enemies” who are Killer Mother serpents, creating Faked Provocations of some fancied wrongs that might justify the killing, either individually or in small groups. Many Australian tribes ate their dead enemies, including their neighbors, though “not for the sake of food.”111 Australian Aborigines also “never neglect to massacre all strangers who fall into their power.”112 “Men, women and children are massacred indiscriminately.”113 A majority of adult men are killed by homicide and over a quarter are killed in warfare.114 These patterns have not changed in millennia: “fighting scenes are extensively depicted in Aboriginal rock art dating back at least 10,000 years.”115 When childrearing doesn’t change, economies and cultures do not change.

The "Stolen Generation", destruction of abo culture and welfare is the greatest thing that ever happened to the abos.

oh my god lads.........

Yeah, the abos have traditionally treated their women as less than animals. I've read the reports from the original European scholars who studied their traditional culture and they're horrifying. If you treated an animal that way today in the USA you'd be in jail for ten years. Their "culture" is and always was dog shit.

to any foreigners in this thread, the OP cartoon was featured in a popular australian newspaper called The Australian today and SJWs are losing their shit

>It is possible that the poor environment of the Australian desert is partially responsible for their lack of progress in childrearing
You mean the deserts they created?
You mean the deserts all around the world that cultures like the Egyptians lived with?

Jesus fucking christ

Worst part is her name is spelled "Franchesca" fucking niggers can't even use real names right.

Further, there is evidence that what we commonly refer to as "aboriginal culture" in modern times... aka dot paintings was actually taught to them by German settlers in the 1800s and wasn't actually practiced by abos before then.

In the 1800s germans were the largest non-english speaking immigrants in australia and they moved to remote areas and created german settlements.

Many of these germans were talented artists and being in such remote areas would interact with the abos a lot.

These germans famously taught the abos how to paint and shared clothing with the abos.

All of what we call aboriginal art which is a key piece of aboriginal culture was actually developed with the assistance of europeans.

Aboriginal culture actually consisted of what is written above and a series of mythological stories about animals and ghosts. They had no permanent structures and all of their tools were differently shaped sticks.

Dot paintings can not be found in ancient aboriginal art. Instead what we see is mostly the use of lines in ancient aboriginal art and tracing of their hands much like a 4 year old might do.

Nothing wrong with a little Americanization. We speak English, and our spelling should reflect such sensibilities.

In modern times artwork such as this is widely regarded as aboriginal culture.

But all art like this is made after interaction with europeans.

Prior to europeans arriving in australia all aboriginal art looks like this.

...

>Emu feathers...with a loop of hair
>Emu feathers...
>Emu

We begin to see the roots of the hostility. Straya cunts took away the emu's poontang.

Ive read this before but is there a reputable source to this? Is gold to shut down debate ifso

personal OC

they should of just been left alone/quarantined, they didnt gain anything from europeans certainly didnt get anything from them

Good they need to realize SJW nonsense doesn't apply to real life.

What's the source of this?

Abos don't take showers. Ever.

They smell so bad it literally made my eyes water just walking past them.

Depends on you definition of "reputable".

If you trust old papers written by anthropologists. It's perfectly reputable.

But if you disregard those as outdated nonsense written by racists and prefer to trust the more recent teachings found in educational institutes well then they aren't reputable at all.

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/

The truth is politically incorrect and therefore of ill repute among modern scholars.

Same problem in Canada.

Natives are dindus who never work, have extreme alcohol problems, high rates of incest, corruption and commit a shit ton of crime due to dindu status/lack of any parenting. Common to see entire native families outside a liquor store sitting at a bus stop at 9am with entire generations drunk out of their skull.. grandma, mom/cousins, brother and sister all fucking pissed to the gills with little kids running around wearing tattered clothes waiting for their time to become another worthless drunk.

What worked here was a bribe, we treatied with this one tribe to give them all their land and some money to do whatever they wanted. Now they have to pay tax, get no special dindu nuffin sympathy status. They actually had to work and that one tribe (Nisga'a) cleaned themselves up. Full treaty is the way to go, sink or swim, no more handouts.

Yeah thats reputable, thats a first hand account.

Whats the basis of the contradictory modern teaching? How is it justified? Sorry if this is beyond your knowledge or care

>is there a reputable source to this
No.

I was similarly interested and looked it up, and it's written by some discredited old quack pushing nonsense pseudoscience, and it's mostly flat-out incorrect. If you follow his citations they don't go anywhere - there's no actual evidence that what he says happened, happened.

Which is a shame, because it's great reading.

Prior to the mid 20th century anthropologists conceptualised history as a linear progression from savage to civilised, with all society being placed somewhere on that path of progression and struggling to move further up it.

Around the 50s there was a breakthrough in anthropological thought that rejected universal values, leading to cultural relativism - that cultures simply are, and do not fall into some universalist conceptualisation of savage and civil - which was consolidated around the Vietnam war and is axiomatic in anthropology today.

"They" had as sophisticated a culture as was possible given the conditions of Australia at the time, and arguably equal to or above comparable ancient cultures in other parts of the world.

Really? Fascinating. And this works the other way round too, doesn't it?

oh come on no they did not. a great part of the problem with the natives of australia, and even more the now extinct natives of tasmania, is that they lost technology as time went on because their population kept shrinking.

when you only have an oral tradition you need a certain amount of people to prevent knowledge from being lost. the natives of both islands lost knowledge as their population shrank. by the time europeans arrived to tasmania the natives had forgotten how to fish and make boats ffs.

they were not sophisticated, they were a group of humans inching towards extinction on their own with out any outside influence.

>Whats the basis of the contradictory modern teaching?
THAT'S RACIST!
>How is it justified?
THAT'S RACIST!

There is a revision of history taking place in modern times that most people are completely ignoring.

Political correctness and multiculturalism has put forth a narrative that white colonialism was an aggressive evil conquest of non-whites and destroyed the noble and often superior cultures of non-whites.

This is the basis of all history taught about the colonial era these days.

The narrative is simple, whites were racist and killed and destroyed non-whites for sport and non-whites were victims.

With this in mind modern academia disregards, ignores and deletes first person accounts from colonialist that contradict this narrative or pain the non-whites in a bad light because, well they are racist murderers who destroyed non-white culture and therefor biased and untrustworthy.

On the other hand though an opinion piece written by a non-white in modern times who has a good education due to the benefits of European colonialism, well that is fully acceptable and put into the curriculum.

It's feel good cotton candy education and the only purpose it serves is to teach non-whites to feel good about themselves.

Homo erectus lives matter.

Link to where you read it?

What the fuck is wrong with abbos.

We don't have them in burgerland.

We don't leave gasoline containers around unattended to attract them.

stupid fucking racist aussie autists fuck off you ignorant morons

didn't you kill most of them or something?

>discredited old quack
I wonder why someone studying history could earn that title..

Perhaps their discoveries didn't fit in with the politically correct feel good fluff that they like to teach kids these days..

Well that's not true at all. They could have at least built some mud huts or something.

>And this works the other way round too, doesn't it?
I don't follow what you are attempting to imply here.

The fact is that actual aboriginal art, which was aboriginal culture is not comparable to what is widely regarded as aboriginal cultural art dot paintings which only came into existence after european settlers began schools teaching aboriginals how to paint.

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/
This link is good enough.

Just read through and find a 'factoid' about the Aboriginals and go down and check its citation. 9 times out of 10 he's citing one of his own books, not any first hand source or document. I guarantee if you go back and check that book it'll be citing that fact from another one of his own books, or maybe it won't cite it at all. It's a common trick that I use all the time for my uni work - nobody actually checks citations unless they're very bored or skeptical, so you can just say whatever you want and then cite anything and most people will never notice. Works a treat when you're doing assessment and the assessor has to read 400, 3000 word essays. Like fuck they're checking citations.

Same story with Mr de Mause. The only problem is that peer reviewer's whole jobs is to check this kind of stuff, which is why he's laughed out of any reputable journals and has to self-publish.

>Perhaps their discoveries didn't fit in with the politically correct feel good fluff that they like to teach kids these days..
Or maybe there is simply no factual basis behind their 'discoveries' at all.

Link me to a single primary source cited by de Mause that supports his narrative. Protip: you can't.

>comparing native americans to abos

reminder that injuns are like 1/4 white or something

They have Listerine sommeliers

The paper's Sup Forums approved, I assume?

Right except a citation isn't what you were taught in fourth grade, de Mause is not necessarily deceiving anyone or weakening his case. He went to school with freaking Margaret Mead. He's quoting himself because he is himself a source and he's citing it not as a matter of dependent evidence but because he's been over the material before.

books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Mardudjara_aborigines.html?id=XetUzjnY-tgC

amazon.com/Children-Desert-Geza-Roheim/dp/0465010423

repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/894303

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1981.83.2.02a00120/pdf

Nah, it's garbage. News media in Australia is universally shit. There is no single paper that isn't partisan dreck.

However, the Australian isn't some fringe publication. It's mainstream, and normies are furious.

I just read 20 mins of that, has quite a few sources and they are pretty much all different authors

Is the idea of tribal socities being brutal so unbelievable? There are tribes that exist today that are just as if not more primitive and brutal, they are in exclusion zones like that one off the coast of india

Are you sure you're not just politically biased?

These are not primary sources.

You know what a primary source is, right?

the simple truth is that they really shouldn't exist, and only do because australia is such an isolated place that had basically no contact with the rest of the world for thousands of years.

everywhere in the world once had people like abos, but they evolved into real humans.

aboriginal culture isn't even remarkable at all, similar things can be found in basically all cultures, only the other cultures eventually progressed past the point of stick huts and spears.

it is now very fashionable for young people to be involved in aboriginal issues, but the irony is that barely any of these people have ever had any contact with aboriginals, and if they do, they just see it through their patronising view that is completely detached from reality.

ask basically any rural australian about aboriginals and you'll find out the truth.

>tfw you will never fuck her and tell her she is a good cow

it runs some decent articles about islam/political correctness etc but it generally just supports the liberals which are basically the tories of australia (kikes)

>and then sub-incising them with “a slit made on the underside of his penis” that is said to create a powerful vagina.109 The men then have intercourse in the split on the underside of the penis, “like a split-open frankfurter.”

Now that can't be true.

Hey numb nuts. Why don't you provide a source that discredits any of those books?

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

>I just read 20 mins of that, has quite a few sources and they are pretty much all different authors
Check it again.

>Or as all the anthropological books on cross-cultural childrearing that say “although mothers masturbating children is widespread [it] does not constitute ‘abuse’ if in that society the behavior was not proscribed.”8 The anthropologists report routine “incessant fondling of infants, masturbation by mothers kissing the boy’s penis, women passing baby boys back and forth over their heads, taking turns sucking the penis, lying on sons in the male position and freely masturbating them at night,” practices they call “nurturant.”9

Citation 9 is:
8 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 263.

9 Ibid., pp. 264-268.

>Infanticide rates were enormous in New Guinea, with the first missionaries estimating that two-thirds of the children were murdered by their parents.13
Citation 13 is:
13 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, pp. 258-260.

>The mothers’ force-feeding during erotic nursing “becomes a battle in which the mother clutches the child, shaking it up and down with the nipple forced into its mouth until it must either suck or choke,” but when not used as an erotic object, they are badly neglected, often “thrown away,” so that abandonment rates run as high as 75 percent as they are sent out for adoption or fosterage.29 When not hung on a tree in a bag or basket, the toddler is “discouraged from walking and not allowed to crawl, [forced to] sit still for hours and make queer noises.”30

Citation is:
29 Lloyd deMause, The Emotional Life of Nations, p. 270.

30 Ibid., p. 269.

And on and on it goes. Even when he's not citing himself he's only citing other psychohistory quacks from their little circlejerk "field". If he isn't full of shit why can't he just cite the primary documents? It's because they don't exist.

>Are you sure you're not just politically biased?
Y E S.

I am literally a Nazi. This work is straight up lies.

anyone who has ever had contact with rural aboriginals will confirm that the cartoon is pretty much correct about 90% of them

Now you're getting desperate.

I don't have to prove it's not true, you have to prove that it is. Where are the primary sources? Where is the proof?

There was never that kind of savagery amongst the natives of Canada. There is the absence of technological advancement and then there is absolute evil and that's what the Australian Aboriginal had in their culture.

The difference is clear. Natives of the Americas didn't rape their children en masse.

I think they can be pretty cute. I'd fuck her.

There are quite a few more references than that, but this guy makes a pretty good point -

there are snow witches in australia??!

But that paper is written by John Updike, and not Lloyd DeMouse. He is not citing himself.

All of the sources I posted here are other people.

Also, let's look at primary sources:
nma.gov.au/collections-search/results?QueryTerms=PaintESA&app=tlf

See those paintings. They are all regarded by the national museum of australia as primary sources of aboriginal culture.

Look at the years they were created.

Again, please explain why this paper is lies?

He cited other people to compile evidence of aboriginal culture.

What is it that you believe is the truth about aboriginal culture?

This is not an abo. She is a rape child at best

That's actually still profound as fuck for what people portray them as.

You don't shit about Australia, don't act like you do.

Not all Aboriginies. This only applies to the mad fucks living in the desert. The Aboriginals that lived along the river were far more civilized and intelligent.

This is so frustrating. I was in an anthropology class at my university and the professor refused to call the Yanomami Indian culture warlike. Instead, it was a "culture of love."

Sound familiar?

Literally 0 chance that is a full Abo

>He's quoting himself because he is himself a source and he's citing it not as a matter of dependent evidence but because he's been over the material before.
Correct, at least in theory, but if you go back and check his work that he's citing you find exactly the same thing as you find here. It's an endless cycle of citations that lead nowhere.

If you really truly believe this crackpot then I encourage you to read his books, because that's all you need to do to see that he's full of shit. He has no primary sources, he has no real evidence, and that's why nobody cares about him or his ideas.

>But that paper is written by John Updike, and not Lloyd DeMouse.
No, the epigraph is a quote from John Updike. The book "The Origins of War in Child Abuse" is by Lloyd de Mouse.

He is citing himself.

>See those paintings
We are not talking about paintings, we are talking about child abuse. Don't try and rabbit away down tangent after tangent: stick to the topic. There is no evidence for Lloyd de Mouse's assertions and the authenticity or lack therof of dot paintings does not change that.

>There are quite a few more references than that
And I encourage you to check them, because you'll find they are all part of his psychohistory circlejerk. Lloyd writes something, they cite it and expound upon it, and then Lloyd cites them. That's how good science works - assuming that the original writing is an inference _based on evidence_ and the following work expands and discusses that inference. Lloyd doesn't feel constrained by the needs of empirical data, though.

Not that anthropology is a science.

She looks like a toad.

Abo women are the only race that I've never seen any attractive women in. Even tribal African women can have some good looking ones in the bunch. Abos? Not once.

Yeah but theres white in that

Sure when they are 90% white and 10% Abo.

T-This isn't what rabbit proof fence taught me

>40,000 years to develop some form of reasonable art or culture
>They've got the didgeridoo (basically a slightly bent tube) and boomerangs (a stick)
That's not profound on any level. That's literally a cave drawing.

And it's not like they invented either of their sticks, 40,000 years is a long fucking time. They probably figured out which sticks to blow on and which ones to throw through trial and error.

Abbo's are shit, and there is no possible defense against that.

>Roheim
Geza Roheim
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_R%C3%B3heim

Is he the key to all this?
"Considered by some as the most important anthropologist-psychoanalyst,[1] he is often credited with founding the field of psychoanalytic anthropology; was the first psychoanalytically trained anthropologist to do field research; and later developed a general cultural theory."

"Róheim is best known for his (and his wife Ilonka's) nine-month stay at or near Hermannsburg Lutheran Mission in central Australia in 1929 — a trip which generated great interest in psychoanalytic circles[4] — and for his subsequent writings about Arrernte and Pitjantjatjara people. His research was used to support Ernest Jones in his debate with Bronislaw Malinowski over the existence of the Oedipus complex in matrilineal societies.[5]"

She's like 1/8th abo.

I'm not saying it's not interesting.

I'm just saying there is a revisionist history going on in regards to abos.

At my kid's school there isn't a single abo but at the beginning of every assembly they begin by making a comment about respecting the traditional land owners of the noonga nonga tribe or whatever they are called.

They teach history lessons to kids in 1st grade about how aboriginal people were smarter than european settlers because they didn't waste any food and they respected the land. They teach them that before europeans came to australia there was no war or sickness.

This is the kind of bullshit they are teaching young kids and it continues all the way through to university. All about the noble abos and how great their way of life and culture was.

How terrible the stolen generation was and how awful european colonialism was.

It's all bullshit.

>They teach history lessons to kids in 1st grade about how aboriginal people were smarter than european settlers because they didn't waste any food and they respected the land. They teach them that before europeans came to australia there was no war or sickness.
Holy shit, that's the same bullshit they fed us about american injuns. They eventually told us about the wars in south america, but left north america a lie.

...

Glad to see white guilt is consistent across continents.

>No, the epigraph is a quote from John Updike. The book "The Origins of War in Child Abuse" is by Lloyd de Mouse.
Ah I see, my bad. But still that doesn't discredit what he is saying.

My point about the paintings is that if they can be accepted as primary sources for aboriginal culture even though they were made in the 1970s etc books written by anthropologists in that same time can also be accepted as primary sources.

You seem to have a major hatred of anthropology but why?

You are behaving like you have a dog in this fight... You wouldn't happen to have abo blood would you ? Mr "litterally a nazi".

PUFFY VULVA

I heard a story that the dot paintings were created by a white australian in the early 70s not sure what to believe now

>if they can be accepted as primary sources for aboriginal culture even though they were made in the 1970s
They can't.

>books written by anthropologists in that same time can also be accepted as primary sources
No they can't.

Also
>primary source for aboriginal culture
That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking specifically for a primary source that backs up Lloyd de Mouse's assertions. I don't give a shit about the rest of Aboriginal culture.

I'm not even going to address your last vague and baseless assertions because even if they are true they are merely a distraction from the fact that you have not and cannot provide the primary sources that you absolutely need to have for your arguments to have even a shred of credibility.

If you are right, why do you have no proof?

I love when Sup Forums mocks Abbos yet they are more advanced than many European cultures

You are disgusting

Abbos are better than gypsies, that can't be denied.

And Souther Europeans

But he's far from a crackpot. What is the American Psychological Whatever format for a citation depending on a personal memory? And without his analysis, we still have an abundance of evidence bearing out his claims. Lefty academics are massively dishonest and routinely get caught. Primitive peoples are horrifyingly violent because they are primitive. It's not like either claim depends on de Mause.

And Swedes/Canadians.

You speak a dumb English, the easiest lenguage in the world.

North America was basically a Mad Max post apocalyptic scenario when the Europeans arrived.

There used to be a large native american civ that spanned the continent. Look up the mound builders, etc.

Then something happened. It all fell apart. People started living innawoods just like they would now if things fell apart. Society degenerated into violent tribalism. And then this post-apocalyptic warzone gets held up as "natives living in peace with nature"

Except they went from having massive cities and a civilization that mined hundreds of tons of copper out of this one place in Michigan (iirc) to living in the woods with moccasins and breechclouts and teepees.

This societal collapse history is found in the oral histories of ALL tribes, from the west to east coasts.

Only the Apaches and Iroquois :DDD

It's not so easy to find the diaries of 1800s settlers but here's one account of aboriginals eating eachother after a tribal dispute in 1843 and I'm sure there are others...

>“On the 31st of May last, (writes this gentleman from his residence, Ion Court,) two parties of aborigines encountered each other within a mile and a half of my station – part of the Barrabool Hill natives, and part of the Mount Rouse tribe, who immediately gave battle, but were defeated with the loss of three men and two unfortunate young women. On the Wednesday morning, the few natives immediately belonging to my neighbourhood arrived, bearing this intelligence, evidently in a state of great excitement, and dreadfully afraid to return to their encampment without the protection of myself and servants, who were to be well armed. Directly after breakfast I started, accompanied by the natives to within a short distance of their huts, where they all remained, and I proceeded forward by myself, and on reaching the spot found their report to be perfectly correct. Such a disgusting scene can scarcely be imagined, the whole encampment deluged with blood ; first lay the body of a middle-aged man named Codjajah, speared through the breast in many places, his bowels taken out and the fat drawn off them, and a few pieces cut out of his thigh. The next body was that of a woman speared in many places, quite dead.

>we still have an abundance of evidence bearing out his claims
L I K E

W H A T?

That's what I've been asking for this entire thread.

>Primitive peoples are horrifyingly violent because they are primitive
That is NOT "the claim" and you are being massively dishonest yourself in pretending it is. Go back to and find me the primary sources supporting all of the assertions just in that post and we can start talking about which claims depend on de Mouse, let alone the rest of his books.

Weren't abo's regarded as subhuman all the way up to the 1920's or there abouts?