Re: New Guinea cannibals on native diet

[Guest guest]

If they are cannibals on a native diet, then isn't the " native " part of the

diet each other? <g>

> So what do you think? Is a healthy diet one that ALWAYS leads to

> greater compassion and amounts of those good attributes that we think

> belong to humans in their highest level of self-actualization, or can

> incredibly dysfunctional peoples remain incredibly dysfunctional even

> on the best of diets? Can we assume that the New Guinea cannibals were

> deficient in some nutrient that led to their violent and warlike ways,

> or is that another form of " normal " for a " healthy " human being?

Keep in mind that Weston Price didn't study native diets, rather he studied

*healthy* native diets by locating *healthy* non industrialized groups.

That's what he was specifically seeking. Not all non industrialized native

diets are healthy.

FWIW.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the chuckle! I guess that makes their diet being

deficient twice as bad - since the food of choice is also deficient!

>

> If they are cannibals on a native diet, then isn't the " native "

part of the

> diet each other? <g>

>

>

> > So what do you think? Is a healthy diet one that ALWAYS leads to

> > greater compassion and amounts of those good attributes that we

think

> > belong to humans in their highest level of self-actualization, or

can

> > incredibly dysfunctional peoples remain incredibly dysfunctional

even

> > on the best of diets? Can we assume that the New Guinea

cannibals were

> > deficient in some nutrient that led to their violent and warlike

ways,

> > or is that another form of " normal " for a " healthy " human being?

>

> Keep in mind that Weston Price didn't study native diets, rather he

studied

> *healthy* native diets by locating *healthy* non industrialized

groups.

> That's what he was specifically seeking. Not all non industrialized

native

> diets are healthy.

>

> FWIW.

>

> Suze

>

[Guest guest]

I honestly thought I could remember a passage (in NAPD or one of Price's

letters) that stated that those eating a meat heavy diet were more war-like

(taller too), while those that ate plant heavy diets were push-overs (and

short) - he was recommending something in between in that passage.

I'd try to dig it up, but I'm totally exhausted (4 cm, no contractions yet)

so I'm off for my first nap of the day.

-Lana

" There is nothing more useful than sun and salt. " - Latin proverb

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:23 AM, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> I'm reading " Peace Child " now by Don , about his first

> missionary trip to New Guinea to reach a tribe of people who had been

> untouched by civilization until the 1970's. They were living as their

> ancestors had, on a native diet, and while he doesn't mention their

> teeth, they had a truly violent and dysfunctional culture! I thought

> Price noticed that people on native diets were more harmonious? T

[Guest guest]

The question that leaps out at me is just how more aggresive would they be

on SAD?

Yikes!

I suppose culture passed from one generation unto another figures greatly

here as would racially inherent factors determining tendencies. Just as one

breed of dog exhibits characteristics untraceable to diet as compared to

another?

-b

haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

I'm reading " Peace Child " now by Don , about his first

missionary trip to New Guinea to reach a tribe of people who had been

untouched by civilization until the 1970's. They were living as their

ancestors had, on a native diet, and while he doesn't mention their

teeth, they had a truly violent and dysfunctional culture! I thought

Price noticed that people on native diets were more harmonious? These

guys would force their wives to sit in a corner and beat them whenever

she looked around, shot them through with arrows, and are hugely

warlike and even frequently fought amonst themselves - in their

villages.

So what do you think? Is a healthy diet one that ALWAYS leads to

greater compassion and amounts of those good attributes that we think

belong to humans in their highest level of self-actualization, or can

incredibly dysfunctional peoples remain incredibly dysfunctional even

on the best of diets? Can we assume that the New Guinea cannibals were

deficient in some nutrient that led to their violent and warlike ways,

or is that another form of " normal " for a " healthy " human being?

[Guest guest]

Sorry, but I think it is a ridiculous notion to even consider that a diet will

ALWAYS lead to greater compassion.  That is so reductionist.  But I think it

demonstrates a greater problem among certain food fanatics:  that somehow food

is God and they will be purged of their sins and all will be well if they just

choose the right foods.

 

How long has there been violence between humans?  Now, think about how long

humanity has eaten " Native Nutrition " .  There's your answer.

 

Certainly if someone is hungry or someone is malnourished, it might one factor

in increasing the chances of violence.

 

-

So what do you think? Is a healthy diet one that ALWAYS leads to

greater compassion and amounts of those good attributes that we think

belong to humans in their highest level of self-actualization,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 or can

incredibly dysfunctional peoples remain incredibly dysfunctional even

on the best of diets? Can we assume that the New Guinea cannibals were

deficient in some nutrient that led to their violent and warlike ways,

or is that another form of " normal " for a " healthy " human being?

[Guest guest]

,

> Sorry, but I think it is a ridiculous notion to even consider that a

diet will ALWAYS lead to greater compassion.  That is so

reductionist.  But I think it demonstrates a greater problem among

certain food fanatics:  that somehow food is God and they will be

purged of their sins and all will be well if they just choose the

right foods.

>  

> How long has there been violence between humans?  Now, think about

how long humanity has eaten " Native Nutrition " .  There's your answer.

>  

> Certainly if someone is hungry or someone is malnourished, it might

one factor in increasing the chances of violence.

I agree. I think it's easy to overstate how much diet can effect

behavior. It certainly is a significant factor but there are *many*

other factors that affect a person's or a people's behavior. Cultural,

genetic, other environmental factors, etc.

Just because a group eating a traditional diet is warlike doesn't mean

that their diet is problematic.

Tom

[Guest guest]

Yet it could be argued (with little proof to substantiate it) that

people are basically peaceful if their needs are met and only become

warlike as they either become overcrowded, making the healthful foods

scarce, or too civilized - meaning they start farming and eating too

many processed foods for cheap calories at the expense of nutrient-

dense foods that may be more time-consuming to get.

In the US tho the Iroquois were also warlike, violent, and

cannibalistic, and I believe that was after the plagues that reduced

the population so what's their excuse? The story I read is that

Hiawatha was cooking a dead enemy he had killed, in preparation of

eating him when Deganawida approached him with his idea of ending the

violence among the Iroquois, and even then as they formed the league

they used their power against the other tribes, forcing them to join

them or be run off, and that ended the Huron people that Deganawida

came from.

--- In , Seay <entheogens@...>

wrote:

>

> Sorry, but I think it is a ridiculous notion to even consider that

a diet will ALWAYS lead to greater compassion.  That is so

reductionist.  But I think it demonstrates a greater problem among

certain food fanatics:  that somehow food is God and they will be

purged of their sins and all will be well if they just choose the

right foods.

>  

> How long has there been violence between humans?  Now, think about

how long humanity has eaten " Native Nutrition " .  There's your answer.

>  

> Certainly if someone is hungry or someone is malnourished, it might

one factor in increasing the chances of violence.

>  

> -

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> So what do you think? Is a healthy diet one that ALWAYS leads to

> greater compassion and amounts of those good attributes that we

think

> belong to humans in their highest level of self-actualization,

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  or can

> incredibly dysfunctional peoples remain incredibly dysfunctional

even

> on the best of diets? Can we assume that the New Guinea cannibals

were

> deficient in some nutrient that led to their violent and warlike

ways,

> or is that another form of " normal " for a " healthy " human being?

>

>