To get the context of this post, the reader might want to see Humboldt on Cannibalism. Today’s post, in effect, concludes that one.
In his writings on the Americas, Alexander von Humboldt, whom I admire and respect for his great learning and energy (not to overlook the wonderful clarity of his writings), like all secular humanists before him and since, cannot resist the temptation to posit moral equivalencies between the “savage practices” he witnessed and the “like practices” of advanced civilizations in history. He does a sleight of hand here in that by “civilized” he usually means — and his readers usually assume — Christian lands, but his examples are not always of such lands.
As one reads him, one readily sees that all those moral equivalence assertions have the purpose of minimizing if not denigrating Christianity; in effect, arguing that the historic faith has no great positive impact on civilization, and indeed might be a negative force.
He tries but fails. I say this as an admirer of Humboldt.
In the prior post on Cannibalism, we saw that Humboldt goes on at some length to compare the practices of some of the Indian tribes in Venezuela to those of Egypt in the 13th century. But, of course, the former was a daily routine, whereas the latter was a rare occurrence. He also goes on to deny that cannibalism ever existed in Africa. He does this by questioning the observations of “some travelers” while citing a single source which denies the allegations. However, research then and since documents the history of the practice there (see for example, A History of Cannibalism: From ancient cultures to survival stories and modern psychopaths, N. Constantin; Cannibalism: The last taboo, B. Marinner; Ibn Battuta in Black Africa, and more).
Nevertheless, Humboldt did document evidence of cannibalism among those who accompanied him:
“We inquired of this young man, so calm and so affectionate in the little services which he rendered us, whether he still felt sometimes a desire to eat of a Cheruvichahena. He answered, without discomposure, that, living in the mission, he would only eat what he saw was eaten by the Padres. Reproaches addressed to the natives on the abominable practice which we here discuss, produce no effect; it is as if a Brahmin, traveling in Europe, were to reproach us with the habit of feeding on the flesh of animals.
But then the great explorer goes on to affirm moral equivalency, citing Abd al-latif al-Baghdadi’s account of cannibalism in Egypt in the 13th century:
“And why should we be so much astonished at this inconstancy in the tribes of the Orinoco, when we are reminded, by terrible and well-ascertained examples, of what has passed among civilized nations in times of great scarcity? In Egypt, in the thirteenth century, the habit [sic!] of eating human flesh pervaded all classes of society; extraordinary snares were spread for physicians in particular. They were called to attend persons who pretended to be sick, but who were only hungry; and it was not in order to be consulted, but devoured.
“‘It then no longer caused any surprise; the horror it had at first inspired vanished; and it was mentioned as an indifferent and ordinary thing. This mania of devouring one another became so common among the poor, that the greater part perished in this manner.
“‘These wretches employed all sorts of artifices, to seize men by surprise, or decoy them into their houses under false pretenses. This happened to three physicians among those who visited me; and a bookseller who sold me books, an old and very corpulent man, fell into their snares, and escaped with great difficulty. All the facts which we relate as eye-witnesses fell under our observation accidentally, for we generally avoided witnessing spectacles which inspired us with so much horror.’ (Account of Egypt by Abd-allatif, physician of Bagdad, translated into French by De Sacy pages 360 to 374.)”
However, the events which Abd al-latif al-Baghdadi (1162-1231) describes so vividly occurred during a terrible famine in Egypt; it was not a usual occurrence, but did have far-reaching and widespread impact across that land. His writings on Egypt did not at all imply this was a common (“habit”) practice there; he focused on that famine and its horrible deleterious effects on the entire country.
More notably, Humboldt cannot cite a single source documenting widespread cannibalism in Christian lands. On the contrary, he approvingly, and fairly, cites the efforts of missionaries to banish the practice. He even cites the horrified reactions of Christians when confronted with the practice. Indeed, it was that horror which eventually led Hernán Cortés to destroy the ancient city of Mexico as it was a center for human sacrifice and cannibalism which the Aztecs continued to revert to until the city was destroyed.
That leads us to the “why” human sacrifice and its usual attendant, cannibalism, have by and large disappeared as open practices around the world. A hint can be easily discerned in the Christian revulsion to such practices. And that revulsion can be traced to the Ultimate Sacrifice: that of the Son of God nailed to the cross for the sins of His people. No other human could satisfy such a claim. That explains why human sacrifice was considered such an abomination in the Old Testament Scriptures, which point to that Ultimate Sacrifice. No human can satisfy for his own sins, let alone the sins of others. Only the God-Man, Jesus Christ has that power and that authority.
That might explain Humboldt’s dissimulations, diversions, and distractions. As he himself notes, “civilized” people have not delivered us from cannibalism, but rather Jesus the Christ.
