View Full Version : Sorry for eating those four British missionaries
17th Aug 2007, 11:09 AM
I was looking at whale sharks pictures and I stumble upon these (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=443987&in_page_id=1811) and then I look around the web page and found something interesting. PS: I hope whale sharks meat are poisonous :eviltongu
Papua New Guinea's cannibals descendants apologizing (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=475901&in_page_id=1811&in_a_source=) for what their ancestors did 132 years ago. An incident which would have been deemed correct and probably normal everyday routine by these people living in Papua New Guinea, because they were cannnibals, and cannibals eat human.
So, they ate 4 missionaries, probably to survive, and in turn their village were burnt (no numbers were given of how many cannibals were kill when the village were burn)
Now, if you knew, that where you are going was a cannibal island and still you venture there, isn't it stupid?
then my mind instantly wander to think about so many wrongly kill people during the previous world wars and all the people who were kill by other people, and some, until today has refused to apologize, when what they do is 100X more wrong then what the Cannibals had done.
now the debate
Was it wrong that the cannibal had ate those missionaries? do you think they need to apologize?
I think they have acted graciously in apologizing regardless who is wrong.
Was it wrong that the Japanese had kill many people and refused to apologize? and secretly try to change the history? do you think their refusal to apologize is correct?
17th Aug 2007, 11:16 AM
Actually they were Fijian not British, not that is matters for the debate. I don't think people should have to apologise for what someone else did along time ago. Have the English ever apologised for invading Scotland? I don't think so. Do I care? No!
17th Aug 2007, 12:46 PM
Have the Scots ever apologised for sending James I down here?;)
18th Aug 2007, 12:33 AM
Have the Brits ever apologized for making us pay for their war? (US history 101)
Hey, at least those guys are admitting to being wrong, although their's seems to be the lesser of two evils. What I am seeing is an attempt to bury a hatchet that never existed.
18th Aug 2007, 03:41 AM
I understand that the cannibals are busy editing their Wikipedia entries clean up their reputation and blame it all on seasonal influences and illegal immigration. What a rotten dirty trick.
19th Aug 2007, 08:46 AM
I think it is disrespectful of the dead to apologize for something that was done after everyone involved on all sides has died. The cannibals are not around to explain their actions. An apology from their descendants is not the same as an apology from them. They may not have felt at all sorry for what they did. They may have felt justified by their cultural norms. It is disrespectful of their memories to speak on their behalf - let alone to apologize for their actions. We will never know the personal and cultural complexities of that conflict, but I'm certain it can't be as simple as "sorry we ate you." What happened 132 years ago happened between some cannibals and their families and some missionaries and their families. By making political declarations in the present for grievances long past, all we modern people really do is use other people's pain to suit our immediate political purposes.
For the record, I feel this way about European colonialism, manifest destiny, and U.S. slavery, too. It is disrespectful of the dead - victims and aggresors alike - to turn their very real and often bloody wars and other conflicts into lip service and/or propaganda now and to use the word "we" to claim membership in either group even though we ("we" meaning modern people) were not parties to their actions.
My opinion, then, is that the descendants of the cannibals should not have apologized. The descendants did not eat anyone from Fiji. They can't apologize for an act they never committed. They (and modern people in general) would be better off to commemorate such instances and to learn from them so as not to do the same in the future than to try to take ownership of past events and use them to a current advantage.
20th Aug 2007, 02:00 PM
what you explain about people who did not do the deed should not be hold responsible for the action that they did not do. I understand that part until you said this:
"My opinion, then, is that the descendants of the cannibals should not have apologized. The descendants did not eat anyone from Fiji. They can't apologize for an act they never committed. They (and modern people in general) would be better off to commemorate such instances and to learn from them so as not to do the same in the future than to try to take ownership of past events and use them to a current advantage.
I know you said it is your opinion, so I try to see it from your point of view and I went to look up the news on the "apology incident" from other sources, but I cannot find anything that says anything about any advantage for the Papua New Guinean (PNG) to apologize.
and they are learning from the instances
"PNG's Governor-General Sir Paulias Matane praised the early missionaries for making the country Christian - and called for more people to follow its guiding principles."
unless you think converting into christianity is not good (I am thinking that actually) ... but otherwise there's no advantage unless the church or whoever is giving the governor money...
PS: I have no idea why they want to apologize, in my opinion, they were being invaded and turning into christian has rob them of their culture.
PS: i am not sure I understand what you are trying to say DocDoofus.
And then this whole thing of not being responsible for someone else's actions. why is US in Iraq again? can 9/11 be forgotten and no action taken?
Hi, palabravampiress, (below posts)
thanks for the answers. :)
21st Aug 2007, 05:44 AM
You're right, Nixie. I just assumed that there was a political reason behind one tribe from Papua New Guinea making an apology to the Queen of Fiji. The article did not indicate that such a purpose exists.
It just seems to me that one does not apologize to a Queen and her people for the past sins of others unless one hopes to gain something by doing so. Maybe I'm just being a cynic, but I really don't see a reason to apologize for something that happened so long ago and did not involve the people making the apology unless there is some sort of benefit to doing so. I understand apologizing for something one did do. To a lesser extent, I even understand apologizing for something one's country did recently or is currently doing (like the Iraq war - I currently feel the inclination to apologize to Iraqis and the families of dead or injured U.S. troops for electing a president who would lead us into and then mismanage a war in this way). But I don't understand taking responsibility for something done by and to a relatively small group of others 132 years ago. Because there is no reason for modern Papua New Guineans to feel remorse due to the fact that one tribe killed and ate four men in accordance to their customs in the late Victorian era, that makes me suspect the tribe's motives as well as the motives of Fiji and to think that some sort of political agenda -- probably a relatively minor one -- is on the table.
Whether or not a political agenda is actually on the table, I still feel that modern Papua New Guineans lack the authority to speak on behalf of dead people who may very well have felt that their actions were justified.
As far as praising the missionaries for making the country Christian, well, I am no Christian. I don't automatically associate Christianity with "good" and I am incredibly wary of any country that calls itself a nation of any sort of faith - Christian or other. Even so, I also don't feel that I can say anything bad about the spread of that particular faith compared to the spread of most other faiths. People tend to create religions and religions tend to spread by methods both violent and peaceful. I don't think it is a phenomena for which we should parcel out blame. I think it's just human nature.
vBulletin v3.0.14, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.