Valentina ocampo

Of Cannibals

Just as the title implies, of cannibals, centers mainly in what was considered to be cannibalistic
behavior in the colonial period. Its aim is to reduce the distinction or the established point of difference
between the educated and enlighten European men and the savage African population of the time. This
story concentrates in areas of social, military, and political concern such as: marriage, warfare, political
accession, ethical issues and values. With the following story Montaigne, the author, hopes to
demonstrate and justify that the African tribes of the colonial period were not at all barbarous and
cannibalistic; they were in fact very positive, solid structures on their own accord. Such tribes placed
more value on certain aspects of life that many of the Europeans of the time; however their views were
deem as unworthy of examination and they were therefore , considered uncivilized and foolish.
Montaigne’s purpose is to take their so call barbaric behavior and make it looked more reasonable and
likable to Europeans , and to also demonstrate that their European more traditional behavior is not much
different than that of the African tribes; and that it is in fact more cruel and barbarous.

To justify their cannibalistic behavior Montaigne first declares that we must judge things by
reason and not by popular say, so we must first understand their way of life before we can proceed to
judged it . He also explains that there is no perfect religion, no perfect government, nor manner in which
to accomplish thing that its deem as the correct ,appropriate one; therefore, the high society (European
nations) must stop thinking that everything that they don’t master or acknowledge is deem as wrong
,inappropriate and unworthy of consideration.

Secondly, to justify their behavior Montaigne explains that these people must not be call wild
and savage for they are the most pure input or product of mother nature .They are genuine and
untouched, full of virtue and vitality since they have not been corrupt by the modern knowledge of war,
of ambition, and of material possession. They respect mother earth since they don’t seek to possess it nor
gain anything from it, they only seek to obtain the necessary (use the soil, the vegetation, and haunt the
near animals) in order to stay alive. It is the educated whites whom are corrupted with their desire to
posses the land; they are the ones who want to exploit it and take away all of its treasures by using all of
its resources and slavering its people.

He says that these people live tranquil pleasant lives, in which most of their time is spend in
leisure. Their houses are refined and well grafted, they do not need to rely on European technology .He
also says that apart from meals the do not drink, implying that most of the European high society enjoy
drinking for more than what their meals required. For the most part Montaigne justifies that these people
cannot be view as cannibalistic because they have a high sense of family values and unity , virtue and
compassion to a certain extend ;and a great acknowledgement of glory ,victory and objectivism.
 The young men go hunting and the women stay back and tend the house and their husband’s
needs when their back from battle. They preach and pray to their deities. They keep themselves clean with
the help of a wooden razor. These attitudes are not at all cannibalistic. Furthermore they only have two
mottos in life: the first one is that they must keep their valor or bravery against the enemy, and love and
honor their wives. In battle they never leave or panic, they also never ask their enemy to spare them from
their punishment or from losing their lives.

When they killed their prophets , they do so because they deemed the art of divination as sacred ;
a gift of God. Montaigne justifies this act by questioning us in the subject; should we not punish all of
those who try to convince us with false testimony, and leave us with empty promises ?. I believe his
position on the subject is made clear. He thinks that such type of people should be punished for their lies.
He also goes on to justify it by saying that the Scythians, ( Greek word used to refer to nomadic or horse
riding groups in ancient times) punished their false prophets as well, but that these were more brutal and
cruel in ending their lives. “They laid their victims and chained hands and foot, on carts full of heather
and drawn by oxen; on which they were burn” (p.154 Of Cannibals).

When they captured their prisoners , they would treated them with the same hospitality they
would treat a friend before ending their lives ; and that once death they would cook them in parts, that
were later to be distributed and eaten among them. Such act was not done to receive nourishment from;
it was rather done to inflict a powerful revenge. He also goes on to state that such cruel practice was later
discontinue and that instead these people had adopted the way the Portuguese inflicted revenge ; by
having their prisoner buried to the waist and then attacking them with arrows. They thought that such
action was more cruel and painful that their own. Montaigne says that such acts, cruel as they might seem,
cannot be judged by the European for if they look at their own system, they will find that it is more cruel
to eat a man alive by having be ripped apart by tortures and having him be eaten and mangled by dogs
and swine; than in eating him after he is dead. In those times, many European nations justified their
wrongdoing in the name of religion and protection of the state; and they inflicted great punishment to all
their enemies.

Montaigne also justifies the tribes actions and supports his idea that Europeans were more cruel
by declaring that the tribes actions can be compare to those of their ancestors and that therefore they
cannot be deem as primitives, he states “ just as our ancestors, when besieged by Caesar in the city of
Alesia, resolve to relief their famine by eating old men, women, and other people useless for fighting”
(Of Cannibals, p.155). The African tribes only killed their enemies and inflicted pain for revenge; they
didn’t kill everyone they thought unfit for a fight. Moreover, he also states that “physicians use human
flesh in all sort of ways for our health, applying it either inwardly or outwardly. But there never was any
opinion so disordered as to excuse treachery, disloyalty, tyranny, and cruelty, which are our ordinary
vices”(p.156). This all goes to support his idea that even if the Europeans have good reasons for the
ripping apart of a human body; that does not exclude or reduce the guilt of ripping that body apart. He
also says that the Nature of every white European is subjected to tyranny and disloyalty, and that such
qualities are not seen in the African tribes; for they always respect and follow their leaders, and they
always share and distribute their possession equally.

European nations on the other hand, care only about status and obey their leaders by succession
of the throne rather than by choosing them. Their nations are also full of poor and hungry men and in the
African tribes, as it was already stated, everybody enjoyed of the same rights. He goes on to justify their
way of life, by stating that they only try to seek honor in battle. Those who are victorious get to have as
many wives as they can count, given that the amount of wives one gets to have indicated the fighter’s
honor. Montaigne supports this view by going back to biblical times and stating that Sarah, Rachel, and
Jacob’s wives gave their handmaids to their husbands. He also says that such practice was not uncommon
in Greek mythology. For these tribes their honor was everything for them. They didn’t fight for pride;
they fought for love of their tribe and respect, and that is how Montaigne concludes and supports his ideas
that such groups cannot be considered cannibalistic.