The term “cannibal” was born from a misunderstanding: the origins, for those who used and where it was widespread

The term “cannibal“Today rooted in our vocabulary to describe ruthless or cruel individuals and deeply anchored in our imagination it may seem as ancient as humanity itself. Yet, it has one precise birth date And above all a mysterious story, made of linguistic misunderstandings, ideological manipulations and political justifications. In spite of its apparent objectivity, the concept of cannibalor “the one who eats human flesh”, is the son of a precise historical situation: the discovery and the conquest of the Americas by the European Championships.

The origins of the term “cannibali”: Colombo and the “dogiba”

When Cristoforo Colombo land in the Caribbean In the 1492is faced with populations with languages, customs and beliefs completely different from the European ones. His diaries are full of observations filtered by wonder and amazementbut also from a constant need to classifycataloging and interpreting the unknown according to family schemes. In one of his stories, Colombo reports that the natives of theHispaniola island (the current Haiti and Dominican Republic) speak with fear of a warrior people called Carib that is said to live in other islands and practiced cannibalism.

But this is where the first short circuit takes place: Columbus record that name like Dogiba or dogibalone cripple which seems to mix the name of the Arawak or gods Carib with the word Khanthe title of the Mongolian sovereigns that in Europe evoked images of cruelty and conquest. From this meeting between distant languages ​​and imaginations, The word “cannibal” is born. Not as observation, but like transcription or, more likely, like instrumental construction.

But were the “cannibals” real? Did they actually exist anthropophagy practices? Some archaeological testimonies confirm that ritual, religious and war forms of consumption of human flesh have existed In different culturesincluding some populations of theAmazonfrom the New Guinea and of theCentral Africa. However, in most cases, especially in the context of Americasthe accusations of cannibalism were built artfully: used as Moral and legal justification for the conquest by the Europeans.

The invention of the enemy

The step from a linguistic misunderstanding to one political narration It is short. In the context of the first colonial shipments, to define a population as “cannibal” was not only a frightening label: it was an accusation that brought with its deep legal and moral implications. If a group was considered dedicated to cannibalism, then it could not only be attacked and submissivebut it could also be reduced to slaveryaccording to the laws and theology of the time.

This mechanism proved to be extremely useful for Spanish crown: the “meek Indians” could be evangelized, while those considered “barbaric and ferocious”, like the so -called cannibals, could be deported or exterminated. Cannibalism thus becomes a infamy branda way to deny the humanity of the other And justify colonial violence. In this sense, the word “cannibal” did not describe as much real behavior as an ideological function: Build an enemy.

Cannibalism as a ritual

Over time, the figure of the cannibal has assumed contours more and more grotesque and caricatural. European literature and iconography from ‘500 On then they are teeming with images of naked savages that roast human being on great skewers, of huts adorned with human bones, tribal rituals read as practices of violence and inhumanization. Yet, already in the 18th century, some travelers began to put in doubt The truthfulness of these narratives.

In the twentieth century, the anthropologist William Arens He gave voice to these perplexities with his book “The Man-Eating Myth” (1979), in which he claimed that many of the cannibalism stories reported in colonial documents were exaggerations or even inventions. According to arens, historical sources often lacked concrete tests. Cannibalism, then, appeared more like a Functional myth to colonial power that as a really widespread cultural fact.

The figure of the cannibal to justify the violence

The construction of the “Wild eater of men“It served to define, by contrast, western identity as civil, rational and Christian. It is the eternal mechanism of the other as a deforming mirror, useful to reassure itself. And so, while other peoples were accused of practicing cannibalism, theEurope it was in the middle of the Religion warsfrom the witch huntfrom the public executions And torture institutionalized.

The figure of the cannibal then justified not only violence, but it was one projection form: the horror was outsourced, attributed to the other. But after all, as Lévi-Strauss noticed, the real taboo was not human flesh, but the recognition that all peoples, in different ways, coexist with different forms of violence.

Cannibal and civil: who are the real barbarians

The figure of cannibalbuilt on a misunderstanding, survived the present day. In the media, in films, in popular culture, the cannibal remains a symbol of primitive terrorbut behind this image there is a long history of racism, violence and inhumanization. Questioning the meaning of the term “cannibal” would not be only a linguistic or academic exercise but a political act. It would mean rejecting a set narrative, open spaces for other voices and truths, and recognize that, too often, the violence It did not come from who was called “cannibal”, but from who invented that word.