https://www.refinery29.uk/tamara-merino-aghor-cannibals
In this simple, yet effective, article, the Aghor sect of
Hinduism is captured through a series of dramatic photos by Tamara Merino. This
young woman spent a month with these people, learning their customs and photographing
shocking traditions. Apparently, these people are known as the “most feared cannibal
in all of India and Nepal”, however, her images did not come across as such in
my opinion. While I am not at all trying to condone their cannibalistic
behavior, this article really brings out the humanity and gentleness of these
people by depicting them in very serene manners or relaxed postures. Her pictures
of cremations appear peaceful, and Merino discusses such rituals with the
utmost respect, because from her observations the Aghor are not committing acts
of transgressions. Instead, they see death in a significantly opposite way than
our society does. I think it is interesting to see a group of people whose
lives revolve around honoring death, when modern societies tend to fear it and
do anything possible to avoid or prolong death. I just would love to hear what
y’all think about this article and the photographs in general – they are truly
provocative in today’s world. To what extent are we in any place to judge the
Aghor for their religious rituals? What do you think about how Merino does not
really defend the cannibalism, but rather reveals that these people are not the
savages social media makes cannibals out to be?
I found this article very intriguing and relevant to the class. The way that Merino portrays these cannibals is not one of disdain, but instead one of understanding. She shows the rationale behind the cannibalism as they believe “a corpse lacks the soul it once had.” This shows that we as humans should not judge other groups based on their actions, but instead should try to understand them and their beliefs. Merino’s argument is similar to that of Montaigne, although Merino does not blatantly fight for one side or the other, but presents both sides to the reader. Montaigne and Merino both show the cannibals as actual people and display them as differing from other people, but still having a valid way of living. I think that Merino does not actually define cannibalism and instead presents this group’s beliefs to allow the reader to come to a conclusion about it on their own. Overall, both Merino and Montaigne make the reader rethink their perception of groups of people that we would typically judge as having strange and disturbing customs.
ReplyDeleteCannibalism, the very word elicits thoughts of bloodshed and murder. However, Merino goes to great lengths to show that it does not have to be that way. She implores the reader to take a moment to distance themselves from the knee-jerk reaction. Coming from a vastly different culture, our first response is to judge them with our morals and customs. Instead, their practices must be judged from their experiences. To do this, she paints their "cannibalism" in the much more peaceful and serene manner they view it (albeit she never directly defends it). The obvious connection to our own readings is Montaigne. Though their argument is similar, they do it in different ways. Whereas Montaigne mockingly showed the good of the so called "cannibals", Merino shows their beliefs in a much more open, honest manner and truly causes the reader to consider their opinion on so-called "strange" beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThrough her photos, Merino draws more attention to the Anghor’s humanity rather than their practice of cannibalism. She does not emphasize their cannibalism, so that she can focus on what makes the Anghor human, instead of what marks them as different. Unlike figures in texts, like Frankenstein, The Tempest, and Columbus’s Journals, who clearly distinguish someone as other based on their differences, Merino offers a refreshing perspective, pointing out what makes the Anghor similar by showing how they “are a people full of endless love and respect.” She shows that we should not judge the Anghor because they are at their core human and because they would “never hurt or damage anybody.” Even though the Anghor may be different from our perception of the norm, they still deserve the same respect as anyone else, especially when keeping in mind that their cannibalistic practices are humane and respectful of the dead. Essentially, their way of honoring their dead is just as valid as any other way of honoring the dead.
ReplyDeleteI found both the premise and perspective of this article to be extremely fascinating. It was also refreshing in a way because many people are so quick to judge other cultures without even trying to comprehend the reasons they have for their customs. The way in which the article and photographs focused on their humanity rather than their “savageness” helps open the readers eyes to the complexity of other cultures. It demonstrates how cannibalism is not necessarily a black and white issue of right or wrong. We commonly view cannibalism as “bad” without even considering that there may be other cultures who practice it in a respectful way while maintaining an admirable sense of morals and respect for others. She shows how these people are more than just cannibals and that this one practice does not define whether or not they are good people. This article helped dismantle the widespread fear of these people in a way that can be applied to many other groups of people who are judged prematurely.
ReplyDeleteThis article perfectly expands upon DeMontaigne's assertion that cannibalism is more normal than many would think, only this article delves deeper into the zoological normalcy of cannibalism. One of the most interesting points of this article is that cannibalism can help a fewer organisms in the group become stronger, but also cuts down on the genetic diversity of a group. The article talks about how Cannibalism is oftentimes a power struggle, like chickens pecking or lions eating the children of their rival prides. This was a tactic used by the Taino, and eating their defeated enemies was seen as something normal. That being said, the article maintains that Cannibalism is most commonly attributed to stress in animal groups, and that it is usually a "last resort" for the animals. The author draws attention towards human moments of Cannibalism, and this reflects the "last resort" type ideology in most cases, where humans are faced with an option: starve or eat. The only group that consistently ate one another in contemporary time is the Fore group in New Guinea, but the health risks in consuming human flesh made it infeasible and dangerous.
ReplyDeleteThis article was so good. The way that Merino captures these people is brilliant. The more she discusses the life of these people and their true values perfectly encapsulates the terror that societies often feel towards anything that they consider different. We have grown up with this enforcement that the human body is sacred, rather then the soul is sacred, so when we hear of cannibalism we feel only disgust. Where this culture sees cannibalism as a respectful method of handling the dead, our first thought when it comes to cannibalism is Jeffrey Dahmer, because of our western concepts. Thank you for sharing this article!
ReplyDeleteThese images taken by Merino are a testament to the power of art where words often fail to communicate differences between cultures without presenting one as a threat to another. There is something inherently dehumanizing about the word "Cannibal" in American-centric contexts considering the term has been used for centuries to Other the beliefs of disparate groups, even those who don't engage in any kind of literal flesh-eating. In contrast, this photo series is reverent and dignified--especially the last image with a man gazing over the funeral pyre, bathed in gold and the intimate darkness of night.
ReplyDelete