On 17/01/2013, at 8:05 AM, boztakang <daniel.mccluskey_at_...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com, David Cake wrote:
>
>>> re Sometimes it is inconvenient or impolitic to eat the food people... but certainly not when they are dead. >> >> I believe this is wrong. Uz can also be Food. Almost all of the time it is impolitic to eat Uz, but it certainly happens. >>
You are confusing a crucial distinction there. Killing an uz for food, and eating uz as food, are not the same thing. So killing an Uz for food is a major crime, and much discouraged. Though it is notable that it needs to be discouraged, because it is also somewhat tempting for most uz. Uz are always hungry, and all know that uz are tasty. But eating an uz that is already dead for some other reason is routine. Of course cannibalism is the standard funeral rite. Killing an Uz for food is contemptuous, not just of that uz, but of sacred nature of the uz souls, and so in a sense contemptuous of the ancestors - and besides, Kygor Litor is the cult that maintains the social order among trolls, and casually eating anyone that annoyed you would be very bad for the social order. But eating the body of an uz once the soul has left is practical, and often reverential - freeing the sacred ancestral spirit from the last links to its earthly nature. But you know, if you happen to have an uz body for some reason, and you can't arrange a proper funeral (say, you just found a body on the road while travelling, and have no way of identifying them in time for a proper funeral), then eating them is a perfectly appropriate (and delicious!) option. Beings that have stunted or lesser souls and are not like true uz, of course, are a different matter - their souls aren't sacred, and they aren't part of the social order anyway, so rather than worrying about the vengeance of the matriarchs, you only need to worry about what the puny folk think, and who cares what they think? Whether you should kill them in order to eat them is a simple practical question, with few religious or moral considerations. Though I think most atrolls will generally politely perform the funeral rites over sentient beings they eat (including food trollkin). And we also know that the standard funeral rite of eating the deceased is a majority (Kygor Litor) practice, but not universal - Zorak Zorani generally prefer to leave the bodies in tact to turn into undead etc for example. Argan Argar cultists may follow other local customs. Put it this way - I think Uz have no cannibalism taboo, rather they have strong rules against the socially damaging practice of killing other uz as a food source. Many human societies think of cannibalism as intrinsically wrong or repugnant, but Uz don't. They think of killing another person for food as wrong, but they think of it as wrong more in the same way as stealing as wrong - something that is naturally and obviously tempting for individual short term advantage, and so must be guarded against because giving in to that temptation is bad for society as a whole, and is morally wrong. To an uz, the idea that you might enjoy eating the body of another uz as a delicious meal is totally natural, but killing them to do so is morally wrong - just as to a human, the idea that you might enjoy a luxurious lifestyle is totally natural, but murdering someone in order to steal their luxury goods is morally wrong. To put it another way, in anthropological terms, I think trolls practice both endo-cannibalism (eating members of their own group), which is generally practiced as a sacred funeral rite of the Kygor Litor cult, so is a majority practice, and exocannibalism (eating outsiders, such as enemies), which I think is a minority practice, but still done. They still don't like being murdered, feel that killing someone who anyone else believes to be any worth is at least callous (though callousness isn't always frowned on), and also often psychotically wasteful even in the case of some trollkin (killing a skilled crafttsman for food is like using antique furniture as firewood), and eating someone is an insult to their kin (it deprives their kin of the opportunity for proper funeral rites), and can be construed an insult to their ancestors (and usually is by the devout). Which all in all means hunting uz for food is wrong. But eating uz that you happen to have killed, or that just happens to be dead, for other reasons usually isn't very wrong (though perhaps impolitic, because their family might be offended), and sometimes is just polite (if there is no one around to give them a proper funeral etc, better to eat them yourself than leave them to rot). And of course, if it is your ancestor or friend, it is positively polite to eat at least part of them. Uz are pragmatic, dead is dead, and a dead uz is going to get eaten anyway, might as well be by you if you can. The rest is a question of etiquette, more than morality.
> You are NOT allowed to kill Uz for food.
I think there are definitely issues with killing an uz for food. One is that it is considered wrong by the cult of Kygor Litor, and will be formally condemned. This is terribly important to the majority of trolls, particularly those who live in an area where there are many trolls. A powerful and respected troll probably can get away with bending the rules - such as claiming you killed them on some other plausible pretext, which might be pretty flimsy. And clearly, killing trolls for food indiscriminately would be a disastrous violation of all social rules that surely would draw angry attention. And eating an uz yourself when it means denying their kin the opportunity to eat them themselves (as is proper) is profoundly insulting to both the victim and the victims clan.
Which is to say, if you manage to do it and get away with it, it will be seen as a form of bullying and thuggery (which, of course, some uz respect), and you are inviting retribution and revenge. Certainly, for example, any Uz matriarch is going to be very angry if you kill any one of their family (other than a food trollkin) for food, because you are both destroying valuable resources (even worse than stealing), and destroying the unity of the clan. And if you kill someone from another clan and then eat them, well, maybe ok if you are already at war with them, but otherwise, you are probably starting a war (and starting wars is for the matriarch to decide not you - and if you start trouble and she wants to make peace, the easiest way of making peace is by offering you up to be eaten in retribution).
So I think you might, for example, find that eating your enemies is the sort of thing a Zorak Zorani might do.
> And there are many many terrible tales of the horrible fates that befall any troll evil enough to do commit such a terrible terrible act.
Whereas I think the terrible fate that befalls an Uz who eats other Uz is quite often being eaten in turn.
>
> Note, however, that Uz are obligated to eat the corpses of their fellows as the proper "burial" rite, so confusion is bound to occur, and "accidental" deaths may or may not be overlooked in especially hungry circumstances. The distinction might be hard for an outsider to appreciate, but IMG, no Uz would ever Admit to killing another for food.
Which is to say, we are arguing about semantics. I didn't say uz killed each other for food. I said that sometime uz consider each other food. We both agree that most uz are eaten by other uz. Arguing that uz believe the right thing to do is eat other uz, but that still doesn't mean they are food, is just playing semantic games. And pretty hard to reconcile with the idea that trollkin are considered both family and food.
> Trollkin also do not count as Uz, and can be killed and eaten at their owner's discretion or whim.
Absolutely. But killing trollkin who aren't food trollkin for food is considered crazy, as I said killing a Value trollkin for food is like burning good furniture for firewood.
As an aside, while it is about Dragons not Uz, I would like to absolutely recommend here Jo Walton's rather marvellous book Tooth and Claw, about a family drama in classic 19th century novel style (often compared to Austen, though she is really aiming more at Anthony Trollope) among a nice family of noble dragons, much of the plot of which turns on legal disputes over who has the rite to cannibalistically devour the clan patriarch.
Cheers
David
Powered by hypermail