Tag Archives: War

COLOSSAL FAILURE: ALCOHOL PROHIBITION & THE WAR ON DRUGS

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” said Albert Einstein. Such can apply to two enormous social experiments costing trillions in U.S. dollars and countless American lives. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the 50-year losing streak against “drugs”—the new Public Enemy Number One—flat-out never worked. Is it finally time to admit colossal failure, give up, and legalize all intoxicating substances?

I ask this question seriously. I’m one of the few people my age who’s never done “drugs”, not so much as a puff off a joint. However, I’ve downed enough booze to drown a humpback. And as I look back at 65 years of life, I’d be a hypocrite to sit here with my glass of Pinot Gris or Cab Sav and call down a pot smoker.

What got me going on legalizing drugs is a new writing/content-creating project I’m into. City Of Danger is my netstream-style series and I’m in deep research mode. The series core—it’s theme, you could call it—is “the more things change, the more they stay the same”. It’s a juxtaposition between the Roaring Twenties when Prohibition was in full swing and the Fizzling 2020s when society has succumbed to crime and corruption. Watch for the pilot episode in late fall/early winter.

The City Of Danger series is a social comment. It features two 1920s-era private detectives transposed in time to help a modern city in crisis dispense street justice and restore social order. And isn’t that exactly what alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs was supposed to do?

Before we come to my personal opinion and conclusion about legalizing all intoxicating substances, let’s look back on how Prohibition and the War On Drugs came to be and why they colossally failed.

The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

“The Eighteenth Amendment (Amendment XVIII) of the United States Constitution established the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. The amendment was proposed by Congress on December 18, 1917, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on January 16, 1919. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933. It is the only amendment to be repealed.

The Eighteenth Amendment was the product of decades of efforts by the temperance movement, which held that a ban on the sale of alcohol would ameliorate poverty and other societal issues. The Eighteenth Amendment declared the production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors illegal, though it did not outlaw the actual consumption of alcohol. Shortly after the amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Volstead Act to provide for the federal enforcement of Prohibition. The Volstead Act declared that liquor, wine, and beer all qualified as intoxicating liquors and were therefore prohibited. Under the terms of the Eighteenth Amendment, Prohibition began on January 17, 1920, one year after the amendment was ratified.

Although the Eighteenth Amendment led to a minor decline in alcohol consumption in the United States, nationwide enforcement of Prohibition proved difficult, particularly in cities. Rum-running (bootlegging) and speakeasies (booze cans) became popular in many areas. Public sentiment began to turn against Prohibition during the 1920s, and 1932 Democratic presidential nominee Franklin D. Roosevelt called for its repeal. The Twenty-first Amendment finally did repeal the Eighteenth in 1933, making the Eighteenth Amendment the only one so far to be repealed in its entirety.” ~Wikipedia Quote

The Eighteenth Amendment wording is:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Prohibition of alcohol didn’t happen overnight in America. The temperance movement had been building for several hundred years and was a strong social divide across gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, and class status; ie wealth and power. The social division before 1920 when Prohibition was enacted and enforced was severe. In one camp were the “drys” who opposed all alcohol forms. In the other were the “wets” who saw nothing wrong with drinking’s status quo.

Then there were the moderates who believed in alcohol tolerance with strings attached to safely regulate the booze business. A 1784 treatise titled The Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits Upon the Human Body and Mind argued in favor of limited medicinal alcohol use and controlling excess by educating society on the dangers of overindulgence. The report labeled drunkenness as a disease to be controlled and treated, not an offense to be prohibited and punished.

Those views changed over the century and a half while the temperance movement gained traction. Middle-class women earned enormous clout as moral authorities in the household. Most believed alcohol was a threat to the home and, in many cases, they were right.

A conflict of values between rural Protestant America and the liberal urbanites emerged and this turned political. Votes being votes, the temperance and prohibitive forces seized on the sentiment of the day, and the Eighteenth Amendment became law.

Despite the Volstead Act authorizing  federal, state, and local authorities, there was little law enforcement will to stop the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States. With government out of the picture, or at best, sitting on the sidelines, civilian forces took control of the alcoholic beverage industry and profited—profiting enormously is an understatement.

Prohibition caused the mobster/gangster culture complete with turf wars and assassinations by Tommygun. Gangsters thrived while they were alive and the public starved from the loss of legitimate employment in the liquor business and the drop in tax revenues. Cities like Chicago and New York partied with thousands of illegal speakeasies which the local police turned a blind eye to, and the feds—the revenuers—had horribly inadequate resources to do anything but chase hillbilly moonshiners and bust the odd still.

Then came Black Friday and the start of the Great Depression which bled into the Dirty Thirties. Crime had won and the temperates lost. Public opinion turned and shaped new prohibition policies which basically said, “We’ve lost the black market battle. The intoxicant war can’t be won. It’s time to make alcohol legal again.”  The move towards repealing the Eighteenth Amendment took hold.

— — —

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened, and crime has increased to a level never seen before.      ~John D. Rockefeller in open 1932 letter to the New York Times

— — —

The Twenty-First Amendment of the United States Constitution

“The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide prohibition on alcohol. The Twenty-first Amendment was proposed by the 72nd Congress on February 20, 1933, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment, as well as being the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions.

The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, the result of years of advocacy by the temperance movement. The subsequent passage of the Volstead Act established federal enforcement of the nationwide prohibition on alcohol. As many Americans continued to drink despite the amendment, Prohibition gave rise to a profitable black market for alcohol, fueling the rise of organized crime. Throughout the 1920s, Americans increasingly came to see Prohibition as unenforceable, and a movement to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment grew until the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified in 1933.

Section 1 of the Twenty-first Amendment expressly repeals the Eighteenth Amendment. Section 2 bans the importation of alcohol into states and territories that have laws prohibiting the importation or consumption of alcohol. Several states continued to be “dry states” in the years after the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, but in 1966 the last dry state (Mississippi) legalized the consumption of alcohol. Nonetheless, several states continue to closely regulate the distribution of alcohol. Many states delegate their power to ban the importation of alcohol to counties and municipalities, and there are numerous dry communities throughout the United States. Section 2 has occasionally arisen as an issue in Supreme Court cases that touch on the Commerce Clause.”  ~Wikipedia Quote

The Twenty-First Amendment wording is:

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Prohibition lasted thirteen years before America came to its senses and legally regulated the production and distribution of properly-produced alcoholic beverages. The U.S. Constitution turned over all alcoholic regulation and enforcement to the state and local levels, where it should be, with the local demographic values setting the intoxicating substance standard.

A lot of people prospered during Prohibition. A lot of people suffered during Prohibition. And the anti-alcohol social experiment colossally failed. But today, there’s no appreciable black market in the booze biz that legitimately generates a colossal tax base paid for by a fairly peaceable drinking crowd.

The War On Drugs

What did Albert Einstein say? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Boy, you’da think they learned. But, nope, by 1971 America had Richard Nixon and Tricky Dick need a cause to help keep his job. The war on drugs broke out.

“The war on drugs was a global campaign led by the U.S. federal government of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade in the United States. The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse “public enemy number one”.

That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the “prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted”, but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term “war on drugs”. However, two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a “war on drugs” that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.[14] In 2015, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimated that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives, and in 2021, after 50 years of the drug war, others have estimated that the US has spent a cumulative $1 trillion on it.

On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske—the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)—signaled that the Obama administration did not plan to significantly alter drug enforcement policy, but also that the administration would not use the term “War on Drugs”, because Kerlikowske considers the term to be “counter-productive”. ONDCP’s view is that “drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated… making drugs more available will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe”.

In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring: “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.” The report was criticized by organizations that oppose a general legalization of drugs.” ~Wikipedia Quote

“Drugs” is an all-encompassing term. You can successfully argue alcohol is a drug and it is. However, alcohol is a much more socially acceptable intoxicant than the evil ones like heroin, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine and the deadly synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Marijuana is in a class of its own. In my three decades in the police and coroner service, I never saw anyone violent while high on weed, and I never found anyone dead from a THC overdose.

Illicit drugs have been floating around America for a long, long time. Indigenous folk used hallucinogenics like peyote and mescaline for religious insight and recreational fun. Morphine treated wounded soldiers in the Civil War, the Two World Wars, and Vietnam—some soldiers became severely addicted to this opium-based product.

The 1890 Sears Roebuck catalog offered a gram of cocaine and a small syringe for a buck and a half. At that time, cocaine was still legal and it made Coca-Cola a light, refreshing drink. Marijuana? The hemp industry flourished in the south and was a clear and present danger to the cotton industry. Cannabis plants were outlawed, but not because of THC intoxication. It was purely a financial and political move to save the cotton plantations, blaming it on the slaves who needed to be protected from smoking the buds to kick back.

Successive U.S. presidencies bought into the war on drugs movement. Perhaps that was because it became too big to stop. Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama all threw massive money and military on the dope fire. Trump? Well, who knows what went on in that man’s mind. But it seems the new Oval Office manager is toning it right down when it comes to cracking down on crack.

Unlike the war on alcohol, which was fought on home turf, America took its war on drugs abroad. Foreign and domestic drug policy put enormous funds into eradication efforts in Mexico, Central America, and South America. Despite invading Panama to overthrow a drug-dealing dictator and chasing the cartels to the ends of the jungle, the drug flow into the United States never stopped.

At home, the jails filled with American citizens serving harsh time for non-violent, rather minor drug offenses. The southern border received a half-built wall that served no tactical purpose. And the inner-cities rang with gunshots, mostly aimed at visible minorities.

The 2011 Global Commission on Drug Policy report was right. The global war on drugs had failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. And a new approach, the National Prevention Strategy, set a framework towards preventing drug abuse and promoting healthy lives.

Why Did Alcohol Prohibition and The War On Drugs Colossally Fail?

Human nature. There’s something in human physiology and psychology that craves intoxicating substances. Always has been. Always will be.

There’s an insatiable demand from people who want to alter their state of consciousness. Call it getting drunk, high, stoned, or just a little buzzed. Where there’s a demand for a consumer product, there’ll always be a supplier.

Prohibiting alcohol and criminalizing drugs removed the supply chain from the safe and taxable regulation structure and fed it to the wild-west black market. Like the Tommygun gangsters of the Roaring Twenties, the AK47-toting cartels of today took the mean streets of America into their control and the American politicians facilitated it.

How to Solve the Substance Abuse Problem?

You can’t. You can only try to control it as much as possible. That’s by reducing the demand, especially of the hard-core toxins. Alcohol is a done deal. It’s the norm in North American society and here to stay for good. Cannabis is nearly there with only a few hold-outs on legalizing recreational THC.

I’m all for both, provided the alcohol and cannabis products are clean, safe, and dispensed so they’re not too easy for kids to get at.

Natural products like powdered cocaine (not crack) and heroin are candidates to be pharmaceutically released on a prescription-based system. I’m okay with that as the demand will move from the street to the stores and can work alongside controlled addiction recovery programs.

Synthetic opiates are a different story. Pain killers like fentanyl and its super-deadly sister carfentanil are extremely addictive and relatively easy to produce by the underworld. In concentrated form, and when mixed with other hard drugs, synthetic opiates are a scourge—a plague—causing unacceptable numbers of overdose deaths.

The only solution here is a free government-run dispensary and removing the profits from gangsters. It’s not going to be politically popular, but if societies want to get tough on drug-related crime, they have to make a change in the supply system and then slowly bring down the demand.

That leaves to a blended bag of others drug intoxicants. I can’t make a case for opening up the bottle containing LSD, crystal meth, speed, and ketamine. There’s no medical argument made for consuming these psychotic-causing poisons.

So there you have it. My conclusion—a tiered approach to controlling intoxicating substances is the most workable method of maximizing public health and minimizing criminal profits. Control the supply. Remove the criminal incentive. Clean it up and carefully release it while working long-term to curb the demand.

Remember what Einstein said. “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

In the meantime, keep firing war-on-drugs bullets at the heads of low-life, black-market crack, meth, and street-grade fentanyl dealers.

DO HEADHUNTING CANNIBALS STILL EXIST?

It’s a excruciating way to die. Imagine the panicked horror. Tearing through the jungle on a hot tropical island being chased by primitive men armed with sharpened stick spears, bows and arrows, and razor-edged bamboo knives. You’re viciously overpowered,  savagely beheaded as a manhood trophy, then your limbs are cruelly hacked and severed from your torso which is packed off and cooked over an earthen-pit fire to be ritualistically devoured in a secret stone-age ceremony.

This stuff was real. This business actually occurred some time in the past. The question is — do headhunting cannibals still exist?

I watched a National Geographic Special hosted by Piers Gibbon titled Search for the Cannibals of the South Pacific. The film crew traveled to remote parts of the region of Oceania in search of the answer. What they found was fascinating. That is, if you’re curious as to whether there still are active headhunters who consume human flesh.

To start, there’s a difference between headhunters and cannibals. Not all headhunters are cannibals and not all cannibals are headhunters. I’m sure you’re aware of relatively recent North American cannibal named Jeffrey Dahmer who serial-killed gay men and ate them. Dahmer was a bit of a one-off, though. What I’m referring to is an organized culture that endorses inter-tribal warfare where men battle other men and then behead them a prized proof of manhood.

But, it’s an entirely different level to go ahead and eat them.

There’s no question headhunting and cannibalism once existed in places like Papua New Guinea, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and Indonesia. There are historic reports of the practice in The Philippines, Borneo, and Taiwan. Then, there are primitive tribes protected in the Amazon rain forest. Who knows what they did or they do.

A very famous victim of headhunters and cannibals was Michael Rockefeller. Yes, the son of New York Governor and United States Vice president Nelson Rockefeller (also grandson of financier J.D. Rockefeller). In 1961, this entitled and arrogant young fellow thought it was a good idea to check out the natives in West Papua and see if he could collect (steal) some of their art for his museum.

That didn’t turn out so well for Rockefeller III. Here’s an account from the book Savage Harvest: A Tale of Cannibals, Colonialism, and Michael Rockefeller’s Tragic Quest by Carl Hoffman on what demise fell upon the poor soul:

One of the tribesmen drove a spear into Michael Rockefeller’s ribs as the young man was swimming for his life. After being beheaded, his head was scalped, cut across the face from the root of the nose to the nape of his neck. His ribs were broken with an ax, his sternum ripped out, his arms and legs cut off, and entrails pulled out. Some of them were eaten straight away. The others cooked individually. A big feast for the tribe started with chanting. Then the tribesmen had sex with each other, shared their wives, and drank their urine. Afterward, they spread Michael’s blood all over their bodies and danced wildly like possessed.  

No, thank you.

I’m sure there’s a psychology behind taking heads and cooking humans. From what I’ve read while researching this piece is that, historically, these acts came down to animism. That’s the belief that everything has a soul or spiritual power. It seems the act of beheading a foe is to take the power stored in that being and transferring to one’s self.

And, I’m certain that ritualistic cannibalism wasn’t necessary for subsistence. You probably heard the story of the Andes aircraft crash where survivors resorted to cannibalism so they could stay alive. No, ritualistic cannibalism wasn’t about protein fulfillment. It, too, must have been some sort of power trip.

Part of my brief research into this not-for-all topic was finding an article titled Fiji: Still the Cannibal Island. It was written in 2014 by Tanja Laden who purports to have interviewed a modern-day cannibal on the island of Taveuni. Here’s an excerpt:

Rapuga and I sat down to discuss how cannibalism first became a ritualized practice in Fiji when European settlers arrived in the 19th century. He told me Fijians would eat people from other “races” to protect their property and as a form of revenge. When hunting down and eating their enemies, locals used a stone ax (matau vatu) and a spear (moto), along with an eye-gauger (totokia) and a sea (pronounced say-ah), which was like a brain-smasher. Then they’d eat their victims with a special cannibal fork called an ai cula ni bokola.

After Fijians killed their enemy, they’d drink the blood in order to become more powerful, because, as Rapuga noted, “the blood runs through the entire body.” The corpse would then be divided into portions, with the chief eating the heart and brain because everyone believed he’d literally “absorb” his enemy’s knowledge and courage. Next, a village priest would perform a ritual to one of the gods and the tribe would gather for a big celebration under the moonlight, dancing with their spears around a bonfire while the feast was cooking.

I asked Rapuga how humans tasted, and whether cannibals would serve the meat with any side dishes like vegetables. He said humans tasted like pork but sweeter, and that they’d cook the meat in an earth oven and serve it with breadfruit and yams.

Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know. But, it makes for an interesting story. It also jives with conclusions on the National Geographic Special.

So, if headhunters and cannibals still exist, who are the usual suspects? There’s a lot of information on the net that I tapped into. This material is not from personal experience, and I had no intention of making a field trip to find out. Here is another excerpt. It’s from from The Last Cannibals (5 Tribes With Dreadful Headhunting History) which sums up the situation far better than what I can write:

DANI TRIBE — “THE DEAD BIRDS”

The Central Highlands of West Papua is home to the Dani people who had been waiting a long time to be discovered. They live in so-called “honai honai”, tiny mushroom-shaped huts made out of thatch and reeds and they are hunters. Men spend most of the time preparing primitive weapons, hunting and treating resulting injuries while women look after the youngsters, grow sweet potatoes and tobacco.

Like most of the ethnic groups in New Guinea, Dani tribe lives in its own world full of odd rites and rituals. A big part of funeral ceremonies is finger amputation of the female members for each death in a family or multiple pig slaughtering during celebrations to show the success of the community. Pig feasts and cooking rituals are a big part of every important event when several pigs are killed using a bow and arrow, portioned, wrapped in a banana leaf, and traditionally cooked in the earth oven together with potatoes and cassava.

Small-scale warfare between villages is integral to traditional Dani culture. The emphasis in battle is to insult the enemy and wound or kill token victims, as opposed to capturing territory or property or vanquishing the enemy village. Afterward, their remains are kept for a big feast, weapons are decorated with the ornaments made out of the victim`s body and trophies such as the skull, bones, and hair are displayed in the most respected part of the village.

YALI TRIBE — “THE DWARF WARRIORS”

Sharing the territory of Baliem Valley with Dani people, less-visited Yali subgroup, only discovered in the early 60s, is known as a “tribe of dwarfs” due to their short height (150 cm on average). The access to these villages is somehow limited, not only because of their altitude of about 2,500 m but also the fact that the only way how to reach these settlements is a several-day trek through thick vegetation and rugged, steep mountains of Jayawijaya.

Similarly to the Dani tribe, the Yali walk around rather naked, men solely protect the most important part – their penis, using a tube-like gourd, called “koteka”, and topless women only wearing a skirt made out of grass and other natural material. Pigs are considered to bring wealth and they are only eaten on special occasions.  It is quite a spectacle to see the indigenous women cuddling the snorting animals before they kill them and steam the meat on hot rocks.

The Yali were also ill-famed hunters and reputed cannibals, once used to eat the flesh and brain of their enemies while still warm, grind the bones to dust and throw it into the deep valley to prevent them from returning.  The region is so remote and inaccessible that even the neighboring ethnic groups rarely used to get in contact with each other. That resulted in a different development of each individual language, so the minorities of this territory often do not even understand each other.

ASMAT TRIBE — “THE HEADHUNTERS”

The tidal swampland of West Papua`s southern coast is some of the least accessible parts of the world. This is the domain of the Asmat tribe famous for their spectacular wood carvings, considered to be among the world’s finest, but more importantly for being the legendary Head Hunters.

Once, in the time of war, they ate brains of their enemies mixed with sago worms – that all served on the halved skull. Afterward, they cleaned it and used it as a pillow to evoke respect and fear. They did not kill for food or not even the skull as a trophy but they worshipped the skull as a sacred object and it was believed to have special powers.

After the skull was stripped of the soft parts, e.g. brain, eyes, and skin the nasal nostrils were closed to prevent the evil spirits to enter the household were the decorated skulls were displayed. The Asmat warriors and their children would inhabit the names of enemies they had killed.

KOROWAI TRIBE — “THE TREE PEOPLE”

The Korowai are neighbors of the Asmat, occupying the inland territory of Yaniruma, near Senga and Dairam rivers. These tribes live in the tree houses built up to 30-50 m above the ground, in the rainforest clearings of the deep southern jungles.

This ethnic group is to be one of the most isolated ones and believed to continue practicing rites related to cannibalism still today. The difficult access did not allow the missionaries during the Dutch colonial period to come to these areas so they could civilize the Korowai people. Those few who made it to the outlying villages were eaten or driven away.

The Korowai are quite a fascinating subgroup and they are often called “Bedouins of Jungle” for their continuous moving from place to place in order to find food and hunt for crocodiles. They build and move their treehouses on a regular basis which makes very hard for scientists to study them. Except for a nutshell covering their penises men do not wear clothes. Women only use a basic skirt made out of sago leaves.

KOMBAI TRIBE — “THE ENDO-CANNIBALS”

The Kombai tribe is another “tree” community building their homes high in the canopy. They live in clans along the Buzza River. The closest relatives to the Korowai, they have a very similar cultural background. Men wear a hornbill head instead of the gourd and a bird beak used as a protection for their genitals. Women are traditionally in charge of making sago – the starch obtained from the sago palm tree. Pigs serve as a currency and they are sacred animals that get only sacrificed on a special occasion and cooked on the traditional earth-oven.

The people of Kombai still strictly hold on their ancient animist beliefs. Leadership structures are based on the quality of a strong man – and that has to be proven by their hunting skills. The Kombai used to kill their enemies for their organs and blood which were eaten and the bodies were stuffed with leaves and grass.

The Kombai  are associated with endo-cannibalism – a ritual cannibalism within the same community. In the belief of gaining some of the qualities of the beloved person, family members would kill and eat internal organs and drink the blood of their own relatives. Totemism, black magic, witchcraft, and sorcery are an important part of their cultural heritage.

*   *   *

Although these five Oceanic tribes do exist and walk among us, I couldn’t find any proof that they still practice headhunting and cannibalism today. Even National Geographic couldn’t make that finding. However, the practice was certainly active in 1951 when Doctor Willem Vesser traveled with Papuan New Guinea people and witnessed firsthand what went on in their world. Here’s an excerpt from a paper titled Headhunting on the South Coast by Dr. Vesser with actual photos from the paper:

The Papuan is still a traditional savage, a cannibal who headhunts and lives in constant fear. Fear of their own kind and fear of evil spirits. An individual cannot be sure of his life from one moment to the next and there are all sorts of primitive rituals to ward off the unknown. 

A head-hunting trip is usually a cowardly attack. The enemy village is surrounded at night.  All possible escape routes are cut off, and around sunrise it is time to attack. Bamboo trumpets wake the victims who are initially paralyzed with fear and who then take off in an attempt to find shelter. But mostly they end up running straight into the head hunters’ lair. Especially the women and children are easy victims. The captives are killed off brutally. And then the ritual slaughter commences. The muscles and tendons of the neck are cut through with a bamboo knife. The spine is rotated and crunched. The torso is cut open on each side. After removing the intestines, the arms and legs are severed and loaded onto the prauwen (canoes).

The women await in the village. From afar, they can ascertain that the trip has been a success. The meat is roasted and eaten. A hole is made in the skull with a special chisel and both the brains and the jaws are removed. The tongue is also roasted and eaten. There is drumming and dancing, the party continues until sunrise. The monotonous singing can be heard far and wide. Nightfall in the jungle closes in on the dancing barbarians. The song of chirping crickets reaches a crescendo and merges with the drone of male voices: A primeval melody from the Stone Age.

All this sounds very savage, indeed. I have no doubt that Dr. Vesser’s account is true and that this actually happened seventy years ago. But, what about today? In 2020? Do headhunting cannibals still exist?

National Geographic’s conclusion was yes and no. They located and interviewed elders who claimed to have participated in these rituals back in their youth. They admitted to severing heads and eating human remains. But, the elders said this no longer takes place.

That makes sense. It also makes it much safer, now, in traveling to exotic places like the jungles of New Guinea, Fiji, Borneo, and the Solomon Islands. Let me know how you make out if you go.

A FREEDOM LESSON TO REMEMBER

A3November 11th is Remembrance Day in Commonwealth countries—Veterans Day in the United States. The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is observed, not just to reflect on the time in 1918 when armistice was signed to end the First World War, but to honor sacrifices made by so many military personnel—ensuring the survival of democracy. This story from a little classroom teaches you an eye-opening lesson about freedom that you’ll never forget.

A1Martha Cothren is a social studies teacher at Joe T. Robinson High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. On the first day of school in September of 2005, Ms. Cothren did something to be remembered. With permission from the principal and school superintendent, she removed all the desks in her classroom.

When the first-period kids entered the room, they were shocked to find no desks.

“Ms. Cothren, where’s our desks?”

She replied, “You can’t have a desk until you tell me how you earn the right to sit at a desk.”

They answered, “Well, maybe it’s our grades.”

“No,” she said.

“Maybe it’s our behavior.”

She told them, “No, it’s not even your behavior.”

A2And so, they came and went. The first period. Second period. Third period. Still no desks in the classroom. Kids called their parents to tell them what was happening and by early afternoon a television news crew gathered to report about this crazy school teacher who’d taken all the desks out of her room.

The day’s final period arrived and, as puzzled students found seats on the floor of the desk-less classroom, Martha Cothren said, “Throughout the day, no one’s been able to tell me just what he or she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I’m going to tell you.”

Martha Cothren went over and opened her classroom door.

A6Twenty-seven Veterans, all in uniform, walked into that classroom—each carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the desks in rows, then walked over and stood against the wall. By the time the last soldier placed the final desk, those kids started to understand—perhaps for the first time in their lives—just how the right to sit at their desks had been earned.

Martha said, “You didn’t earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. They went halfway around the world, giving up their education and interrupting their careers and families so you could have the freedom you have. Now, it’s up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don’t ever forget it.”

I think Martha Cothren taught us all a lesson about freedom in that Little Rock classroom. And I think her lesson needs to be shared.

A13Over my six decades of enjoying freedom, I’ve attended every Remembrance Day ceremony as far back as I can remember—two of those decades marching in the parade wearing the red serge uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

But I didn’t earn the freedom to march in my police uniform. That was earned by people like my father, Alan Rodgers, a World War Two air-gunner who served in a Lancaster bomber crew flying over Nazi Germany, and my mother, Lillian (Wegenast) Rodgers, who proudly served in an equally-important uniform as a Royal Canadian Air Force air traffic controller.

Alan JumpAnd today, I proudly watch as my twenty-five-year-old son (yes, also Alan Rodgers) marches in the uniform of the Canadian Army, with his earned paratrooper jump wings.

I proudly wore a peace officer uniform for a lot of years, but what I did in helping to maintain local law and order was nothing—absolutely nothing—compared to what Veterans of the Great War, World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan did for our society.

And now we have ISIL/ISIS to face. Selfishly, I hope my son never has to use the skills he’s been taught. Alan’s skills are to employ the harsh tools of war needed to protect our freedom.

Freedom is not free. It’s earned at a tremendous cost. Many paid the ultimate price to give us freedom—like the freedom Martha Cothren had to educate her kids in that desk-less classroom.

Lest we forget.