That's unlikely.
Or the drawings?
Not sure how counterfactual the drawings are. I don't know enough.
Or pitting one group of humans against another, sort of engaging in attribution error ("They are like this because that is just what their natures make them"?).
We do that on a constant, continual basis. "Must destroy the 1%." Once that's done, there's a new 1%, of course. It's like killing the #2 guy in al-Qaeda. We've also seen that done in a few instances, and eventually it ended in "they came for the 1%, and I said nothing; they came for the 5%, and I said nothing; they came for the top 25% and I said nothing. Then they came for me." The solution isn't less social cohesion and pitting groups against each other, but less. That requires a different mindset.
Or saying that such racist, hateful, factually false articles are in our future?
Except they're not factually false, just embarrassing. Fijians did have a cultural practice of cannibalism, as did some other societies in the area--how it was restricted, when it occurred, I don't know, but it was cultural and not driven by starvation. Kuru is the result of cannibalism. Recently some research looked at how genetic adaptation has selected for resistance to kuru in at least one Papuan tribe, meaning that cannibalism has been practiced there for quite some time. Many cultural relativists in the past denied evidence because they had serious problems adhering to their own principle of cultural relativism--they considered cannibalism to be a horrible, insulting thing, and instead of saying, "Meh, it's their culture, don't judge" it was easier to say, "Cannibalism? How insulting to mention it, we deny it was ever a practice."
The motivation was condescending and racist, to be true--or just sensationalist, not always easy to judge others motivations from afar without falling for attribution errors--but one error doesn't justify another.
= new reply since forum marked as read
