Misused: Im A Humanitarian

There is something about this trope that is ticking me off. From the description, I can take that this trope is about cannibalism, that is, members of a particular species consuming a member of their own species. It usually applies to humans, but can apply to other humanoid or fully intelligent creatures.

However, some of the examples here and, more worryingly, in assorted work and character pages don't seem to concur with the definition. One example of this lack of concurrence could be Baba Yaga, from the Quest For Glory series, who is said to like eating humans. The trope I'm a Humanitarian is shown in her folder, but Baba Yaga is an ogre, and therefore not human. Therefore she's not a cannibal, rather, she an anthropophagist. There are some other examples like this one scattered over lots of work pages around the wiki.

If I am overthinking about this, please let me know, but I think that we should amass an editing brigade to correct this misuse.

It's fine. No need to take "cannibalism" completely literally.

From what I understand, it's more about eating humans in general, rather than humans cannibalizing each other.

While we're at it, I have a question:

Are non-humanoid creatures or animals included?

Seems to be, at least insofar as Talking Animals are concerned. Basically the idea is that anything that's willing to eat something we think of as a character is monstrous.

edited 12th May '12 4:26:18 PM by Clarste

Ah, I understand better now, thanks!

Do we modify the trope so it says "species, ie humans, eats another of its own species"? The name needs to be changed to suit that, but it covers other species doing the same thing.

Trope names needn't be absolutely precise. The baseline usage of the trope involves Human cannibalism, so a name that only applies to Human cannibalism is only problematic if it results in consistent misuse. I don't think a few borderline examples involving non-Human characters really requires a rename.

Also, while Baba Yaga is called an ogre several times in the Quest For Glory series, the term is never used for anything else in that setting IIRC, so it's unclear whether she's meant to be strictly a separate species. The wikipedia page on the figure from Slavic folklore doesn't seem to mention one way or the other either.

Both the name and the description suggest that it's about eating humans—not necessarily cannibalism, per se. Tropes Are Flexible, so I think it can probably stretch to, say Elfitarianism or Vulcanitarianism. I think it's a fine, broad trope.

I wouldn't put examples of dog-eats-dog here (which is cannibalism), but if can broadly be described as person-eats-person, I think it fits.

Okay, I guess that I am indeed overthinking it, and there's no problem.

In that case, I haven't said anything. Please disregard this.

Baba Yaga from myth is human. Baba Yaga from QFG is not, her appearance makes that clear. Basically, QFG is full of odd races, and anything that doesn't fully look like a human simply isn't one.

Sentient being eats sentitent being?

First up, is this supposed to be just cannibalism, eating one's own species? Or just anthropophagy, eating humans in particular? Or just human cannibalism? Or is it any "sentient being eats sentient being"? The description isn't quite clear, and the laconic doesn't seem to match up.

I'm of the opinion that the primary focus is just "the consumption of humans". Be it cannibalism or just some fantastic species or creature that just finds humans delicious, as long as a human being is being treated as something to be eaten, this trope applies.

edited 13th May '12 11:08:04 AM by SeanMurrayI

From what I get, it is about cannibalism, eating your own species no matter what it is. Anthropophagism, man-eating monsters in particular, is handled by To Serve Man, a different trope, altogether.

I like "sentient being eats sentient being".

edit: well, that looks silly with caps

edited 13th May '12 11:10:09 AM by Mazz

Well, it shouldn't. Interpreting the page quote (and, generally, all context of the word "humanitarian" on the page), it only suggests that a "humanitarian" is one who eats humans; it does not suggest in and of itself that the "humanitarian" must be a human, as well.

edited 13th May '12 11:11:17 AM by SeanMurrayI

Title is a pun on "humanitarian", probably based off that joke about vegetarians.

Carnivore Confusion tends to be the animal equivalent.

Indeed. That's probably the reason there seems to be some confusion among the wicks and the examples in the page. They don't seem to agree to the actual meaning, and even the description is all over the place.

My idea was to make the trope focus on cannibalism, 'intelligent being eating one of its own species', while keeping the 'eating humans precisely' definition for To Serve Man.

edited 13th May '12 11:16:36 AM by Sachiko

In the case of To Serve Man, the Trope Namer at least was about aliens eating humans, not humans eating humans. So it isn't a strictly super/subtrope relationship, but a Sister Trope.

Non-Human Cannablism? Covers all non-human examples.

I think this works fine as a supertrope of To Serve Man. This is about eating humans. That's about non-humans eating humans. I think we can probably leave near-humans in this one (say, elves, but not demons or aliens). Non-human cannibalism should probably be a sister trope, but it needs YKTTW'd. Sapient creatures eating other sapient creatures would be the missing supertrope of this one, and would partially overlap with—but not be a supertrope of—the non-human cannibalism one, which would also include non-sapients (dog-eat-dog).

Clocking due to lack of activity.

Locking.