I can't help it but I do not trust many of the told events here. Some of the events have as much twists and turns as a childish cartoon show. I can understand people killing for revenge but someone finding reason for revenge because a toddler took a piece of meat to eat and that led to a dead dog just seems so insane to me. Insane because these same people are capable of hunting, socializing and crafting stuff which definetely require intelligence. Yet the leaps of logic and reason they make to put the blame on someone to exact revenge on are enormous. Maybe it is all true but I cannot comprehend it.

From Internet Archive:

Yanoáma: The Story of Helena Valero, a Girl Kidnapped by Amazonian Indians as told to Ettore Biocca (1996, translated from the Italian by Dennis Rhodes)

https://archive.org/details/yanoamastoryofhe0000vale/mode/1u...

> The scarcest resource [in primitive society] wasn't food. It was protection.

Interesting meta-claim.

>Her insights into a primitive (sic) society is worth more than that of the vast majority of anthropologists, for one simple reason: Helena was there for real, as a member of those societies. She didn't only study stone age life. She lived it.

This reminded me of Zora Neale Hurston, who had taken a similar approach when studying the history and practice of voodoo in Haiti and Jamaica.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/claimin...