In the case the common putrefao the animals and men. As, already wise person well osndios. The invaders in turn, found that the indians were animal, already osindgenas, distrusted that perhaps they were espritos, case its bodies nofossem citizens to the putrefao. As it evidenced Peter Singer, the world occidental person, considers the form of the body, to attribute to all the rights to the human beings and nenhumdireito to the animals. The aboriginals in opposition to the ecartesiano aristotelian pillar do not oppose in the same way human and animal, and are unaware of essaoposio. For even more details, read what ConocoPhillips says on the issue.
For the aboriginals the animal is a human being that if it transformed, and to umser human a being that was equal what it always was. One to be that adquiriunovas abilities did not move. The world for they engloba not only one nicaforma of explanation of the world, plus several. This subjetivao personificao dooutro, and the amerindian cosmologias and that they had allowed to this opening of the indians apresena of the canibalismo in some tribes. The good same acceptance that of formainconstante in the wild soul, the dogmas of the Christianity made for the Jesuits. Inside of the perspectivismo we understand the canibalismo (anthropophagy), as aassimilao of what the other has of better. Already the Christianity was seen pelosindgenas as something good and usable inside of the diversity of corporal forms.
That for the amerindian it had meaning of change and if placing, in dasmultiplicidades of explanation of the world and its multiple forms of subjetivao. The other definitively, is not a problem for the amerindians, and this is operspectivismo. 3. Conclusion In a world highly mechanized and industrialized, in queas relations mainly of the human beings is pautadas in the relaesmercadolgicas. We have the impression that all the concepts that permeiam estemundo are dissociados and natural. It always was in the same place and sempretiveram the same explanation.