Author Topic: In the New Yorker...  (Read 502979 times)

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #700 on: November 11, 2013, 02:22:17 pm »
If you have not yet read Dana Goodyear's Nov. 4 article "Beastly Appetites," I recommend that you not read it over lunch.  :P
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #701 on: November 11, 2013, 08:12:36 pm »
If you have not yet read Dana Goodyear's Nov. 4 article "Beastly Appetites," I recommend that you not read it over lunch.  :P

I haven't. Thanks for the heads up! Is it worth reading away from the table?



Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #702 on: November 11, 2013, 11:23:24 pm »
I haven't. Thanks for the heads up! Is it worth reading away from the table?

Yes, I think so. I found it interesting. It does kind of go all over the place from the international politics of whale fishing to how people in many countries other than the U.S. eat horse meat, but I still found it interesting.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline CellarDweller

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 33,144
  • A city boy's mentality, with a cowboy's soul.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #703 on: November 12, 2013, 08:11:44 pm »
Yes, I think so. I found it interesting. It does kind of go all over the place from the international politics of whale fishing to how people in many countries other than the U.S. eat horse meat, but I still found it interesting.

I often wonder about how different foods become acceptable in one country and not others.

I'm sure people in India are horrified that we eat cow.


Tell him when l come up to him and ask to play the record, l'm gonna say: ''Voulez-vous jouer ce disque?''
'Voulez-vous, will you kiss my dick?'
Will you play my record? One-track mind!

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #704 on: November 12, 2013, 09:47:51 pm »
Jumping ahead to the Nov. 11 issue, I'm being charmed by the article about the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who. I've never seen an episode of Doctor Who, but being generally culturally aware, I have heard of Doctor Who, and I have a general idea about the show. I've even heard of the Daleks, although until I started reading the article, I had no idea what a Dalek was. Or a Tardis. ...  8)
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #705 on: November 12, 2013, 11:54:55 pm »
I often wonder about how different foods become acceptable in one country and not others.

I'm sure people in India are horrified that we eat cow.

I think it has a lot to do with the lifestyles of the ancient people. For example, I have heard that kosher eating forbids eating pork because raising pigs requires staying in one place and the early nomadic Jewish people did not want to be rooted down. And if a social rule morphs into a religious rule, how much more effectively it can be enforced. Not sure how to explain the meat/milk issue, though.

I've always thought Catholics don't eat meat on Friday due to a slaughtering or selling schedule that meant that by Friday the (unrefrigerated) beef would go bad. Maybe fishermen came in late in the week.

As for cows in India, it makes sense that an animal that can provide milk, cream, cheese, butter and yogurt might be considered worth more alive than dead. Again, making the animal sacred is a stronger deterrent than just saying it's not fiscally prudent.




Offline CellarDweller

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 33,144
  • A city boy's mentality, with a cowboy's soul.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #706 on: November 13, 2013, 09:12:53 am »
I've always thought Catholics don't eat meat on Friday due to a slaughtering or selling schedule that meant that by Friday the (unrefrigerated) beef would go bad. Maybe fishermen came in late in the week.


I had a friend who told me that the a decree was issued by the church to abstain from meat on Friday in an effort to help the fishing market, but I'm not sure how true that is, I've never researched it myself.


Tell him when l come up to him and ask to play the record, l'm gonna say: ''Voulez-vous jouer ce disque?''
'Voulez-vous, will you kiss my dick?'
Will you play my record? One-track mind!

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #707 on: November 13, 2013, 09:56:46 am »

I had a friend who told me that the a decree was issued by the church to abstain from meat on Friday in an effort to help the fishing market, but I'm not sure how true that is, I've never researched it myself.

That sounds plausible. In any case, that religious food rules would have developed to serve some practical social function, rather than being handed down from God -- makes sense (to me).



Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #708 on: November 13, 2013, 10:22:20 am »
I had a friend who told me that the a decree was issued by the church to abstain from meat on Friday in an effort to help the fishing market, but I'm not sure how true that is, I've never researched it myself.

I've heard that, too, with a slight variation for post-Reformation England: It was to support the fishing industry, because it was from the fishing industry that the navy derived extra sailors needed in time of war.

But that certainly didn't apply to the Mediterranean world of the early first millenium. Perhaps it had something to do with the value of cattle and sheep for other things besides their meat (dairy products, wool), but I don't know where hogs would fit into that scheme. (Muslims also don't eat pork.)

I'm sure the idea of fasting on Friday because it's the day of the Crucifixion must factor into the justification somewhere, but why fish should be considered permissable on a fast day when other forms of animal protein aren't brings us full circle back to the question again, I guess.

The meat/milk prohibition is a puzzle, too, especially when you think of it in terms of not boiling a calf or kid in its mother's milk, but maybe that was originally some twist on not butchering a cow or sheep or goat while it was still good for dairy products. Today farmers send cows to slaughter when they're no longer good milk producers.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #709 on: November 13, 2013, 07:26:06 pm »
The meat/milk prohibition is a puzzle, too, especially when you think of it in terms of not boiling a calf or kid in its mother's milk, but maybe that was originally some twist on not butchering a cow or sheep or goat while it was still good for dairy products. Today farmers send cows to slaughter when they're no longer good milk producers.

Well, that seems logical. If you have a cow and a calf, and you've killed the calf (for meat) and kept the cow (for dairy), then in terms of livestock value you've probably killed the wrong animal. Maybe originally they wanted to encourage people to give up the milk in favor of the meat until the calf was old enough to produce milk. Therefor, keep the two foods separate. Or sumpn' like that.  ???