|
Post by Lee on Jan 10, 2010 23:07:56 GMT -1
i think francis kind of sums it up for me, it depends on the animal and our relationship with it. the nameless ovine deity he mentioned is clearly similar to a porcine one of my acquaintance and the eating is all part of the 'contract'.
horses dont really fall into that kind of relationship, they serve other functions as it were.
i wouldnt say those are all taboo as such; incest definately for me but of course not so much in the past. there are numerous cultures from across the world where it was standard practice, also cannibalism - one thing i am deeply curious about trying - ass to the pet, well that an emotional thing.
though cannibalism can strengthened our relationship with our environment, by reinforcing our superiority over others sharing it with us. look at tribal cultures - eating the enemy or even eating the family as a means of honouring the dead relative.
that said a lot of cannibalism is all about getting some extra protein if it is knocking about.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jan 10, 2010 23:13:28 GMT -1
Alas, I can't think of anyone who deserves to be eaten that I'd want to eat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2010 1:52:55 GMT -1
I could go a mouthful if it was ritual cannibalism like some Aboriginal tribes practiced and it was someone I respected. But only if it was a 'when in Rome' thing and the person would have wanted me to eat them, and only a mouthful, any more than that would feel like you're chowing down and that would just be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 11, 2010 8:46:25 GMT -1
i wouldnt say those are all taboo as such; incest definately for me but of course not so much in the past. there are numerous cultures from across the world where it was standard practice, also cannibalism - one thing i am deeply curious about trying - ass to the pet, well that an emotional thing. I'm pretty sure that they are all emotional things... my point would be that all taboos are relative to the cultural worldview that they have evolved within. Can you imagine how most folk would treat you if you became known on the street and at work as the man who had killed his cat/dog and roasted it to see what it was like? Taboo is like language... the only arbiter is the reaction it gets. though cannibalism can strengthened our relationship with our environment, by reinforcing our superiority over others sharing it with us. look at tribal cultures - eating the enemy or even eating the family as a means of honouring the dead relative. that said a lot of cannibalism is all about getting some extra protein if it is knocking about. Again, I have only used cannibalism as a taboo relative to our culture, because I suspect most people would recognise it as such. We pretty much have a societal contract not to eat each other. Interestingly, the taboo against murder is far more conditional. Not all killing, even that classified as murder, places the killer beyond the pale. The point is that a taboo becomes a taboo *relative to the community that holds that taboo* because to break it somehow unmakes or threatens the stability of the society/community and in harsher times, that is a threat to the making of the world itself (where maybe little distinction is made between the natural order of the world and the inherent order of the community). A community consists of contracts... agreements between persons, coalitions. Most of these are unwritten, but they are by no means arbitary. In Judaism, obedience to the law will have been a significant factor in survival I suspect... to eat the flesh of an animal whose hooves were not cloven (horse)... i.e. not kosher... would prove one "beyond the pale" because of one's readiness to act outside of the law. People would have a emotional revulsion response and at best one would find oneself excluded from the other unwritten social contracts That said, I think that there are taboos worth wantonly breaking... taboos that protect privilege and deny opportunity for example, taboos that allow abusers to cover their tracks and continue abusing
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Jan 21, 2010 20:06:11 GMT -1
Coming back to this topic, I just remembered this passage from Caesar's Gallic Wars:
Leporem et gallinam et anserem gustare fas non putant; haec tamen alunt animi voluptatisque causa. They do not think it lawful to eat hares, chickens and geese; however they raise them for amusement and pleasure.
So there we have it, an authentic record of an ancient British food taboo. It's not one that I really fancy following, though: I rather like my coq au vin.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jan 21, 2010 21:03:54 GMT -1
As so often, if we really knew what they had done, we wouldn't want to imitate them.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Jan 21, 2010 21:04:31 GMT -1
And, yeah, chickens, wot a larf!
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Feb 15, 2010 21:12:31 GMT -1
And, yeah, chickens, wot a larf! Did we have chickens here long prior to the roman invasions?
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 15, 2010 21:53:30 GMT -1
Not a clue.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Feb 16, 2010 7:43:41 GMT -1
apparently the Romans introduced them as farm stock, just like rabbits. However, doesn't mean we didn't have them, just that we didn't farm/eat them. (wonder if that applies to eggs too? Surely eggs were staple, at least for hunter/gatherers)
Actually that's one taboo I could easily follow. Don't think I've ever had hare or goose, and I can't remember the last time I had chicken. Partial to bacon though (sorry Lee!)
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Feb 16, 2010 7:48:45 GMT -1
apparently the brown hare was a Roman introduction too (both "Roman" rabbits and hares being the Spanish variety).
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Feb 16, 2010 12:48:34 GMT -1
apparently the Romans introduced them as farm stock, just like rabbits. However, doesn't mean we didn't have them, just that we didn't farm/eat them. That would make sense. One's first instinct isn't neccessarily to eat an exotic animal, after all. Well, I say that, but dodos died out because people's first instinct was to eat them. Being fair, there's sod all else to do with a pig. Besides, there were umpteen deities of cattle among IE cultures, and beef was the most prestigious meat in most of them: the whole pig culture in Britain seems to me to be the same mythological complex transferred to pigs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2010 3:11:53 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by Chad on May 12, 2013 7:24:36 GMT -1
I believe that a certain amount of respect is due to the animal for the sustenance it provides. At that point, I would say it's okay to eat the animal. For me, I am extremely careful as to the source of the meat I purchase. For that reason, since I cannot find pork, beef, or chicken that was humanely raised and not chock full of injected hormones, I do not consume those meats. I don't know how common such issues are in Britain, but in the US, I'm always on high alert for foods that have genetically modified ingredients, (I know you guys banned those) or meat from a factory farm. That means I only have 20% of the food market of foods I'd eat, and only a quarter of the meat market.
Before I stray too far off topic, I think that if the animal is thanked, if there's no proof of such restrictions, eat away!
|
|