Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PuppetMasteX

Absinthiana knowledge request

Recommended Posts

Strange by one standard, logic by the next. The Japanese look at the eurpeans with disgust thinking they eat lobster and crayfish, considering they are animals eating dead, making them not "pure".

 

As you know, in some cultures these strange two feeted creatures known as "Homo Sapiens" were considered the feast of the day among their own kind. Today people sharing their perspective often end up in a 10 by 10 feet accomodation, hospitality of the goverment :devil: Survival of the fittest contra right & wrong.

 

"Mom, I don't like aunt"

"Silence younling, eat"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Japanese, I'm not sure I follow you there. I've always figured seafood by most any kind to be very much Japanese. A quick search confirmed that...

 

osechi7.jpg

(http://www.bento.com/fexp-osechi.html)

 

How about that lobster special... http://www.bento.com/rev/1095.html

 

Either way, eating cats, dogs, squirrels, racoons or whatever animal you seem to think is cute is by most considered wrong. Simply because they're cute and our little cuddly pets. Aren't cows cute? Or sheep? Or how about little Bambi... Awwww... (Yeah, I know Absomphe - don't go there! Ha ha)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok, so I'm provocative on this but there's a valid point in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have adapted our customs but it has not always been so :shock:

 

EDIT: Not all sea food in any way did I refer to, as sushi by no means is something "new" nor seafood in general in, quite the contrary as you state. I meant specifically crayfish and the fact that we "suck" on them the way we do. Lobsters many thought we ate in the same manner.

 

So it is more the WAY it is eaten considering they are "unpure".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you know, in some cultures these strange two feeted creatures known as "Homo Sapiens" were considered the feast of the day among their own kind.

Not so much. Cannabalism, as historically practiced, has invariably been a religious ritual, rather than a food source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the exception of wars, you are correct :P

What wars? How are those exceptions? I've never encountered any exceptions, so if you have a source you could point me at, I'd be very interested. Too my knowledge, there's only one exception to the headhunter/cannibal exclusion, and none for cannabalism as a religious rite. Admittedly, it's been a few years since I've done much reading on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was meant as a joke, although, to some extent wars & "situations" actually are the exceptions.

 

Now remember, I am not trying to prove you wrong as you are quite right, I am merly elaborating :shock:

 

Image the two surviors scenario: You and person Y managed to save yourselves from a sinking ship thanks to the rubber raft. Now, one of you W I L L die eventually, you have no food and salt watter is not all that great for you. Would you eat your friend to live so that you may be rescued? :devil: Som have.

 

War scenario: Your company/battalion/squad/whatever has been annihilated, you lack tools to hunt with little to nothing to around to hunt and you are totally exhausted and you are far behind in unkown enemy land. Around you, you have dead mates, not a pleasant "meal" but you might make it if you allow them to "aid" you. Has happened, as in soldiers eating enemies and dead friends to survive during different not all pleasant situations.

 

There were a few documented cases of canibalism among the crusaders in (as in the region) Jerusalem where the "brave knights" ate muslims in the most cruel ways when cut of from the supply lines.

I flunked a grade essay because including reference to this, when I could provide the source in a history/science magazine and Crusade documentary I got top grade. Unfortunately they were lost when we moved (nearly 10 years ago) so I can not cite them by name, so if you prefer to think of it as jibberish feel free to.

 

During Alexander the great's "failed return" many soldiers ate one and the other I believe. There are most likley numerous failed military campaigns where soldiers ate the foes and friends to live even although I only have heard of a few.

 

These are all exceptions speaking historically, created by a limited number of individuals (:dribble:<---) during a limited timeline. You have to agree, it is not much of a ritual in these cases over the "eating", is it? More like, live or die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't eat people for nourishment. There are no ethnographic examples of eating people for nourishment, historical or otherwise.

 

People will eat people for symbolic reasons and under highly ritualized circumstances--Iroquoi eating the heart of an honorable foe, Aztec Priests chomping down on a freshly cut out heart all in the name of Huitzlapachuli. (Note: I just spelt Huitzlapachuli incorrectly)

 

People will also eat people under instances of extreme stress and starvation--like in Alive, but this also ooccurred on Easter Island and among the Anasazi found in the US southwest, but like 1000 years ago. Perhaps this qualifies as nourishment, but it is never done as a common dietary practice.

 

Word to the wise, if you after have to eat another person, be sure that the brain is fully cooked. You can get a severe and fatal neurological disease if you eat undercooked brain. And you will actually die smiling :) due to the neurological affects. I doubt even absinthe can prevent this inevitability.

 

--your friendly neighborhood anthropologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Word to the wise, if you after have to eat another person, be sure that the brain is fully cooked. You can get a severe and fatal neurological disease if you eat undercooked brain. And you will actually die smiling  :)  due to the neurological affects. I doubt even absinthe can prevent this inevitability. 

This is not a thread on which I would prefer to post. However, I do need to take exception with the above statement. The disease you are referring to is Kuru. Kuru is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) caused by prions (infectious proteins). Because prions are not alive, they cannot be killed by high heat. This is particular problem with another TSE, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD). There are serious problems with iatrogenically-induced CJD caused by medical devices which have been used in brain surgery, gone through full hospital sterilization and remain contaminated with the prions which are then passed to new patients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, it was a joke.  Hence the  :P

 

That's the trouble with so many goths: humour impaired.

Or perhaps you're simply projecting your own lack of humour, since my question was a simple matter of curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We tend to eat our young.
Ever see the movie "Alive?"  yum yum
It's Alive!
That's okay, G&C, I got it.

 

You see guys, "It's Alive" is about a monster baby that eats everybody, thereby reversing the "We tend to eat our young" statement, which was funny following on the "Alive" comment. I liked the milk truck scene.

 

You guys are built too low; the fast ones go right over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was meant as a joke, although, to some extent wars & "situations" actually are the exceptions.

 

Now remember, I am not trying to prove you wrong as you are quite right, I am merly elaborating  :shock:

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, since this is an area i have a weird sort of curiousity about; mostly because of the varous myths surrounding it's practice.

 

I didn't consider your examples exceptions, since they're not customary, but in extremis opportunism. It was you reference to wars that threw me off, since there are other examples of "emergency" cannibalism (Donner party, Brazillian soccer team, etc.); and there have been previous claims of inter-tribal warfare where the victors would typically consume the vanquished, ough this has never been adequately demonstrated to be true.

 

It's always possible that such a thing can exist, however. There was a big controversy in anthropological circles a number of years back concerning a remote people on one of the Maylay/Oceana islands, who engaged in both ritual cannibalism and headhunting, practices which were previously considered to be mutually exclusive. IIRC, they're still the only people who practice both. So there's still the possibility of finding a people who practice customary cannibalism for non-religious purposes; though the likelihood is low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×