RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Rene Beresford)
Date:
Fri, 01 Nov 1996 15:53:57 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
Hi Sandy,  (and others of course)
The aborigine people of Australia have a 40.000 year history, but I wouldn't
be surprised if it goes further back than that.  I haven't actually studied
their history, but have had contact with some cultures and been to a very
good aborigine cultural park here in Cairns, from the "Tjapukai" tribe.
They hold a very good 'show' and one of the shows is given in the 'history
theatre'.  Very interesting indeed and, yes, the history shows that animal
products were eaten well before the white man came here.   I don't know
about the 64% issue.
Then, I also lived in New Zealand for over 20 years and the Maoris had their
'hangis'  before the white man came.  It may be true that also the original
American Indians were hunting the bisons.  The original eskimos were meat
eaters for many generations also.  The staple diet of the Japanese was (?)
fish and rice for many generations.
The question then arises, that if these people ate meat, in their so called
primitive time, before the Western world came and took charge,  would that
be a proof that flesh eating is part of the human diet?
Although some may not agree, there seems to be plenty of evidence that our
biological make up, our physiology and anatomy points to the human race
being frugivores.  This is not a fanatical, biased statement. I have in
front of me the book from Arshavir Ter Hovannessian (Aterhov) and this great
raw fooder advocate, on pages 24 & 25, states that:  "the basic principles
of nutrition no longer remain confined to universities and research
institutes". He then describes matters of scientific names and complicated
formulae, saying: "nutritive properties (of foodstuffs)  and supposed
benefits can be summed up in three words only, RAW VEGETABLE FOODS".  Then:
"Thus raw eating becomes an ideal apart from the science of medicine, an
ideal that is explainable not by scientific formulae, but by logic, it's
proof being the irrefutable laws of nature and the basic results obtained
from basic experiments".   I tend to agree with this.   Also Arthur M.
Baker, in his book "Awakening the Self Healing Body" writes about our
biological make up is  frugivores and quotes Scientific evidence from Dr.
Alan Walker, anthropologists. (I may have mentioned this in an earlier
e-mail).  The Life Science/natural hygiene course, initially made up by
Herbert Shelton, devotes lesson 32 "Why we should not eat meat" and quotes a
bibliography of 17 writers and some societies on which the lessons have been
based.  (including Carrington, Kulvinskas, Shelton, Szekely).
Of course, there are always other points brought out by other scientists.
My own, near to 9 years experience with the Network tells me that there are
many young ones who just love to eat fruit.  I am not saying that we
therefore MUST live on fruit or that fruit is THE diet for mankind, I have
never yet heard of a young one that loves to eat undenatured animal foods.
I feel that we may not become too much bogged down in scientific matters, as
soon as one scientific evidence is found, there is always another one
refuting the last evidence, it has gone on like this for ages.  I am
inclined to accept the philosophy of Aterhov, also going by what others have
written about logic and "guts feelings" about a raw vegan/fruit diet and
inclusive of my own experience, observations and communications with
hundreds of people over the years.
Of course, I agree that this topic may not become a battle of right or
wrong, but maybe we can accept the facts that "primitive people" ate meat
AND cooked, before the Western world came upon them. Where they healthy
people?  I assume that they adapted to their environment and circumstances
and it may well be that, indeed, they were different, as we all are
different and have different needs.  I say "go by what your heart says",
what 'feels' good to you and for your health, not just concetrating on the
physical side, but on the mental and spiritual side as well.  Maybe that's
the reason why the 'primitives' were still healthy?      Thank you Sandy &
others for this opportunity,I trust it has helped somehow.  One day indeed,
the "puzzle" will fall into place.  Rene.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2