Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:01:08 +0200 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Amadeus wrote:
>Many would never eat a dog or horse or cat - any pet animals - but
>they don't hesitate do munch calves or pigs. Where is the difference?
>Similar for insects, maggots, worms.
>The real wildlive hunter/gatherers are *not* concerned with that, are
>they?
There have been some interesting discussions on this within
anthropology. One theory is that meat-eating follows the same sexual
taboos as kinship. Animals that are close (pets) are treated as
siblings - not to be eaten. Animals that are farther out, but within
human control (tame animals) are treated as cousins. They can be
eaten, but only following certain rules - males eaten before sexual
maturity or de-sexualised for example (in many cultures cousins are ok
to play around with, but not to marry). Farthest out are wild animals,
treated as un-related persons. Here fullgrown, virile males can be
eaten.
Animal swear words follow in many cultures the same pattern. Naming an
animal close (bitch) is more insulting than a tame animal (cow, pig)
and not insulting at all is naming a wild animal (lion, moose).
In a H/G culture all animals would be perceived as wild (unless their
religion made them kin with a particular animal - note too, how there
are then rituals around eating this animal).
Sometimes I think about this myself. Do I feel close kinship with the
animal I don't want to eat? Is it really my brother or sister or am I
projecting lack of close family onto the animal? It is an interesting
perspective.
Cecilia in Sweden
|
|
|