William Schnell wrote:
>OK, I'll make it simple.
>They began to eat cooked meat because they Believed that there was no other
>choice.
>
To be honest, "developed" people started thinking around 5000 years ago
that eating bloody meat was a sign of barbarism. Hence the Jewish
tradition (and Islamic later on) to drain all blood from the meat.
Is it possible that, without looking at religion please, people tried to
differentiate themselves from their neighbours by cooking foods?
I know that in the middle-east it is considered uncivilised to eat raw
meats as in most western countries. Not strange because our culture is
Judaic, Christian, Muslim based and has the same set of values.
Africa has it's fair share of cooking as well. I remember clearly a
documentary of a pygmee-tribe where one of the children caught a mouse
and it was roasted in the fire. When I was in Botswana last april I saw
indigenous people eating cooked foods only. Apart from fruits etc ofcourse
This however says nothing about the way they may have eaten a 1000
years ago for instance. Although there was a lot of contact between the
south of Africa in those days already with the middle-east. In a
museum in victoria falls, Zimbabwe, I saw traditional clothing that was
a few hundred years old with beautiful beadwork. The curator told me
that they came from as far as India my means of the middle-east where
there was contact a long time ago.
So there is no telling when or where and why exactly men started cooking
their food in Africa. Yes I know there is evidence of fires and roasted
bones that goes way back but I mean as a general rule.
The Inuit however, as suggested by someone here this week, did not eat
cooked food all the time. It is a common mistake to think they would
eat what was cooked on their lamps only. For anyone interested, there
is a wonderful book by Peter Freuchen called My life amongst the
Eskimo's. In translation that is the title because I have the book in
Dutch.
He does not only describe how life was but also gives a good picture of
the way food was prepared. Like frozen raw meats that were hardly
de-frosted before consuming. Eggs that were eaten raw immediatley after
finding them with the little birds inside, giving a nice wriggling
feeling. Don't bite my head off, I only quote the book now. Rotten
Narwal that was in the sack of it's own skin and eaten when it turned
green (talk about a healthy gut-flora here eh?).
So eating cooked food might be a sign of distincting your self from the
"others" which is something humankind has been trying ever since we got
out of the trees (my opinion, not proven scientifically). The way we
dress, speak, adorn ourselves, it is all a cultural signal saying, This
is my identity. So why not when it comes to food?
I've seen women squarrel over the right way to bake an applepie or what
should be in couscous...
White bread was considered a luxury only rich people could afford so
seen as a statussymbol. The same goes for white rice which caused a
wave of beri-beri in Japan early 20th century (is the date correct
fellowlister who lives in Japan?).
We know certain foods were better digestable when cooked like grains.
Those eating grains could stay in one place and feed more children (see
Lights Out). They may have been more succesfull when it comes to sheer
numbers and could easily have been victorious over nomading tribes.
Their way of life could have set the norm just by them surviving times
of famine. The fact that men started cooking food a long time before
agriculture started does not contradict this. It could have been a way
to eat spoiled meat easier for those with a weaker immune system,
elders without teeth etc.
So saying you cooked your meats was like saying you take care of the
weak and are more 'civilised'.
And actually I see some of our little quarrels or disputes on the list
the same way. My way is right so you must be wrong ;-))
As she said with a sweet smile meaning no harm to anyone who begs to
differ...
Christy
|
