rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/16/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-263900:uokvax:2700007:000:1073 uokvax!rigney Nov 14 20:12:00 1983 ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The old fable that pork was forbidden to prevent trichinosis is completely false on closer examination. Give the ancients some credit - they knew very well that eating certain foods raw led to disease; this wouldn't lead to a ban on pork, just a ban on raw pork. And a commandment not to eat raw pork is no harder to remember than one not to eat pork at all, especially since there are a number of other foods listed as taboo (I believe the list is in Leviticus). Pork was the most significant of these; many of the others were never significant food sources anyway. I didn't give Marvin Harris's explanation for two reasons: 1) I wasn't sure I could do it justice in an abbreviated form. The ideas are very simple, but are liable to be brushed aside unless proper background is laid. 2) His books are well worth reading in their entirety. By not extracting random bits out of context I hoped (in vain perhaps) to intrigue a few netters into reading them. Anyway, the correct explanation follows in the next comment. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/16/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-263900:uokvax:2700010:000:1700 uokvax!rigney Nov 14 20:24:00 1983 But here goes anyway. See the books for a further description, especially if you think you see any flaws in the reasoning. Any such are due to the brevity of my treatment or the failure of my memory. Pigs are forest animals. They don't sweat, and therefore have great difficulty living in grassy, open areas; this is why pigs spend much of their time in water (or mud) if there's no forest, they're trying to keep cool. In a forest environment, pigs are excellent food animals. Pork is very high in food value, and very tasty as well. In most cultures it is coveted. But when the Middle East changed from a forested region to a grassy one (Man's influence, I believe - The book goes into why), it was no longer economical to raise pigs, they were no longer an efficient source of protein, but people still desired pig-flesh (A much better term than pork, no?). So the strictures against pork were levied to prevent anyone from wasting resources in raising a non-efficient protein source. Again, this has been grossly simplified. PLEASE read the book or think very deeply before responding with comments like "how did people know what was efficient" or "But I always thought pork was forbidden because it was a dirty animal" or similar questions that are fully covered by the books. Both CANNIBALS & KINGS and COWS, PIGS, WARS, & WITCHES are available cheaply in paperback, I cannot recommend them strongly enough to anyone interested in the human condition. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney P.S. Those who disagree with Harris's theories are free to present their own, but don't forget to also explain why certain South Pacific Island cultures adore their pigs instead of abhorring them.
judd@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/18/83)
. Quoting from memory of a converstion w/ a jewish friend of mine: The jews were a minority population at the time (pre conquest of israel) and needed to keep together. So the political leaders (rabbi's et al) formulated various rules that would make jewish lifestyle significantly different from others and so require all jews to live in clusters to get things done efficiently. Also these rules made jews appear very different to non-jews. Since the political leaders (and followers) were not fools it made sence to formulate usefull rules. Hence meat must be buchered in particular way so had to be fresh.... Other rules were addedd as time passed not all of which were necissarily as sensible as originals. Once president established (thats pressident as in legal) it was easy to enhance coehesivness of jewish minority by adding arbitrary rules. <oo> Judd rogers -- (judd@umcp-cs)