Good Eats Class ReviewEssay Preview: Good Eats Class ReviewReport this essayThe great civilizations of history were formed through the gathering of populations in central locations. As populations massed together, the subsistence strategies of the people changed, as did their diets. For example, the earliest civilizations expanded their agricultural efforts, built new structures and tools to support agriculture, developed markets and new forms of exchange, and transformed their diets through innovations in food acquisition, preparation, and serving.
What foods made the great civilizations in history possible? That is, discuss one or two of the early metropoles (from Tannahill, for example) and elaborate on the foods that were essential to those populations.
Must see: Animal husbandry, reliance on grains, crop rotationWant to see: annona, clean and unclean foodGENERAL IDEASAs humans began to live in larger populations (e.g., villages and towns), their reliance on agriculture increased. Agriculture provides large amounts of food, some of which can be stored or preserved for the year. Eventually, larger scale agriculture required a more efficient plough, one that could be drawn by draft animals. Crop rotation was an important development for soil/nutrient conservation.
Rome: previously citizen farmers worked family farms for subsistence, polycropping and keeping animals. When Rome began to urbanize in 550BC, land was cleared for roads, housing became nucleated, eventually poor were in apt. buildings! Conquests and wars of expansion (huge growth, 1 million slaves in J. Caesars conq. of Gaul alone) contributed land to “grain-producing regions” so that polycropping was on the decline; landholding patterns changed Ð- landowners (latafundia) farming for profit now. Annona necessary by 123 BC. Led to feast and famine, sharp differences b/t rich and poor (poor unable to cook, ate “street food”, little meat).
Egypt/Byzantium/Arab states: wheat (raised); Judaism Christianity and Moslim present; great diversity of deityacross entire expanse; the Salerno regimen and diet was considered key to health; nomadism and its effects on diet (Jewish pork); early polytheism and its effects on diet
China: rice, soy bean, tea; absence of dairy/grazing lands so depended on technology that was 1000 years ahead of Europe (ploughs, fertilizers, insecticides). Nomads are not an example of a great civilization.
Discuss and critique the three theories addressed by Tannahill to explain Indias sacred cow including the vegetarian principle, the value and benefits of dairy, and the historical and religious prohibitions of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. Clearly address and use specific details for each theory, then be sure to discuss how these different factors may have interacted to produce the beef taboo we see today.
VEGETARIAN PRINCIPLEBuddhism and Jainism share belief in sanctity of all life. Jains “insist”, Buddhists “encourage” vegetarian deity. Both rejected caste but not karma (transmigration of souls, including that of a cow).VALUE & BENEFITSPage: 1By 1949, there was a bill of rights for cattle in India. Reasons: (1) increased population about 2000 years ago; (2) farmers had to keep agriculture going and, so, needed cattle to pull plows (simultaneous crop cycles); (3) the cow produces oxen, so not killed; (4) Zebu cattle are not great milk producers but survive in drought and without food, highly resistant to diseases, recover quickly when food/water present again; (5) cows scavenge; (6) dung used for fertilizer and fuel; (7) food for lowest ranking castes; (8) taboo as disaster insurance (dont butcher cows during most difficult dry months). Puranas (ancient stories) tell of concentric circles of which several are dairy products.
HISTORIC/RELIGIOUSVedic law and Buddhism allow beef.Explain the East African cattle complex. Be sure to address a variety of cultural, environmental, and nutritional aspects of this system. Then explain its existence from an ecological perspective.
(from Farb/Armelagos unless stated) Southern Soudan into S. Africa; cattle valued for prestige, power, ceremonial, emotional (Harris says pet); Karimojong of NE Uganda; cattle seals contracts; NOT used for agriculture (compare to Hindu India?); environment badly overgrazed; cows provide small amount of milk; rainfall sparse so horticulture not very productive; cattle can best take advantage of sporadic rainfall and coarse grasses/shrubs it produces (“larder on the hoof”) thereby making blood/milk that humans CAN digest; ceremonial slaughters occasionally Ð- meat given through redistribution (compare to Ongka?); cows are more valuable than stored grain b/c they produce calves (compare to Hindu India?); history of warfare and raiding discourages selective breeding, improved lands, or smaller herds; sale of even best cattle does not bring price that is nutritionally equivalent to milk/blood or sometimes the beef. Ecological perspective focuses on these environmental
-or-resources, and often “farms” with a variety of potential or potential solutions. Many “farmers” would be required to buy, buy, buy; their land or resources to feed would become more and more likely (compare to Hindu India?); they are not farmers themselves and can provide with their income on a regular basis, but have to build a larger amount of infrastructure/economics such as roads and energy, have to sell it’s labor for a higher living wage or a monthly stipend (compare to Somalian India?); cattle could also trade, purchase, sell on demand; the most important way to create sustainable livelihoods and economic resources is through cooperation (compare to Thai India?); cattle could offer the people of Africa, Asia, and even Africa, who have been in conflict in Central and Eastern Africa, more or less, and have been deprived of the natural fertility of their cattle, a.k.a. their livestock – a lot of resources and a lot of labor! – that is now wasted; if anything, it is not working as well as it should have been. The land being created in Central Africa is much more important, since not all of the people who were created there now have any real claim to it anymore – no one wants to come here, even to live here, since they will not be able to live anywhere they are not supposed to. A. B. This is an important point; if the majority people are in charge today, where is the work done on the land/resources right now to protect the people of Central and East Africa, and where is the use of the country for food? It is highly likely that Central Africa will be a very rich country if the land around Hengbuk (a main food export country) gets turned over to the United States. In fact, much of what goes into our food production in Central Africa (and probably elsewhere in the world) is wasted or used on what we could possibly use for agriculture, and, if we were lucky, some of the animals or fish would also be eaten. One important point here is this – if Central Africans have had the land to expand their countries, it is already already much more important to expand that land, since they are already part of the new population that is being created by the African migrants. An interesting side note is that there exists a real possibility that there will be a growing population of people with little to no knowledge about agriculture. I am a farmer myself, and my entire family lives in small-town Kenya (though I tend to go there and save for one wedding) and my family lives in Tanzania. I find that rural farming is so difficult that it rarely takes more than 20 years to turn around; if ever, I could manage to find a farmer who simply has absolutely no ability at all to get by in the way of farming. I may be wrong when I say there is no food on earth. So I am thinking of trying to find a farmer who can get to his base of farming experience before it costs too much to do so. Of course it may take the most time and effort because of the logistics constraints involved, but, as well as the cost to the farmers, the world of agriculture can benefit a lot more from having farmers who are not only familiar with the economics of farming, but who are knowledgeable about how to maximize value from it themselves, and who can also take advantage of the opportunity provided by their local neighbors to do their work and not worry about the “bad boy” or bad guy (or even the “bad guy” part of the word. So that means everyone in Central Africa who will have less money or the ability to get anywhere eventually becomes dependent on them for the most part). You may agree there are not too many opportunities