Monday, March 1, 2010

Playing with your food: 1667

This is a continuation of yesterday's post. The philosophers, having bled a sheep until it was faint and given it a blood transfusion from a calf, have noticed the sheep seems strong again:
Then resolving to bleed the Sheep to death, we bound her the second time, and opened the emittent part of the Vein again; whereupon having bled about 60 ounces, she fell into Convulsions; and after the loss of about 5 ounces more, she died upon the place: and being dressed by the Butcher, there did not, in all the usual places, appear above 3 ounces of blood; and the whole Sheep looked a lovely white; and the meat of it (to the taste of those, that eat of it) was very sweet.

The Sheep being dead, we resolved likewise to see the Calf bleed to death...

...about 25 ounces of blood, of a very lovely and vivid colour...
--From Philosophical transactions--

I find it interesting that they call the sheep a "she" instead of an "it", have no problem slaughtering and eating the sheep after curing it, and then comment on the loveliness of the flesh of the sheep and the blood spewing from the calf.

Someone might say: "If you saw an animal being slaughtered you would have a problem eating it." But if everyone around you acted like nothing gross was going on, and you didn't have the idea that it was gross in your head, it wouldn't bother you at all. Thirty years ago I might have made the statement that no one in America would eat raw fish, but now sushi is sold in supermarkets. Has the idea that eating raw fish is gross stopped people from eating it, or encouraged it?

1 comment:

Jennifer said...

I had friends growing up who raised cows, would name and "play" with favorites and later happily eat them. It's entirely conditioning, I agree. Too much Disney and too much distance from reality for the rest of us.