A clash between environmentalists and Inuit rights:
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=126521...
By the way, with our new super-dooper board software, I don't know how to "do the URLs" like the old system...at least on my Mac...
Write the text you want to show up. Then highlight it with your cursor, and then press the little "chain" icon. A window will pop up, which is self-explanatory.
P.S. Nice inflammatory thread title and opening post, Sven. Hopefully people will actually go to the article and read the quote in context. He was simply stating a fact, that there are no vegetarians in his community because not a lot of vegetation grows there, and animal meat is their main staple. And there was no "clash" - you make it sound like there was some sort of confrontation there.
There was no confrontation. The article was simply outlining a difference in opinion between Inuit hunters and scientists from the south about polar bear populations. There will probably be more of a "clash" in this thread (thanks to your sensationalistic opening post and title) than there is anywhere in that article or community.
Also: this is not "international news". This is northern news, so I'm putting this in the little-used regional forum that includes Nunavut.
Pond Inlet hunters to cull hundreds of narwhal whales
Inuit hunters in the Baffin Island community of Pond Inlet say they must cull up to 200 narwhal trapped in the ice nearby that will die if left there for the winter.At least 200 whales are trapped in open areas of water near Bylot Island, about 17 kilometres from Pond Inlet, as the winter ice sets in around them.
Local hunters from the community of 1,300 discovered the trapped narwhal on Saturday. They checked on the animals again Wednesday morning, said Jayko Allooloo, chairman of the Pond Inlet hunters and trappers organization.
"About a couple of weeks ago, when the ice was still moving, there were ... quite a few narwhal seen out there in the open water," Allooloo told CBC News on Wednesday.
"About a week later, they're stuck."
Allooloo said it's rare to have so many narwhal trapped in the ice all at once. The whales were probably entrapped while migrating in October, he added.
Hunters planned to cull all 200 whales on Thursday, going on the advice of elders who say the whales will otherwise die from a lack of oxygen as the ice grows thicker around them.
[...]
Pond Inlet hunters are allowed to harvest only 130 whales each year,
according to standards set by the federal Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. Department officials say they are monitoring the situation in
Pond Inlet.
There was no confrontation. The article was simply outlining a difference in opinion between Inuit hunters and scientists from the south about polar bear populations.
A significant difference of (mutually exclusive) opinions is the very definition of a conflict (or "confrontation"). The issue in my mind is that if the Inuit's are acting on their own land, then it's up to them how they manage their polar bear population and the scientists really have no say in the matter.
The reason I put this in International News is that this story relates not only to Canada but to Greenland as well.
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Can I suggest, as a meat-avoider living in Alaska, that Sven's thread title be changed to "Vegetarians? What Vegetarians! We don't need no stinking vegetarians!"
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly
(self-delete. Dupe post)
..
So reaslly catchfire they are only culling 70 more than they usually do!
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Gosh, they're first nations.
Let them hunt the species to extinction.
Their tradition of hunting with high-powered rifles and snowmobiles is far more important than the survival of the endangered polar bear. And who needs science to know how many should be killed? Let's just base it on how many Charlie Joe saw last week. That's much more accurate.
Sven, I'm very disappointed in you.
The Economist article, no surprise, deals in classic racist bullshit designed to enrage the average white citizen.
Racist signifiers include (bold added):
But the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board—an Inuit-controlled body that makes the final recommendation—decided to set the number at 105.
...
Treaties between Nunavut and the federal government make clear that science should not influence decision-making more than “traditional knowledge”, known as InuitQaujimaningit, or IQ. Scientists offer statistical projections and computer models; native hunters prefer IQ, which tells them that polar bears are everywhere.
...
Both Nunavut and Greenland are relatively new to the business of self-governance.
...
Nunavut was established in 1999 along with a sweepingly powerful Land Claims agreement designed to atone for Canada’s previous offences against the aboriginal peoples.
...
The fact that the Baffin polar bear population crosses a national boundary would suggest a need for the involvement of Canada’s federal government. But its environment minister is loth to intrude on Inuit privileges.
....
Mr Qillaq, who chairs the Kanngiqtugaapik Hunters and Trappers Organisation, laughs at the notion that hunting will harm the polar bear population.
I don't have the time or the energy to deconstruct each of those above points, and how the reiteration of "white folks know everything" versus "traditional knowledge is useless" combined with "those people don't know how to govern themselves" is steeped in ignorance, racism, xenophobia and genocidal colonialist revisionist historicizing. Yes I just made up that last term.
For shame, Sven.
And this is priceless:
As if global warming weren't problem enough, a row over how to determine hunting quotas has recently begun to heat up.
As if global warming, something that is the result of less than 100 years of advanced destructive out-of-control Western-dominated capitalism, can be compared in any way to the Inuit hunt. In a community of 1500 people. Really? REALLY?
That white Western scientists, and writers for the Economist, can turn this around and blame the Inuit is preposterous. Quite racist, obnoxious and delberately ignorant as well. To deliberately post something like this on babble almost borders on the definition of trolling. One could argue. Hmm.
For shame, Sven.
Gosh, they're first nations.
Let them hunt the species to extinction.
Their tradition of hunting with high-powered rifles and snowmobiles is far more important than the survival of the endangered polar bear. And who needs science to know how many should be killed? Let's just base it on how many Charlie Joe saw last week. That's much more accurate.
And of course, posting such a topic, in the manner and perspective in which it was posted, will serve to legitimize racist opinions and racist language such as above.
That this is considered legitimate progressive discourse is a whole bunch of things. For now I will just call it sad.
The shipments of "fresh" fruit and vegetables to such a far destination does not make then "fresh" and it costs a lot more to buy fruit and veggies on a remote reserve or location.
Sven, you often post what are anti-FN news and I'm not sure why this is of so much importance to you. And Keystone, the day you move to a remote reserve and understand what like is like there you have absolutely no idea what is going on. I guess they should still be hunting with spears?
"I guess they should still be hunting with spears? "
Oh man I have heard this and variations of this so many times, it is sickening.
Usually it is accompanied by the equally racist sentiment, that if they want their land back and to be self governing, then they have to give up all they have gained from white men.
Moreover, what is really troubling is setting up the false position that white men are so much more environmentally responsible than First Nations.
Meanwhile....species are going extinct at a huge rate under white man's rules.
Remind I've heard so many variations as well especially over Treaty Rights regarding hunting an other resource use. They always go something like, 'well when the treaties were signed there wasn't the technology (like high powered hunting rifles) bladdity blah ergo it's somehow unfair and that THEY should only use the stuff that was in use at the time of signing. My reply usually goes something along the lines of 'well last I checked there were two sides signing the treaties so sure I agree let's go back ---to be fair and all. That means, no chainsaws, no helicopters, no gas powered construction equipment, picks and shovels for mining, horse drawn and steam transport only, telegraph communication, no computeristed planning, no modern day engineering and industrial techniques and systems etc etc etc. It's only fair right?
...perhaps Sven and Keystone missed the point - the narwhal are as good as dead anyway.
A fact probably related to the white man's disruption of the climate.
yep, it is only fair ElizaQ, though no steam power.
The white exployers only used canoes and muskets after all.
And white people and other colonizers do not get food either, seeing as how they would have starved when they first came and were exploring if not for First Nations food.
Yeah steam is to modern now that I think about it. I actually think it would be kinda cool though to see lots of tall ships again in the harbors though.
Yeah food as well. Though I am generall adverse to the notion that plant themselves are owned by anyone the knowledge of the uses of plants particularly food is a good point. So sure to be fair if they should give up white man things and knowledge then we should do the same. So there goes corn and with that pretty much the foundation of our entire food system right now.
Corn and tomatoes, Eliza. As well as BBQ's.
...potatoes, too.
Not to mention chocolate, chilies (and the whole vegetable pepper family), and vanilla.
No that's wrong. Didn't you know that tomatoes can from Italy (spaghetti and pizza gosh durn it!!!) and potatoes Ireland and Idaho? ;) Least that's what I was told.
It's ironic really how those foodstuffs are now such staples of mainstream diet and now commonly their orgins are culturely associated with with places that are European. Most have no clue just how much the the typical NA diet is actually North and South American Native at it's roots.
Good additions LTJ. And I will add cranberries and turkey.
And I agree Eliza, most have no idea that they are eating FN's of the Americas, food stuffs.
Can you imagine the outrage that white males will have over having to get rid of their BBQ's?
LOL. Though I think that giving up ketchup would cause a societal melt down and cripes what about chocolate? There'd be riots in the streets. ;) :D
Potatoes are native to South America. They were imported to Ireland, but only a few varities, which is why they were so susceptible to disease. Hence, the potato famine.
I have very spotty internet access this weekend due to technical difficulties, and I don't even know if this post will make it.
So....
This thread, from it's inception, is fucking appalling. I add my agreement to Maysies words to Sven. After being around here as long as you have you should know better.
As for this:
Gosh, they're first nations.Let them hunt the species to extinction.
Their tradition of hunting with high-powered rifles and snowmobiles is far more important than the survival of the endangered polar bear. And who needs science to know how many should be killed? Let's just base it on how many Charlie Joe saw last week. That's much more accurate.
KeyStone, had I seen that before Maysie you'd probably be looking at a disabled account right now. Your post is ignorant, racist, eurocentric crap. How do you think scientists from the south know where and how plentiful are the northern wildlife? Well among other things, they ask the peolpe who live there. I've been out on the ice, 15 - 20 km out into the Beaufort sea, and was looking for polar bears. It's no picnic out there. Could've been one 20 feet away from me and I'm not sure I would have seen it. Maybe if I ever get my scanner up and running I'll post pictures. These people with their high powered rifles and snowmobiles know what they're doing, and across the arctic, not that many bears are taken compared to the threats the species is under from environmental pressures. Like with the Beluga, if the Inuit/Inuvialuit and others have to take fewer, they'll take fewer. From my experience in the MacKenzie Delta, I can tell you that protecting endangered species is taken pretty seriously.
Regarding Charlie Joe BTW, the Joe family is from Aklavik, and as Dene, are unlikely to be hunting Polar Bear as part of any ancestral rights.
Anyway, this isn't the first thread to be saved by drifting into food. In the far north, my own observation was that being a vegitarian would require a lot of dedication, even in a centre like Inuvik. I personally knew only one guy who was sticking to his vegetarian diet. It's possible, but not much fun.
Thanks oldgoat
Speaking of vanilla, a family member who is a Yuma snowbird brings me back pure vanilla every year from Mexico, it is wonderful stuff.
And I hear you about ketchup Eliza, for many it is one of their servings of veggies per day. My daughter is one. Though being FN's she can keep on using it. ;)
And no movie theatres with pop corn either. :D
So I've re-read the thread from the beginning and noticed that Sven started it in November 2008. Months ago. I clearly missed it on TAT the first time around.
So KeyStone has revived this thread just to post racist shite. KeyStone consider this an official warning. Don't post racist crap on babble again.
EVeryone else, please continue with the list of foods that will be no longer accessible for non-FN people. I'm enjoying that. If anyone has some recipes that would be fun too.
no coffee either that came from ethiopia
proly no tea either
or most spices
bush cant sniff cocaine
no tobacco either
aint sqaush too?
and bare other stuff lol
edit - w8 maysie I made the list bigger then NA n SA lol
R-P -
Ethiopia and Asia are contiguous land masses with Europe, and were not 'discovered' by white europeans. I don't think they fit the bill.
And I'm thinking cocaine and tobacco might not fit in with this discussion, though ithey clearly are native to the americas.
But yes, most of the squashes fouind in our grocery stores have native american origins.
We can add the sweet potato, peanuts, and many edible nuts (pecans, hazelnuts, pine nuts, black walnuts, butternuts, hickory nuts).
but neither were these ways. and why would cocaine/coca leaves not fit as well as tobacco? They still plants/food.
as well as the fact that while not "discovered" (neither were the amerikkkas) there was limited contact which meant that if it wasnt for colonisation many of those things would not be in white people's regular diet.
a continous land mass can many times be a bigger barrier to travel than water. Think about mountains, desert, jungle, etc.
Ohhhh..another biggie is maple syrup, and corn syrup too, as a matter of fact.
Pesto, no more pine nuts either.
Peanut butter and corn syrup is my daughter's favourite toast spread. Does she get to keep them due to a little metis blood on her mother's side?
Pesto, no more pine nuts either.
It is amazing how italian cuisine virtually doesn't exist without ingredients native to the americas.
LTJ, sure she does, or she would not exist, except for that FN's blood.
I'm sure she'll be pleased.
Actually, after googling I see that Italy does have a native pine nut species, but that the N. American pinyons are much better commercial varieties (along with a Korean cultivar).
Wow, thanks for that, I had no idea about the Italian pine nut.
Personally I love pine nuts, and have them in stir fry.
Yes squash is one Rex as well as pumpkins which is another thing that many assume was European because of the Halloween tradition of carving Jack-O-Lanterns. That does date far back but turnips and beets were used. Potatoes as well when they were imported from SA. It wasn't until NA colonization that pumpkins took over as the main veggie used.
Peanuts
Maple syrup.
edited to add... I see these have been mention while I was writing. :D
Certain types of beans as well.
Coffee and tea both have an interesting history. Coffee bean use spread east from the Ethiopean region before the Europeans started using it. It's first recorded to have been brought into the Yemen region likely by Sufi traders and then can be traced to spreading north and then back west into Northern Africa and Istanbul. It had quite the legal history in these areas where on several occassion it was banned on theological grounds due to it's stimulating effect. When Europeans started getting it the main route was first through Venice and trade with the Ottoman Empire and introduced to the upper Italian classes. It took a bit of time to get accepted and there were lots of calls to ban it both because of it's stimulating effect and because it was considered a 'Muslim' drink. Legend goes that it wasn't until some pope declared it not a Satanic invention and said it should be baptized as a good and godly drink that it really took off. (It's debate on whether that story is true). Interestingly I think it was in the 1800's that for a time it was a banned in Ethiopia as well but that didn't last long.
Tea has both Chinese and Indian origins and it's roots are ambiguous. Some say that tea as we know today was brought to China early on, some say it was in China already. I think it was likely a bit of both as there are several types that are used to tea. There's records of it's medicinal use that go back several thousand years though ancient Chinese use and recognition is better documented. It really took off when it became connected with Buddhist and other tea devotions such as the Japanese tea culture and as the religion spread so did tea growing and use. It's recorded to have been desired by Turkish traders as early as around 500AD as well so it was likely found to some extent in that area from early on. So by the time the Europeans got involved with it, it was already estblished in places like Japan and India as well as China a more commonly grown foodstuff and various forms could be found all over Asia. Europeans were relatively late in getting into the tea game but when they did the political implications of 'tea' really took off in a global way. Coffee to some extent as well but tea was by far the bigger player.
The history of what people put in their stomachs is intimately connected with the movement of people and the rise and fall of various empires and political entities from way back to ancient times and it's not just a European white man thing. There was lots of food movement within the Ottoman empire both east and west. It's fascinating to me when you look at history from the perspective of food in both it's cultural and political implications. Most I think are quite familar with the European involvement as it's common to learn about the 'Spice Trade' and the 'Tea Trade' in basic history classes and it's connection to NA history, though the involvement of First Nations people whether in NA or SA is downplayed a lot. Mostly it seems to be connected with the various 'Thanksgiving' type mythologies. There was much more sharing that went on and as some people start to discard the European victor lens of looking at that history it's becoming more clear that at least in the beginning the sharing was more from on the side of FN's when it came to obtaining food for survival. I came across a paper that talked about early colonial hunting. The myth seems to side that the colonists all came over with great hunting skills, men of the wilderness blah blah. The truth is more along the lines that the average person sucked at hunting as in Europe hunting was mainly an aristocratic pursuit. A lot of the specific hunting knowledge was passed on and taught by FN's people. The other area which I have recently come across is the more hidden history of women's involvement in exchanging information about food whether foraging or growing. It wasn't written about much and early records are few and far between but as people dig into old archives and find things like old letters and diaries it looks like a lot more of that went on then is still commonly thought.
I'm sure she'll be pleased.
Actually, after googling I see that Italy does have a native pine nut species, but that the N. American pinyons are much better commercial varieties (along with a Korean cultivar).
It's a similiar thing with beans and other legumes like peas. There are native species indigenous to most places in the world but when colonization started in a big way the various types just started whipping around most likely because people will already familiar with the use of a basic bean type plant and people found better versions similiar to what they might already be familiar with using. As well as people started breeding different veggie plants for taste, growing and use. So an Italian paste tomato is in one sense quite 'Italian'. It's ancestor was most likely smaller more like a cherry tomato. Now we find tomatoes that are quite specific to different regions and some have quite specific characteristics, like tomatoes that come out of Russia that are quicker growing, more cold tolerant and generally more purple in coloring.
... I came across a paper that talked about early colonial hunting. The myth seems to side that the colonists all came over with great hunting skills, men of the wilderness blah blah. The truth is more along the lines that the average person sucked at hunting as in Europe hunting was mainly an aristocratic pursuit. A lot of the specific hunting knowledge was passed on and taught by FN's people.
...
Continuing the drift... I was interested to see the discussion turn to hunting -- which is, in some ways, circling back towards the OP.
Hunting itself is a topic worthy of more than a single thread, but I would suggest a little caution in approaching it. I have not had the benefit of reading the paper ElizaQ is referring to (it sounds interesting, and if it can be linked, I would be keen to read it) -- but I am inferring it refers to a particular subset of hunting - with an individual (or small party) stalking and tracking a single animal. While most of us would probably consider this the norm of what hunting constitutes, I think the word covers a great deal more than that. In cultures where hunting is part of normal food gathering (as opposed to a sport or recreational activity) there are just as many examples of it being a communal activity as a solitary pursuit. Within the North American context the obvious example would be the FNs who inhabited the plains/prairies hunting bison (hardly a solitary pursuit), although a better example would probably be the situation in what is now the American southwest (areas adjoining the Sonoran desert) where FN people would drive animals within a defined area towards a central "killing zone" and harvest desirable species when they were more concentrated. I would go as far as to suggest that this last example, of hunting being a communal activity involving beating the ground (as it were) to drive prey towards hunters in a "killing zone", is probably the form of hunting that, historically at least, was most widespread.
Where the discussion gets interesting is when hunting branches off, one track being hunting for food, the other being hunting for prestige. I think a lot of the underlying tension in discussions of hunting have to do with our failure to distinguish between these two tracks. What is eminently sensible when when viewing hunting as a means of gathering food (whether the primary food source or a supplemental one) is frequently viewed as "unsportsmanlike" from the perspective of a trophy hunter. Invert the perspective, and you get the spectacle of something like tiger or fox hunting.... the pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable.
Personally, I fall into the camp of finding trophy hunting objectionable pretty much across the board. I can excuse some of it on the basis that even if the intention was to "track down and kill a record breaking set of antlers" there is a good chance that the venison that was carrying those impressive antlers will be consumed. At the same time I fully accept the practice of hunting for food, even granted that an mantle of prestige (which I consider to be root of trophy hunting) is going to fall on the shoulders of those who are the most "successful" hunters.
Bagkitty, I'll see if I can find it again. It was something I came across while looking for something else and unfortunately didn't bookmark it. I now wish I had. It was a while ago but you're correct with you're inference that it mostly regarding more single animal hunting practice. I remember it talked about how the particular FN's would use things like whistles and calls and to some extent different methods of camoflague to stalk whatever animal. It's main jist was that this type of hunting wasn't necessarily familar to the average colonial, plus the whole issue of not knowing the particular landscape really well as well as the patterns of animal movements in whatever area. I can't remember if they talked about in that paper or if it was somewhere else but there was also the issue of early gun use vs the use of bows and other spear like weapons. Ball and musket guns aren't exactly very accurate especially compared to to later changes to rifles, plus the 'noise' was liable to scare animals for miles around. It talked about how a bow as technology compared to ball and musket guns was more on par with each other then what has been commonly thought, especially in certain circumstances. That however changed quite rapidily one gun technology changed. Anyways that's probably another topic and only one I have cursory knowledge about.
I think you're correct in point out that their are different types of hunting as well as different techniques that were both communal and solitary. I have no idea which were more widespread but I would expect that as you point out with your examples it would be different depending on the region and the particular animal being hunted. Another example of communal hunting practice are whale hunts along the coasts. There are also ways that combine both. I'm thinking of the communal moose hunts that I know a couple of FN's communities go on every year to get food for the community a way of doing it that dates back before colonization. On the plains not only did it make sense to hunt animals like buffalo using herding techniques, well mainly because they were herd animals but also because it was really, really dangerous and there was more safety in numbers. Even moreso before the use of the horse started when the Spanish brought them over because it was all done on foot. I honestly can say that if I had a choice of dealing with a single bear or a heard of wild cattlebeasts by myself I'd much rather deal with the bear. I've met bears in the wilderness numerous times and the fear difference between that and getting stuck in a field with a bunch of spooked domestic cattle is waaaay more, but maybe that's just me. :)
I agree with trying to differentiate between prestige hunting vs food hunting in any discussion. I was once against all forms of hunting in a very black and white sort of way but have since changed my mind about it. I'm not a hunter myself, nor likely will be, it's just not my thing. I have however learned a lot about hunting techniques, mostly about stalking, recognizing animal tracks etc etc with my 'weapon' being my camera or just my eyes. In my experience the prestige with people that hunt for food whether FN's or otherwise isn't based just on the killing or even how good one shoots, it's more about being good at what happens before that part, especially nowadays where the technology makes the shooting part way easier. Finding whatever you happen to be looking for seems to be the more important skill and a lot harder to get good at. If you can't find it then it doesn't matter one whit what you have in your hands. I think that's one of the reasons I don't in anyways think that the practice of 'hunting' trophy animals in caged enclosures to be 'hunting' at all and any prestige gained from it is a big fat illusion. So yeah I'm with you on the mainly prestige hunting thing.
To speak a little more in line with the actual OP. I had a chance to talk in depth with one FN's community about their community moose hunt. They work quite closely with the wildlife department. Each year if I remember correctly how it works the dept puts out the numbers and subsequent licenses for all people, FN's included. They however do their own numbers as well. The conflict arrises not that they want more but think that the overall numbers should be less in order to foster a sustainable population based on a mix of traditional knowledge and science. One person joked that the wait for the 'official' number and just cut it automatically by a certain percentage as it seems to be consistent over the years so it makes it easy. Regardless of what the dept says they stick with their numbers and in a lot of years many of their licenses go unused. This has at times caused some conflict with the non-native hunting community who figure that if they're not using theirs it should be passed on to them. They also make sure that regardless of who gets the licenses (there is an internal community lottery) that whatever is taken gets distributed to all members of the community whether they are able to go on the hunt or not, especially to their senior members. We don't regularly hear about these reverse types of conflicts in the media though.
ElizaQ - I think we are in substantial agreement. As to communal hunting being widespread, the examples that came to mind for me were Europe (particulary ancient Greece and Rome) and central Asia (where it was practiced by most the of herding cultures, and there are a lot of accounts of the great hunts of the Mongols during their imperial height). Vestiges of communal hunting carried on right into the modern era in Europe, but as you pointed out these were elite activities (fox and/or boar hunting) -- but the latter in particular I can see being argued as starting out as food as opposed to prestige hunting.
What I wish I would see happening more often is for those who are critical of hunting, across the board, to make the effort to examine some of their preconceptions and at least entertain the possibility that they are being totally euro-centric in their arguments. I am not saying that they would necessarily arrive at a different conclusion... but I think they should be responsible to do the work of examining their premises, and come up with convincing justifications for the conclusions they derive from those premises. And before they start demanding that their particular solutions be implemented, they seek common ground with those being affected by their proposed solutions (and almost inevitably it is someone else who is affected) and see if they can't find a solution that doesn't deprive those who are being affected of their autonomy.
There, Sven, you done good (contrary, I'm sure, to your first shit-disturbing thoughts on posting). But I'm wondering what gives oldgoat the idea that you "should know better"? I've seen no evidence on which to base that optimistic assumption.
Does all this mean that without the Americas the only dessert that would be possible is baklava?
Losing chocolate and vanilla is pretty limiting, eh?
That said. fruit pastries and ices would still be possible, if somewhat more bland.
You'd have fruits, you'd have dairy, you'd have sugar and honey, you'd have eggs. If nothing else, there'd still be cheesecake(which was actually more or less invented in Portugal).
Anyone interested in how food came to where it is, with an emphasis on Italy and Europe, should look up "The Columbus Menu". It's a small book, and it's got some (somewhat ordinary) recipes, but it explains some of the historical origins of tomatoes, peppers, potatoes and so on. Did you know that the turkey got its name when the British, trading with Spanish traders who typically plied the spice routes, believed that the bird had come from Turkey? The Spanish, on the other hand had been raising them locally, after having received some from the New World, which they still believed to be India, and so they referred to the turkey as "the Hen of Calcutta".
Try that one on your family at thanksgiving. "Granddad, will you do the honour of carving the Hen of Calcutta?"
Yumm! A Rabble cookbook would be great.
Did you know that the turkey got its name when the British, trading with Spanish traders who typically plied the spice routes, believed that the bird had come from Turkey?
In French, German, and Hebrew, the word for "turkey" is "India".
Oh, and in Québec, the common word for "corn on the cob" (as in maize) is "blé d'inde" ("wheat of India").
Oh, and in Québec, the common word for "corn on the cob" (as in maize) is "blé d'inde" ("wheat of India").
I always thought blé d'inde was the same as "Indian corn," as in the corn ("grain", or "wheat" in 18th century England) that the Autochthons grew. (psst, the francos in Saskatchewan say blé d'inde too)
My pet food appropriation peeve is how Israelis claim felafels and hommous as their own. Many years ago at the International food fair at our university I passed by the Israeli booth and was shocked to see them selling felafels. I passed in silence, even though I wanted to say to them words to the effect that it was bad enough for them to have stolen our land, they don't have to steal our culture too.
Keep the bagel, and be proud of your contribution to the world's cuisine.
"We have been endeavoring to convince the King Natives that..." ... read on.
Thanks, al-Q. The truth will out. People you think are your enemies may be your cousins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Judaism#Conversion_of_Muslims_to_...
Cousin:
