The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-22-2007, 02:29 PM
Trik Trik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Do Native Americans really use all parts of the buffalo?

There seems to be a general understanding that Native Americans were much less wasteful than everyone else, and they used every single part of the animal.

We all read growing up that when they killed a buffalo, they used the eyes, the tendons, the bones, the skin etc.

It seems odd that of all the different tribes of Native Americans, all would follow this belief, has human nature changed that much over the last few hundred years that there were no tribes that were wasteful and just ran a bunch of buffalo off a cliff and ate a few?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 09-22-2007, 02:32 PM
Moirai Moirai is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
It could have been born out of necessity, rather than belief.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-22-2007, 02:52 PM
Trik Trik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
I'm sure that's true for some, and I don't want to tarnish the great historical tradition that is
America's Indigenous people, but it really seems odd that what could have been 55 million people, they were all so frugal.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-22-2007, 02:54 PM
WhyNot WhyNot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 30,394
My understanding of it is that it depends on the circumstance. If the buffalo were near where you lived, then it was probably more true. If you had to trek out a two week walk to get to the buffalo, then you either had to spend several weeks processing all that meat, fat, bone and sinew before you could get back home, OR waste many calories dragging home less calorically useful meat. If you spend more calories carrying the buffalo home than you get eating it, it makes more sense to cut off, say, the heavy bony head, and just drag home what you can use.

From what I've seen artifact wise, there certainly is/was a use for everything that comes off a buffalo, but probably not every single buffalo gall bladder and horn was used.

And, finally, we still do the same thing, so I don't think we've changed. You're right about the common moral lesson to schoolkids about how great the N.A.s were in using every bit of the buffalo, but it's not that different from what we do today, we just don't make it all that public. What we don't eat off a cow as steak or organ meats becomes ground beef or beef by-product, or beef stock. Bones with bits of meat sticking to them are ground up and the resultant mush forced through sieves with water jets to get every edible bit of meat out, and the bone meal used as fertilizer. The hides get used in industrial applications if they're too ugly for leather wear. Hooves and connective tissue are still boiled up for gelatin or glue. The only thing we might (and I'm not sure about this) throw out these days are the brain and nervous tissue, because of prion disease worries - although as we now know, even that was used in cattle feed until recently. And it might still be used for some industrial applications.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-22-2007, 03:06 PM
Trik Trik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
After a bit I came across this article, makes slightly more sense, but it wasn't until after European influence did the Sioux abandon their previous ways....

http://personalpages.tds.net/~rlaws/...anindians.html
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-22-2007, 03:51 PM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
That's a rather silly article. "Perfect ancient Amerindians were vegetaians, so let's all get back to our pure roots and leave behind those awful white man's ways!"

*Vomit*
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-22-2007, 04:24 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I hate the Noble Savage racism: "Oh, those Great Indians were so perfect because they lacked the civilization of Europeans!" Denying them the ability to be evil is denying them the full range of human thought.

Those morons never heard of a buffalo jump:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meriwether Lewis
Today we passed on the Stard. side the remains of a vast many mangled carcases of Buffalow which had been driven over a precipice of 120 feet by the Indians and perished; the water appeared to have washed away a part of this immence pile of slaughter and still their remained the fragments of at least a hundred carcases they created a most horrid stench.

In this manner the Indians of the Missouri distroy vast herds of buffaloe at a stroke; for this purpose one of the most active and fleet young men is scelected and (being) disguised in a robe of buffaloe skin, having also the skin of the buffaloe's head with the years and horns fastened on his head in form of a cap, thus caparisoned he places himself at a convenient distance between a herd of buffaloe and a precipice proper for the purpose, which happens in many places on this river for miles together;

The other indians now surround the herd on the back and flanks and at a signal agreed on all shew themselves at the same time moving forward towards the buffaloe; the disguised indian or decoy has taken care to place himself sufficiently nigh the buffaloe to be noticed by them when they take to flight and runing before them they follow him in full speede to the precepice, the cattle behind driving those in front over and seeing them go do not look or hesitate about following untill the whole are precipitated down the precepice forming one common mass of dead an mangled carcases;

The (Indian) decoy in the mean time has taken care to secure himself in some cranney or crivice of the clift which he had previously prepared for that purpose.

The part of the decoy I am informed is extreamly dangerous, if they are not very fleet runers the buffaloe tread them under foot and crush them to death, and sometimes drive them over the precepice also, where they perish in common with the buffaloe.
In fact, I happen to live very near a town with a buffalo jump in it, the Wahkpa Chu'gn Archaeological Site in Havre.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-22-2007, 04:25 PM
Argent Towers Argent Towers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
It's not just Native Americans who try to use all parts of the animal and get the maximum amount of meat out of it. All cultures across the world, traditionally, before the advent of mass-farming and pre-packaged foods, tried to do this. I mean, what's haggis? It's an attempt to make a tasty dish out of "undesirable" parts of the animal. A German peasant family in 1700 would have slaughtered their pig in the winter, made sausages, blood pudding, made boots out of the hide - used every single part of that pig, because they'd spent so much time fattening it up and it would be idiotic to not try to use every part of it.

Native Americans don't have a monopoly on this kind of stuff. White people used to have an earthy, in-touch-with-the-land culture of their own (and some still do.)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-22-2007, 05:12 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,630
Waste is a luxury. The rich could afford to waste food; the poor could not. Hunter/gatherers were rich during certain seasons when the bounty was more than they could physically handle, and poor the rest of the year when they had to work hard just to keep from going hungry. This has been true in every society since the dawn of time. Absolutely nothing special about the Native Americans. They were just like everybody else.

And the best expression of it in industrialized times is from the Armour meat-packing founders.

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/armour.htm
Quote:
"Waste is criminal," P.D. Armour once wrote. He hired chemists who were able to find dozens of ways to use what had once been waste products to produce soap, glue, glycerine, and fertilizer. Once asked what parts of a pig he used in his business, P.D. replied, "Everything but the squeal." It became a popular saying at the plants.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-22-2007, 11:06 PM
bouv bouv is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Am I the only one thinking of that Far Side cartoon?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-22-2007, 11:22 PM
flurb flurb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I know that this parable is supposed to set up the contrast between the noble, frugal Indian and the wasteful white man, but what I find ironic (besides the dehumanizing notion of the "noble savage") is that modern slaughterhouses DO use every part of the cow or pig. What doesn't go on the shelves as varying grades of meat gets rendered into bone meal, animal feed, chemical products, etc. There aren't huge piles of rotting carcases wasting away outside of your average slaughterhouse.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-23-2007, 02:54 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers
. I mean, what's haggis?
Ah manys the time I've watched herds of Haggis roaming free in the glen ever alert for predatory Bagpipes!

I love the Highlands.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-23-2007, 03:32 AM
NinetyWt NinetyWt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
I'm with Exapno. Poor families in the US often used *every* part of a hog which they had raised. This is not peculiar to Native Americans: every indigenous tribe did/does the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-23-2007, 06:24 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life
Ah manys the time I've watched herds of Haggis roaming free in the glen ever alert for predatory Bagpipes!

I love the Highlands.
....and rampaging blood crazed sporrans, you forgot the sporrans
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-23-2007, 06:31 AM
Max the Immortal Max the Immortal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
As flurb pointed out, using every part of an animal is par for the course. I imagine that this had been attributed to the native americans because during the 1800s white settlers had a tendency to wantonly slaughter the bison wherever they went. I've noticed that many historical accounts gloss over why the settlers did this. They were more or less at war with the natives of the territory they wished to settle, and the bison were a primary food source of the natives. The settlers killed the bison en masse to force the natives to emigrate to regions that still had intact herds. I'm sure that the settlers were loathe to waste such an abundant source of meat and hides, but felt that it was necessary for their survival.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-23-2007, 06:47 AM
devilsknew devilsknew is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Black Swamp
Posts: 9,178
I will say, that I believe the sport of modern Hunting as it is practiced today in America is probably more wasteful of the game animal than it was in years past. Whereas, there is a trend to just consume the more choice cuts of the game animal (Loin (backstrap) in quadripeds, Breast in Ducks and Geese) and to discard, give away, or process the rest.

Invariably, in the sport of modern hunting, the organs from game animals are dressed out and thrown away, whereas in earlier times they were probably the first parts of the animal to be consumed fresh. The skins might or might not be used for practical means (often only for purely decorative or trophy reasons). I personally know of no modern hunters that use the feathers or down from duck and geese. Sinew and bones are almost never used by the actual hunter, however they might sometimes have worth to commercial processors, but are more likely discarded.

Yes, I would say that the psychology of hunting has changed in modern times in America.

This is just anecdotal, and in general, and by no means indicative of all hunters as a blanket statement.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-23-2007, 07:46 AM
WhyNot WhyNot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 30,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsknew
Yes, I would say that the psychology of hunting has changed in modern times in America.
The psychology of sport hunting, sure. It's sport, not food procurement - it's even there in the name. Any food you get, thanks to the luxury modern sport hunters enjoy, is a welcome bonus or treat.

But the carcass processing industry which provides most of us with our food is frighteningly efficient, causing many people to be "grossed" out at the use of unsavory sounding body parts. How many people have you heard say "ew...lips and assholes!" when talking about hot dogs? (Note: there are no lips and assholes in American USDA approved hot dogs, actually. The lips and assholes are mostly in pet feed, but they're still used.)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-23-2007, 08:13 AM
devilsknew devilsknew is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Black Swamp
Posts: 9,178
Well to me, the whole idea of putting sport in front of hunting is weird. Hunting is for survival in my book.

It's almost as weird as "sport" farming or gardening. While I'm sure some garden for the fun and relaxation of it, my primary reason is the produce. I don't believe there really are any "sport" farmers either.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-23-2007, 08:23 AM
WhyNot WhyNot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 30,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsknew
Well to me, the whole idea of putting sport in front of hunting is weird. Hunting is for survival in my book.

It's almost as weird as "sport" farming or gardening. While I'm sure some garden for the fun and relaxation of it, my primary reason is the produce. I don't believe there really are any "sport" farmers either.
I'm not a farmer, but a "sport" gardener. I think every little old lady with a flowerbox and a wall of roses is a "sport" gardener, isn't she? I grew a fine batch of tomatoes for the squirrels this year.

There are sport farmers, only we call them "gentlemen farmers". My dad is one - he keeps up just enough tiny acreage on his otherwise not-a-farm to amuse himself, and I think there's some tax benefit as well. Half the time he doesn't even bring in a harvest, just leaves it growing for the wild turkeys and deer.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-23-2007, 08:45 AM
coffeecat coffeecat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 1,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life
Ah manys the time I've watched herds of Haggis roaming free in the glen ever alert for predatory Bagpipes!
How oblivious do you have to be to miss the hunting call of a pack of bagpipes?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-23-2007, 09:03 AM
devilsknew devilsknew is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Black Swamp
Posts: 9,178
Well, there ya go, Trik
These might be some insightful anecdotes on the major differences of what the Indians faced as semi-nomadic hunter gatherers. I think it was survival rather than sport for them, and every part of the buffalo was useful, as there were no string factories, nor freezers, nor plastic polymers. The buffalo was the living breathing factory of the plain that suppled the food and textiles of life for hundreds of uses that have been supplanted in modern industrial society by organization, invention, science, and industrialization.

Last edited by devilsknew; 09-23-2007 at 09:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-23-2007, 10:05 AM
mangeorge mangeorge is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 14,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by flurb
I know that this parable is supposed to set up the contrast between the noble, frugal Indian and the wasteful white man, but what I find ironic (besides the dehumanizing notion of the "noble savage") is that modern slaughterhouses DO use every part of the cow or pig. What doesn't go on the shelves as varying grades of meat gets rendered into bone meal, animal feed, chemical products, etc. There aren't huge piles of rotting carcases wasting away outside of your average slaughterhouse.
True. But neither do you find huge piles of rotting carcases wasting away at those buffalo jumps these days.
That was then, and this is now. People did kill huge numbers of buffalo and other animals for fun and leave them lie back in the day. Some still do.
Peace,
mangeorge
__________________
Stop smoking. Do it!
Neither Windshield nor Bug am I.
Give us br'er rabbits.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-23-2007, 10:37 AM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
So to be clear, it appears the only really cited response to the OP indicates the answer to the OP's question is "No," correct?

-FrL-
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-23-2007, 11:10 AM
mangeorge mangeorge is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 14,089
In response to Frylock's above post.

Correct. In my opinion.
But defining "waste" and "use" presents some difficulty.
Wealthy people don't use any but the choicest parts of a slaughtered animal. This has been pretty much universal theoughout history. Are they (we) as a group wasting the rest of the animal, or we absolved of blame because lesser people use the less choice parts. The meat producers sell all that's leftover (of course) for profit. Nothing noble about that, is there?
And how about the work of scavengers? Were the Indians truly wasting all that buffalo meat, etc, at the jumps when eventually it all got "used"?
The europeans justified stealing this land from the people who already here partly by claiming that the Indians were wasting it.

Last edited by mangeorge; 09-23-2007 at 11:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-23-2007, 01:39 PM
devilsknew devilsknew is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Black Swamp
Posts: 9,178
I think there is also a confusion here of hunting method. Running Buffalo off a cliff was but one way of obtaining buffalo. It was very efficient and didn't require as much exertion on the part of the Hunters but I believe it is also safe to assume that on these types of hunts the whole tribe or groups of tribes would be involved and often set up camp nearby for several days and set up a processing camp for the buffalo. What we might know from the forensic evidence of these sites is that some were wasted, but we have no real idea nor can cull any information about how many were actually harvested. Which may in fact be numbers that are more efficient and less wasteful as compared to the number left behind. These sites were often used over and over again on each hunt, as well. So the information we have is biased and the "waste" to "use" ratio remains an unknown.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-23-2007, 01:43 PM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Forget about Native Americans entirely. Let's stick to generic, primitive hunter/gatherer humans of any race.

Evidence suggests that primitive man was a sloppy hunter and a picky eater who left a LOT of edible stuff behind after a hunt. That's why dogs eventually became man's ally. Packs of wild dogs would follow humans around, knowing that after a kill, there'd undoubtedly be a lot of food still on the carcass(es) to be munched on.

One of early man's favorite hunting techniques was chasing a herd off a cliff. Doing that often led to the deaths of far more buffalo (or whatever) than the human tribe could eat or save. Humans did NOT use every part of the animals they killed. They didn't even use PART of all the animals they killed.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-23-2007, 11:56 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trik
There seems to be a general understanding that Native Americans were much less wasteful than everyone else, and they used every single part of the animal.
There is a general understanding that Columbus proved the Earth was roudn too. General understanding are usually wrong.

1) Even if they used every part of the animal Indians weren't less wasteful than everyone else. A modern abbatoir really does use every part of the animal, including horns, bones and sinews. Indians didn;t and couldn't have done that.

2) As others have pointed out, Indians didn't use every part of the animal. Some Indians may have use dmost parts, especially if they were starving. Many othe rIndians groups were exceedingly wasteful of bufflao and killed thousands that they left to rot wihtout ever touching.

3) Many Indians commonly used fish poisons. That means they put poison into rivers and collected the fish when they floated to the surface. Any fish too small to be useful along with all the invertebrates, frogs and so forth were killed and simply left to rot. Hardly a process witohout waste and hardly congruent with the "child of nature" nonsense so often broadcast.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-24-2007, 11:20 AM
Jodi Jodi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
A few things that haven't been touched upon.

1. AFAIK, few hunter/gatherer/primitive farmer societies ate a lot of meat. Meat was hard to come by and hard to preserve, unlike vegetables. So the whole idea of pre-contact Native Americans eating a primarily non-meat diet out of intentional vegetarianism is AFAIK pure horseshit. I do not know of any tribe that was intentionally vegetarian. They ate meat when they could get it; it's just that they couldn't get it very often or very easily (until the advent of the horse), and it didn't keep well.

2. The OP seems to be under the impression that there is/was some monolithic tribal whole called "Native Americans" and they were all living in teepees and eating buffalo. While that has become the generic idea of "American Indian" and is what most people (both American and non-American) think of when they picture an "American Indian," it's obviously not correct. The Seminole in Florida, the Seneca in New York, the Makah in Washington -- these tribes never so much as saw a buffalo. Like other pre-contact prehistoric civilizations, Native Americans worked with what they had, and their diet reflected the area in which they lived. Coastal Indians became fishermen, and woodland Indians incorporated farming into their way of life. Plains Indians remained more dependent on a meat-based (buffalo-based) diet because (a) crop cultivation is harder in the arid Great Plains and (b) the migratory nature of buffalo meant the tribes had to choose to either follow the buffalo or to settle and try to farm.

3. The advent of white settlers on the East coast of the U.S. over time produced a broad shift westward of the Native American tribes. So most of the tribes that people think were living in the Great Plains since time immemorial in fact hadn't been there all that long. For example, the Ojibwa pushed down into Minnestoa from Michigan in the early 18th century, assisted by the guns and supplies they received from early French and British trappers. They pushed the Sioux out of Minnesota west to the Dakotas. So despite their deep connection with the Dakotas, the Sioux have actually "only" lived there for about 250 years. The other largest plains tribe, the Blackfeet, also retain indicators that they too originally came from the eastern forests, though the time of their shift westward is harder to pinpoint.

But not all Native Americans were buffalo hunters, and even those tribes that did develop a buffalo-based culture did not practice that culture from time immemorial. They (the Sioux and the Blackfeet) successfully developed dominant cultures able to control large territories and subdue or remove their (native tribal) enemies only after acquisition of both horses and guns. At that point, they could more easily kill buffalo, and the seemingly endless supply probably did engender some waste. Before that, when getting frest meat was difficult, they used or ate every bit of the buffalo because that was what made sense to do. And they did use virtually every part: anything edible was eaten; hides were used for clothing and shelter; stomachs were used for water carrying or for storage; tendons and sinews were used for sewing and for stringing bows; horns were used for decoration. But this wasn't a "belief," it was common sense, to maximally exploit a very useful resource.

And I have never heard of any tribe that fished by poisoning the waters and then collecting the dead fish. It would seem to me that any thing toxic enough to kill the fish would probably make it questionable for eating. But then, my very limited expertise does not include fishing tribes. The Blackfeet would no more east a fish then we would eat a rat -- IOW, if starving only.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-24-2007, 11:31 AM
Jodi Jodi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posting again to clarify that I'm speaking of historical Blackfeet culture when I talk of them not eating fish. Modern Blackfeet eat as much or more fish as the rest of modern America, and they have husbanded and maintained excellent fishing resources in Montana and Alberta since the early 20th century.

And I also wanted to add that, having pointed out that dependence on the buffalo was neither universal to Native American tribes or of long history (i.e., thousands of years) for most tribes, it nevertheless would be hard to overstate the complete dependence on the buffalo of those tribes like the Blackfeet that did embrace a migratory buffalo-based culture. The Blackfeet still remember the Starving Time in 1883-85 when between one quarter and one half of all the Blackfeet starved to death, because the buffalo had disappeared.

Last edited by Jodi; 09-24-2007 at 11:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-24-2007, 11:48 AM
Tully Mars Tully Mars is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsknew
Invariably, in the sport of modern hunting, the organs from game animals are dressed out and thrown away ...
Hey, the coyotes and the buzzards gotta eat, too. So, it's not totally wasted.

Jodi, that was a terrific post. Most folks don't realize that the plains culture that they often associate with Native Americans was a rather late development in North American history. That image does a great disserve to the diverse and sophisticated cultures that existed before smallpox.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-24-2007, 06:20 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodi
1. AFAIK, few hunter/gatherer/primitive farmer societies ate a lot of meat.
As you point out, it varies a lot fom place to place, but the figures I've seen are that on average HGs obtained about 50% of their calories from animal products. Of that about 20% was from large game animals such as deer, kangaroos or zebra. The rest was in the form of eggs, rodents, invertebrates, fish and so forth. So depending n how you define meat HGs ate either a hell of a lot of meat, or about the same amount as a modern westerner. Either way claiming that "typical" HGs didn't eat alot of meat isn't really accurate and claiming they were vegetarian is pure fanatsy.

The perception that we have that HGs didn't eat a lot of meat stems form the fact that early 20th century anthropoligists were retsricted to studying HG societies that had been forced onto land that didn't suport game animals. All the land that did support game anamals had been tuned into farm land and the HGs removed. In those sorts of culturally impoverished societies on resource poor land eating meat probably was rare, but it also wasn't typical.

Quote:
Meat was hard to come by and hard to preserve, unlike vegetables.
1) The only HGs groups in the entire world that I have heard of storing food in any significant amount are the Indians of the northwest extending into Alaska, and they primarily stored meat. So to say that strorage was an issue in consuming meat is a red herring. HGs simply didn't store food except in very atypical and extreme situations. The people of the extreme north had access to year-round ice and the people of the more temperate northwest were the only HG group to form permanent towns and chiefdoms. Hardly typical HGs.

2)Meat is no harder to store than most vegetables. Meat can be readily preserved by sun drying, while most vegetables can not be preserved at all without a pickling, cooking, burying and so forth.


Quote:
And I have never heard of any tribe that fished by poisoning the waters and then collecting the dead fish. It would seem to me that any thing toxic enough to kill the fish would probably make it questionable for eating.
Nah, something as simple as soap will stun and kill fish and is perfectly harmless to humans. Indeed the most common fish poisons used were botanical saponins, essentially soaps. Plants that produced toxic glycosides, cyanide and rotenones were also used by various North American people to poison fish, and all are essentially harmless to humans in the doses used. At least one group in California would deliberately stir up the mud at the bottom of streams and lakes in summer so the water woudl become anoxic, and then collect the suffocated fish as they floated to the surface. All these practices were extemely wasteful and would never be allowed by any western people.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-24-2007, 06:24 PM
mbh mbh is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,746
Quote:
posted by Jodi:
And I have never heard of any tribe that fished by poisoning the waters and then collecting the dead fish. It would seem to me that any thing toxic enough to kill the fish would probably make it questionable for eating.
Quite common among many South American cultures, especially on the Amazon River. If I recall correctly, the poison affects the fish's gills, causing death by asphyxiation, but the flesh is still edible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsknew
Well to me, the whole idea of putting sport in front of hunting is weird. Hunting is for survival in my book.

It's almost as weird as "sport" farming or gardening. While I'm sure some garden for the fun and relaxation of it, my primary reason is the produce. I don't believe there really are any "sport" farmers either.
My dad was a "gentleman farmer". Our vinyard and orchard never had any hope of being profitable. But he grew up in a family of farmers and ranchers, and he owned ten acres of land, and he just could not bear to let it stand idle.

Back to the OP: I seem to recall someone saying something to the effect of "They used every part of the buffalo. But they did not use every part of every buffalo."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-24-2007, 07:08 PM
Jodi Jodi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Blake, the point about subsisting on kangaroo and zebra indicates you'd like to expand the discussion to worldwide hunting/gathering practices, which I neither the expertise nor the inclination to do. For this reason I will limit myself to the parameters of the discussion of this particular thread.

Quote:
1) The only HGs groups in the entire world that I have heard of storing food in any significant amount are the Indians of the northwest extending into Alaska, and they primarily stored meat.
I didn't limit my post to hunter/gatherers, I specifically said "hunter/gatherer/primitive farmer societies" so unless you'd like to argue that Native American farmers like the Cherokee, Cree, and Pueblo Indians did not store food, you are rebutting a point that is different from the one I made. In fact, many Native American so-called farming cultures practiced a combination of hunting/gathering and true farming (for example, they generally did not keep domesticated animals) that including hunting for game (when available) and subsisting on beans, corn, squash, and tubers, all of which were intentionally cultivated, and all of which were stored. And none of which, by the way, required "pickling, cooking, burying" or "so forth."
Quote:
So to say that strorage was an issue in consuming meat is a red herring. HGs simply didn't store food except in very atypical and extreme situations. The people of the extreme north had access to year-round ice and the people of the more temperate northwest were the only HG group to form permanent towns and chiefdoms. Hardly typical HGs.
First of all, I never said a thing about storage. But you yourself make an exception for the hunter/gatherers "of the northwest," which, assuming you would extend that into the north central plains (Alberta, Montana, the Dakotas), is exactly what I'm talking about. If you would not extend that into the central plains then I'm afraid you are incorrect to say that nomadic Native Americans did not store meat. They dried meat at every available opportunity (though that required a stationary camp and sufficient heat and light for drying) and also dried berries and tobacco, both of which they proto-farmed (meaning, they encouraged native growth in known locations and weeded and pruned but did not tend year-round). They converted a sizeable portion of the dried meat and berries into pemmican for winter subsistence. Especially in the Dog Days (pre-horse), the vast majority of a camp's buffalo supply would be slaughtered at one time at the buffalo jump, and they would feast to the point of engorgement but then take away as much of the remaining meat as they needed or could carry, to dry and store. These buffalo hunts took place in the fall and were intended to obtain enough meat to get the band or tribe through the winter. Again, my information is limited to the Blackfeet but by anyone's definition they were hunter/gatherers who stored meat. None of this is at odds with what I've already said, which is that even for subsistence meat-dependent hunters, fresh meat was obtained infrequently, with difficulty, and didn't keep well.

Quote:
Nah, something as simple as soap will stun and kill fish and is perfectly harmless to humans. Indeed the most common fish poisons used were botanical saponins, essentially soaps. Plants that produced toxic glycosides, cyanide and rotenones were also used by various North American people to poison fish, and all are essentially harmless to humans in the doses used. At least one group in California would deliberately stir up the mud at the bottom of streams and lakes in summer so the water woudl become anoxic, and then collect the suffocated fish as they floated to the surface. All these practices were extemely wasteful and would never be allowed by any western people.
Natural detergents and anoxic shock don't fall under the category of "poisoning fish" to me, though I'll take your word for the rest of it. But do you have a cite for the assertion that such "extremely wasteful" practices would not be allowed by any western people? ISTM that the ancient western fishing practice of trawling with large nets contradicts this assertion that wasteful fishing practices were "never allowed by any western people."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-24-2007, 08:59 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodi
Blake, the point about subsisting on kangaroo and zebra indicates you'd like to expand the discussion to worldwide hunting/gathering practices, which I neither the expertise nor the inclination to do. For this reason I will limit myself to the parameters of the discussion of this particular thread.
Once again though, all the information I have seen concerning HGs from North America is that they are no different to the rest of the world, ie about 50% of calories from animal products.


Quote:
I didn't limit my post to hunter/gatherers..
Nor did I claim that you did. You included HGs under the umbrella statement you made, and it isn't in any way true of typical HGs. Only very exceptional HG groups stored food and as such storage simply wasn't an issue.

Quote:
In fact, many Native American so-called farming cultures practiced a combination of hunting/gathering and true farming...
As did every agricultural society on Earth until just two hundred years ago. North Americans weren't in any way unusual in this respect.


Quote:
beans, corn, squash, and tubers,... none of which..required "pickling, cooking, burying" or "so forth."
Hmm, how does a HG store tubers or beans without burying them? For that matter which Indian groups stored beans without using storage pits, ie burying?

Quote:
First of all, I never said a thing about storage.
Huh?
"Meat was hard to come by and hard to preserve".

What did you mean by preservation if not a means of storage? Are you proposing that people wanted to preserve food that they intended to eat immeditaely? I really don't follow this.

Quote:
But you yourself make an exception for the hunter/gatherers "of the northwest," which, assuming you would extend that into the north central plains (Alberta, Montana, the Dakotas)..
No, I certainly wouldn't. I have seen no evidence that HGs of the North Central Plains were sedentary townspeople. I would love to see your evidence for this.


Quote:
If you would not extend that into the central plains then I'm afraid you are incorrect to say that nomadic Native Americans did not store meat.
Where did I ever say that nomadic Native Americans did not store meat? I never even said anything remotely like that.

Quote:
Again, my information is limited to the Blackfeet but by anyone's definition they were hunter/gatherers who stored meat.
Cite!

Conventional wisdom has it that by the time they were storing meat they were nomadic agriculturalists dependant entirely on a domestic animal: the horse. Prior to the introduction of the horse the people of the region were either agriculturalists or else true HGs who stored no food. If you can find any evidence of meat storage amongst the Blackfeet or their progenitors prior to them adopting horse agriculture then by all means show it.

"Up until the middle of the 17th century, few people dwelt year-round on the open grasslands of the Plains.... until the arrival of the Spanish-introduced horse (in the middle of the 17th century), hunting bison anywhere on the Plains, except along its margins, was difficult for people who were on foot &possessed only their dogs to help carry meat, hides, tools, & shelter. Instead, it was the lush river bottoms of the major rivers that crossed the Plains that were occupied..... Before acquiring the horse (which came to the Southwest with the Spanish, first appearing on the southern Plains around 350 years ago) Nations such as the Blackfoot... were foot nomads living in loosely organized bands who seasonally moved out onto the plains to hunt buffalo."
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/noamer_plains.html

I would be very interested in seeing evidence of the pre-agriculural Blackfoot carting and storing massive amounts of meat from a single kill, as opposed to the conventional idea that they were typical HGs who stored no food and simply broke up into smaller bands as food ran short.

Quote:
None of this is at odds with what I've already said, which is that even for subsistence meat-dependent hunters, fresh meat was obtained infrequently, with difficulty, and didn't keep well.
And once again, it doesn't gel with reality. For most HGs, even if you want to restrict it to North am, meat was on the diet year round and was obtained daily.


Quote:
Natural detergents and anoxic shock don't fall under the category of "poisoning fish" to me...
So the utilisation of a chemical substance to elicit a debitating and ultimately fatal physiological reposns doesn't fall under the category of poisoning to you? Care tp show us what definiton of poisoning you are using that could possibly excude this?

Quote:
But do you have a cite for the assertion that such "extremely wasteful" practices would not be allowed by any western people?
Only the fact that there is no Western nation that has environmental legislation that would allow such a thing. If you can name a single western nation where this would be allowed then by all means pony up.

Quote:
ISTM that the ancient western fishing practice of trawling with large nets contradicts this assertion that wasteful fishing practices were "never allowed by any western people."
And where exactly did I say that wasteful fishing practices were never allowed by any western people? I would appreciate if you didn't misquote me in this manner. Aside from being a blatant strawman it is dishonest and annoying.

Last edited by Blake; 09-24-2007 at 09:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-24-2007, 09:16 PM
Aeschines Aeschines is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
They didn't eat the dong.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-24-2007, 09:23 PM
WhyNot WhyNot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 30,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeschines
They didn't eat the dong.
Well, of course not! Then what would they use to make their canes and walking sticks, silly?




*Note: the bull penis canes and walking sticks are not gennyouwine Native American Indian First People's artifacts. They are, however, bull penises.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-24-2007, 09:56 PM
Onan the Barbarian Onan the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
2) As others have pointed out, Indians didn't use every part of the animal. Some Indians may have use dmost parts, especially if they were starving. Many othe rIndians groups were exceedingly wasteful of bufflao and killed thousands that they left to rot wihtout ever touching.
Cite?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-24-2007, 10:37 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan the Barbarian
Cite?
"The Native Americans who used the buffalo jump technique at Bonfire Shelter sometimes met with success on a far greater scale than they intended or needed. In Bone Bed 3 in particular, there is abundant evidence that far more animals were killed than could be used. In fact, the original analyst argued that Bone Bed 3 could represent a single event in which as many as 800 animals died. Others think it more likely that it represents several events, but even so these were massive kills. Partially or entirely articulated (fitted together) skeletons where found in the lower portions of Bone Bed 3. In other cases archeologists recognized that only the most desirable parts of the animals—especially the hindquarters—showed signs of butchering. In other words, a great deal of the bison meat and hides in the larger jump episodes went to waste."
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/bonfire/plunge.html

"Moreover like other Native AMerican groups that relied on hunting of large mammals... the nomadic bison hunters sometimes wasted large amounts of their kills."
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805217...71726wsn01.pdf

"at Bonfire Shelter, waste is apparent in the number of skeletal parts that were not dismembered, and in the paucity of butchering tools recovered. It seems that the hunters were too successful, and that the overkill exceeded the labor force available to fully process all the carcasses."
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o...s/crs/appa.htm


And so forth. Again, nothing even remotely controversial here. Many Indian groups were in no way conservative and were repsonisble for the deaths of thousand sof animals that they never set a knife to, simply left to rot.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-25-2007, 12:11 AM
Jodi Jodi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
You included HGs under the umbrella statement you made, and it isn't in any way true of typical HGs. Only very exceptional HG groups stored food and as such storage simply wasn't an issue.
Except that the hunter-gatherers under discussion did store food, so they must have been “very exceptional", because for them it was an issue.

Quote:
As did every agricultural society on Earth until just two hundred years ago. North Americans weren't in any way unusual in this respect.
I’m honestly not sure what to make of this. Surely you recognize a quantitative and qualitative difference between describing a society like the pre-contact Blackfeet as “practice[ing] a combination of hunting/gathering and true farming” -- my use -- and applying the same words to “every agricultural society on Earth until just two hundred years ago” – your use -- including, presumably, the 19th century English yeoman farmer who occasionally strolled out to pot a quail. I due you the courtesy of respecting your intelligence enough to assume you didn’t really misunderstand me to that degree. So is this mere quibbling? If not, I don’t take your point.

Quote:
Hmm, how does a HG store tubers or beans without burying them? For that matter which Indian groups stored beans without using storage pits, ie burying?
Well, off the top of my head, the Cherokee did. They stored winter food stuffs in communal storage huts and/or personal baskets or bags. Do you personally find it necessary to bury your potatoes and beans in order to keep them through the winter?

Quote:
No, I certainly wouldn't. I have seen no evidence that HGs of the North Central Plains were sedentary townspeople. I would love to see your evidence for this.
What? I never said the Blackfeet were sedentary townspeople. I don’t know what you’re talking about here.

Quote:
Where did I ever say that nomadic Native Americans did not store meat? I never even said anything remotely like that.
Yes, actually, you did. You said, “The only HGs groups in the entire world that I have heard of storing food in any significant amount are the Indians of the northwest extending into Alaska, and they primarily stored meat.” I asked if you would extend this exception to the tribes of the north central plains, and you have now said, NO, you don’t extend that exception to them. Thus “the only HG groups in the entire world that you have heard of storing food in any significant amount” is a group that IYO excludes the nomadic Native Americans under discussion. That is where you said nomadic Native Americans did not store meat. Not nothing “remotely like that;” exactly that. If you’d like to clarify, fine.

Quote:
Cite! [for the premise that the Blackfeet were hunter-gatherers who stored meat.]
Sure. Well, first of all, for the premise they were hunter-gatherers, see your own cite. Other than that, see Jackson, The Piikani Blackfeet: A Culture Under Siege, Linderman, Blackfeet Indians, and Bullchild, The Sun Came Down: A History Of The World As My Blackfeet Elders Told It.

Quote:
Conventional wisdom has it that by the time they were storing meat they were nomadic agriculturalists dependant entirely on a domestic animal: the horse.
Cite for “conventional wisdom”?

Quote:
Prior to the introduction of the horse the people of the region were either agriculturalists or else true HGs who stored no food. If you can find any evidence of meat storage amongst the Blackfeet or their progenitors prior to them adopting horse agriculture then by all means show it.
See above. See also any of the links to the buffalo jumps, which you can Google as easily as I can C&P the links, including Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump, Madison Buffalo Jump and First Peoples Buffalo Jump. Archeological evidence indicates they were used starting anywhere from 600 years ago to perhaps 8000 years – clearly pre-horse. So unless you think the People were going to the trouble to corral and stampede entire herds of buffalo but then making no attempt to store food for winter, your argument to “conventional wisdom” is untenable. This is also reinforced by the timings of the buffalo jumps – late fall, cite) – and the obvious fact that pemmican – a staple of the Blackfeet diet (cite– is itself a form of stored food.

Now, let’s look at your cite, complete with interesting ellipses. I will take the liberty of restoring a crucial bit of text you excised:

Quote:
"Up until the middle of the 17th century, few people dwelt year-round on the open grasslands of the Plains. . . .[U]ntil the arrival of the Spanish-introduced horse (in the middle of the 17th century), hunting bison anywhere on the Plains, except along its margins, was difficult for people who were on foot &possessed only their dogs to help carry meat, hides, tools, & shelter. Instead, it was the lush river bottoms of the major rivers that crossed the Plains that were occupied. Around 2000 years ago, sedentary agricultural people moved in from the east &settled in small villages along the rivers. Eventually their lifestyle came to rely significantly upon cultivated foods (maize, squash, sunflowers, &other plants) grown in fields along the river bottoms, although men seasonally left their villages to hunt (bison, deer, elk, turkey, prairie chicken) &women to gather wild plants. . . Before acquiring the horse (which came to the Southwest with the Spanish, first appearing on the southern Plains around 350 years ago) Nations such as the Blackfoot . . .were foot nomads living in loosely organized bands who seasonally moved out onto the plains to hunt buffalo. These Nations show no evidence of ever having been sedentary nor horticultural & were quick to incorporate the horse &become full-blown Horse Nomads.Your cite.
So hunting buffalo pre-horse was “difficult for people on foot.” There’s a news flash! How does that argue against, as opposed to for, storage of meat for winter when they could get their hands on it? And it is clear that the occupation of “lush river bottoms of the major rivers that cross the Plains” does not refer to the Blackfeet, of Dog Days or of the Horse, pre- or post-contact; it refers to settlements of 2000 years ago, which then migrated East, as is shown by the reference to “significant reliance upon cultivated foods”, as opposed to the Blackfeet who were never “sedentary nor horticultural.” Odd that you would leave out the part that makes it crystal clear this author is NOT talking about the Blackfeet. I notice how quick you are to trot out accusations of dishonesty and strawmen; I will attempt to think of other reasons for your curious editing of the text.

Quote:
I would be very interested in seeing evidence of the pre-agriculural Blackfoot carting and storing massive amounts of meat from a single kill, as opposed to the conventional idea that they were typical HGs who stored no food and simply broke up into smaller bands as food ran short.
Well, what sort of evidence would you like, other than the evidence of the piskuns (the Jumps), correlated with their seasonal migration (to the jumps for fall camp and the buffalo kills, thence to winter camp to hunker down), coupled with the evidence of what they ate all winter long? (Dried buffalo, and berries, and pemmican, which is dried buffalo and berries.) Are you looking perhaps for a photograph? Let’s see YOUR evidence that the Blackfeet were wantonly killing “massive amounts of meat” but then stupidly only taking what they could eat at the moment. The Blackfeet did break up into smaller bands for winter; how does that indicate they stored no food?

Quote:
And once again, it doesn't gel with reality. For most HGs, even if you want to restrict it to North am, meat was on the diet year round and was obtained daily.
Cite? The very reason the Blackfeet made such an effort to lay in stores for winter was the difficulty in getting out through the snows to hunt, and the lack of a guarantee that you would find anything if you did. So let’s see YOUR evidence that the Blackfeet were able to obtain meat “daily” throughout long Montana and Alberta winters. This wasn’t true of fur traders or even early western settlers, so it’s hard to see how it could have been magically true for the Blackfeet. Your beloved “HGs” of the zebra and the kangaroo weren’t slogging out through the snow to find them.

Quote:
So the utilisation of a chemical substance to elicit a debilitating and ultimately fatal physiological reposnse doesn't fall under the category of poisoning to you? Care to show us what definition of poisoning you are using that could possibly exclude this?
Sure. "Poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life and impair health.” (Emphasis added.) Maybe to you that includes simple detergents, I don’t know, but mine does not.

Quote:
Only the fact that there is no Western nation that has environmental legislation that would allow such a thing. If you can name a single western nation where this would be allowed then by all means pony up.
Wait a second. You said “All these practices were extremely wasteful and would never be allowed by any western people.” The use of “were” (past tense) indicated to me we were discussing historic but contemporary (meaning, contemporary with each other) “western” and “non-western” practices. That at least would be fair, but are you now comparing indigenous fishing techniques used by pre-contact peoples with modern legislated fishing practices? Moving the moral goal posts quite a bit there, aren’t you? And as for naming a “single western nation” where wasteful fishing practices would be allowed in the modern day, try any nation that allows whaling or, if that does not suffice for a fishing cite, try any country that allows drift net fishing without length restrictions (and that includes the EU until 2008, which I hope suffices as a cite for a “single western nation.”).

Quote:
And where exactly did I say that wasteful fishing practices were never allowed by any western people? I would appreciate if you didn't misquote me in this manner. Aside from being a blatant strawman it is dishonest and annoying.
Right here where you said “All these practices were extemely wasteful and would never be allowed by any western people.” Now I gather that you were not talking about “extremely wasteful” fishing practices generally but only specifically these extremely wasteful fishing practices. (Never attribute to dishonesty what can be explained by miscommunication, though I gather you’re pretty well annoyed by anyone who dares challenge your broad overgeneralizations.) In either event, I asked you for a cite for that statement, and I’d appreciate seeing one.

I trust I didn’t miss anything?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-25-2007, 12:20 AM
Jodi Jodi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
You and he are not talking about the same thing. He is talking about using every part of a buffalo (horns, hide, sinews, tendons, teeth, organs, meat), and you are talking about using every part of every buffalo. mbh has already addressed this: "I seem to recall someone saying something to the effect of 'They used every part of the buffalo. But they did not use every part of every buffalo.'" And it is not clear which of these the OP'er meant when he said "every part."
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-25-2007, 02:51 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodi
Except that the hunter-gatherers under discussion did store food, so they must have been “very exceptional", because for them it was an issue.
Huh?

I can't even follow what your point is any more.



Quote:
Surely you recognize a quantitative and qualitative difference between describing a society like the pre-contact Blackfeet as “practice[ing] a combination of hunting/gathering and true farming” -- my use -- and applying the same words to “every agricultural society on Earth until just two hundred years ago” – your use -- including, presumably, the 19th century English yeoman farmer who occasionally strolled out to pot a quail.
What I don't see is you providing any qualitative or quantitive differnce between the pre-contact blackfeet and a 19th century peasant farmer who collected hundreds of different wild foods every year and obtained a significant amount of their calories from such foods. But if you want to give us these qualitiative and quantitive differences now then we can certainly utilise them from this point on.

Quote:
Well, off the top of my head, the Cherokee did. They stored winter food stuffs in communal storage huts and/or personal baskets or bags. Do you personally find it necessary to bury your potatoes and beans in order to keep them through the winter?
What I find it necessary to do has no bearing on what someone in a different climate and different society needed ot do 200 years ago. It has even less bearing on what you said.

Concenring Cherokee storgae of food "storehouse for corn, beans, dried pumpkins and othe rprovisions... well daubed within and without with loam or clay that makes them tight and fit to keep out the smallest insect, there being a small door at the gable end ...cementing the fdoor up with the same earth when they take the corn out of the crib"

So you may be pedantically correct, they weren't buried, they were place din an earthen house baove gound. tahtis so much easier than burial. And it still doesn't adress your cliam that such beans weren't dried prior to storage.

Quote:
What? I never said the Blackfeet were sedentary townspeople. I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Let me take it slow:

I said that only rare HGS such as the people of the Northwest stored food.
You said that you wanted to extend the Nortwest onto the Great Plains.
I pointed out that unless you could provdie evidence that the people of the Great Plains were sedentary townsfolk as are the food storers fo the Northwest then such an extrapolation was ridiculous.
Can you provide such evidence?


Quote:
Yes, actually, you did. You said, “The only HGs groups in the entire world that I have heard of storing food in any significant amount are the Indians of the northwest extending into Alaska, and they primarily stored meat.”
That is certainly an example of me NOT saying that nomadic Native Americans did not store meat.

Now can you please quote where I said that nomadic Native Americans did not store meat, as you claimed? Otherwsie retrat the strawman.

Quote:
That is where you said nomadic Native Americans did not store meat. Not nothing “remotely like that;” exactly that. If you’d like to clarify, fine.
Look it's quite simple Jodi. If you insist that I said exactly that, then quote where I said exactly that. If not then can the strawman. You are fooling nobody in being dishonest.

In reality the problem is due to you not understanding that hunter gatherer and



Quote:
Sure. Well, first of all, for the premise they were hunter-gatherers, see your own cite. Other than that, see Jackson, The Piikani Blackfeet: A Culture Under Siege, Linderman, Blackfeet Indians, and Bullchild, The Sun Came Down: A History Of The World As My Blackfeet Elders Told It.
Seen all those. Nowhere do they say that the Blackfeet were HGs by the time they were storing food. In fact two of them agree with what I stated: the Blackfeet stored no food prior to their domestication of horses.


Quote:
Cite for “conventional wisdom”?
See my previpus reference cite. Other than that, see Linderman, Blackfeet Indians, and Bullchild, The Sun Came Down: A History Of The World As My Blackfeet Elders Told It. [/quote]


Quote:
Archeological evidence indicates they were used starting anywhere from 600 years ago to perhaps 8000 years – clearly pre-horse. So unless you think the People were going to the trouble to corral and stampede entire herds of buffalo but then making no attempt to store food for winter, your argument to “conventional wisdom” is untenable.
Based on what? Are you claiming that no people anywhere have killed large numbers of animals just because the easiest methaod was to kill large numbers, even though they lacked the ability to store the food? If so them I have some interesting references for you.


Quote:
This is also reinforced by the timings of the buffalo jumps – late fall
Hmm, could this perhaps have something to do with the fact that the buffalo migrated thorugh the territory in late fall? Or are you suggesting they might harvest buffalo when none are available if they can't store the food?

Quote:
and the obvious fact that pemmican – a staple of the Blackfeet diet is itself a form of stored food.
Look Jodi you can't use the existence of stored food after the Blackfeet adopted horse agriculture as evdidence of the fact that they stored food before adopting horse agriculture. It makes no sense at all.


Quote:
So hunting buffalo pre-horse was “difficult for people on foot.” There’s a news flash! How does that argue against, as opposed to for, storage of meat for winter when they could get their hands on it?
Sigh. The point of the article is that the blackfeet weren't carryting around the huge quantities of food and storing huge communal qunatities prior to introduction of the horse. They existed as smallbands and had limited carrying capacity. Large numbers of anaimls were killed when they were vaialble and the tribes came together at that tiome. Once the buffalo left the tribes fragmented into small bands. Unlike post-horse blackfoot culture and not in any way indictive of food storage.

Quote:
And it is clear that the occupation of “lush river bottoms of the major rivers that cross the Plains” does not refer to the Blackfeet, of Dog Days or of the Horse, pre- or post-contact; it refers to settlements of 2000 years ago, which then migrated East, as is shown by the reference to “significant reliance upon cultivated foods”
Good grief Jodi, the article states very specifically and very clearly that before they adopted horse agriculture the Blackfoot lived in the river valleys and moved out onto the plains only seaosnally when bufflao were present.

"Before acquiring the horse ... the Blackfoot ... were foot nomads living in loosely organized bands who seasonally moved out onto the plains to hunt buffalo"

How much clearer can they make it? Giving oyu the benefit of the doubt you simply didn't read the reference.

Quote:
Odd that you would leave out the part that makes it crystal clear this author is NOT talking about the Blackfeet.
WTF? The author uses the exact name "Blackfoot". This is ridiulous.


Quote:
I notice how quick you are to trot out accusations of dishonesty and strawmen; I will attempt to think of other reasons for your curious editing of the text.
Yes, it was for brevity, nothing more.

If you are not being dishonest in ignoring where the author states clarly that "Before acquiring the horse ... the Blackfoot ... were foot nomads living in loosely organized bands who seasonally moved out onto the plains to hunt buffalo" then you are simply incapable of understanding simple sentence.

I see no other plausible explanation beyond inablite to understand. That does not excuse you claiming that my edit altered the meaning. It did no later the meaning. The author was specificaly referring to the Blackfeet, and he was specifically sytaing that before they had horses they dwelt in the river vallleys and only seasonally moved onto the plain.

I am calling on you for an apology.


Quote:
Well, what sort of evidence would you like, other than the evidence of the piskuns (the Jumps), correlated with their seasonal migration (to the jumps for fall camp and the buffalo kills, thence to winter camp to hunker down), coupled with the evidence of what they ate all winter long?
Well let's start with your evidence for what the pre-horse Blackfeet ate all winter long.
Do we get to see this evidince?

The mere existence of the jumps tells us nothing other than that these people preferred to stampede buffalo over cliffs rather than try to kill them on foot with a spear. That proves they were clever enough to know that wounded buffalo on open ground is dangerous to a man on foot. It does not prove they stored the meat.

The same applies to the seasonal kills. Buffalo on the great plains were nomadic. They were only present at certain times of year, it is hardly surprising they could only be hravested at certain times of year.

A simple question Jody: do you think that evidence people only harvested salmon during one season of the year is proof that they were storing the salmon?

Quote:
Let’s see YOUR evidence that the Blackfeet were wantonly killing “massive amounts of meat” but then stupidly only taking what they could eat at the moment.
I'll see what I can turn up, but until then you made the positive claim and I am asking if you have any evidence for the claim. So far you have produced nothing.

Quote:
Cite?
Sure, this is so uncontroversial I could bury you in references. the fact that you even challenge it tells me a lot.

Cordain, L., Eaton, S.B. et al 2002 "The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic" European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56.

"the dominant foods in the majority of huntergatherer diets were derived from animal food sources. Most (73%) of the world’s hunter-gatherers obtained >50% of their subsistence from hunted and fished animal foods, whereas only 14% of worldwide hunter-gatherers obtained >50% of their subsistence from gathered plant foods." Spielman, K.A., Eder J.F. 1994 "Hunters and Farnmers, Then and Now" Ann. Rev Anthropology 23.

"No hunter-gatherer population is entirely or largely dependent (86–100% subsistence) on gathered plant foods, whereas 20% (n = 46) are highly or solely dependent (86–100%) on fished and hunted animal foods. " Cordain, L., Brand Miller, J et al 2000 "Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71:3.


In summary, your claim that HGs rarely ate meat and didn't eat much of it is so much bunkum. All HGs obtain in excess of 15% of thei animal protein form food and most get most of their food from animals.


Quote:
So let’s see YOUR evidence that the Blackfeet were able to obtain meat “daily” throughout long Montana and Alberta winters.
HG Blackfeet? You just saw my evidence.

Quote:
This wasn’t true of fur traders or even early western settlers, so it’s hard to see how it could have been magically true for the Blackfeet.
Since you apparently don't see how people who have lived in an area for millenia might be somehow a bit better at finding food than someone who just wandered in I won't even bother explaining.

Quote:
Your beloved “HGs” of the zebra and the kangaroo weren’t slogging out through the snow to find them.
No? So it doesn't snow in Tasmania then.

Tell me Jody, is it your position that all HGs in climates where it snows must have stored meat to survive, including Neanderthals and H. erectus? If not then what exactly is your point here?

Quote:
Sure. "Poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life and impair health.” (Emphasis added.) Maybe to you that includes simple detergents, I don’t know, but mine does not.


Honestly Jody I am having more and more difficulty seing what your point is.
Surely you are not you claiming that saponins don't have an inherent property that tends to destroy life and impair health? If that is what you are claiming then how do you think they kill fish? Some sort of extrinsic factor? Perusasion perhaps?

Quote:
Wait a second. You said “All these practices were extremely wasteful and would never be allowed by any western people.” The use of “were” (past tense) indicated to me we were discussing historic but contemporary (meaning, contemporary with each other) “western” and “non-western” practices.
WTF?

We were discussing the pratices explicitely listed: use of saponins, glycosides, rotenones and biological deoxygenation to poison fish for harvest. I have no idea how you managed to twist that into anyhting other than what is explicitely written:

North American Indians harvested fish by poisoning using saponins, glycosides, rotenones and biological deoxygenation. No western people would allow the harvetsing of fish by using saponins, glycosides, rotenones and biological deoxygenation. thatis what I wrote, that is what I meant, that is what I said.


Quote:
...but are you now comparing indigenous fishing techniques used by pre-contact peoples with modern legislated fishing practices? Moving the moral goal posts quite a bit there, aren’t you?
Double WTF. Moving the goalposts? WTF are you tallking about.

The very first sentence in this thread states that "Native Americans were much less wasteful than everyone else, and they used every single part of the animal." EVERYONE else. Quite explicitely making a comparison with modern , western society.

How the fuck is directly adressing the very first sentence in the OP mving the goalposts?

Quote:
And as for naming a “single western nation” where wasteful fishing practices would be allowed in the modern day, try any nation that allows whaling..
WTF? Whaling does not and never has involved poisoning the water to stun the whale.


Jody, at this point I give up. You are posting nothing but non-sequiturs that elicit only WTF readctions. They are menaingless and have absolutely no refernce to what is being discussed. And I just remebered, you have history of doing this when you try to "defend" American Indians. More than once I have invited you to come to GD to settl;e thes eclaims and you have backed out.

I give up on you.

For those interested in the facts:

HGs in North Am or anywhere else derived huge amounts of their calorie intake form animal foods. It was not a rarity as Jody suggested.

Indians did indeed kill large numbers of buffalo and leave them to rot without ever laying a knife to them.

Indians did indeed harvest fish by poisoning the water and killing everything but only harvesting some fish.

Last edited by Blake; 09-25-2007 at 02:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-25-2007, 08:35 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 48,288
As noted above, efficiency and frugality in slaughtering practices were not limited to Native Americans. I remember in one of the Little House on the Prairie books, the family slaughters a pig with the help of a neighbor, and they use it all - they even turn the bladder into a little ball for Laura and her sister.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-25-2007, 10:40 AM
Jodi Jodi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
I can't even follow what your point is any more.
Then we'll leave it. You've given me a lot to get through here.

Quote:
What I don't see is you providing any qualitative or quantitive differnce between the pre-contact blackfeet and a 19th century peasant farmer who collected hundreds of different wild foods every year and obtained a significant amount of their calories from such foods. But if you want to give us these qualitiative and quantitive differences now then we can certainly utilise them from this point on.
The 19th cetury English yeoman farmer -- I never said peasant farmer -- did not "collect hundreds of different wild food every year." I have no inclination to get into some tangential debate about the eating habits of 19th century Englishmen who personally grew (or, rather, oversaw the growth) of much of his food, and traded or bought the rest, versus the eating habits of pre-contact Native Americans. Frankly, I trust the ridiculousness of saying they are the same or even similar is pretty self-evident.

Quote:
So you may be pedantically correct, they weren't buried, they were place din an earthen house baove gound.
I'm not sure how being "pendantically" correct is different from being completely correct, which I was. Unless you're operating under some definition of "buried" that includes "stored above ground" which, heck, for all I know you are.

Quote:
And it still doesn't adress your cliam that such beans weren't dried prior to storage.
Please point out where I ever said beans weren't dried prior to storage. I think you know full-well I never said that, but having being so completely wrong in your gross generalization about all Native American food storage practices, you retreat to asking me to address a "claim" I never made.

Quote:
Look it's quite simple Jodi. If you insist that I said exactly that, then quote where I said exactly that. If not then can the strawman. You are fooling nobody in being dishonest.
I'm really finding your accusations of dishonesty to be tiresome. You are not such a font of elucidation and wisdom that every word dripping from your mouth shines with complete transparent clarity. I would suggest that you consider the possibility that any difference of opinion as to meaning is more likely to arise from misunderstanding than from dishonesty. Even if you are somehow unable to consider that possibility, I give you fair warning, for what litte conseqence it might be: I do not debate or discuss with people who accuse me of dishonesty. Life is short, you know? You might keep that in mind if you're looking to wind up the discussion: A third post accusing me of dishonesty should do it.

Moving on: It seems you are using a very proscribed and pendantic definition of "hunter-gatherer" that bestows that status on migrating non-agrarian societies that move about by foot but withdraws the label from those who follow the same seasonal patterns (same food, same shelter, same camps, same society) on horseback. This is not a distinction I'm interested in drawing and not one I feel is worth arguing about. AFAIK, "hunter-gatherer" as a broad term is used to distinguish from/contrast to agrarian-based societies. This is certainly how Wiki defines it.

Quote:
Look Jodi you can't use the existence of stored food after the Blackfeet adopted horse agriculture as evidence of the fact that they stored food before adopting horse agriculture. It makes no sense at all.
Of course I can. There is no indication that the Blackfeet magically changed their social movements or diet to demonstrate a shift to a reliance on new types of foodstuffs (i.e., stored food) after about 1730 (arrival of the horse) as opposed to before 1730 (dog days). They didn't being siloing food; they didn't become sedentary; they didn't change the composition of their diet. This is your assertion, so let's see you back it up.

Quote:
Sigh. The point of the article is that the blackfeet weren't carryting around the huge quantities of food and storing huge communal qunatities prior to introduction of the horse.
I never said anything about "huge quantities of food" or "storing huge communal quantities." Confine yourself to things I said, please. Though it is worth pointing out that there is no evidence of "carrying around huge quantities of food" or "storing huge communal quantities" after the introduction of the horse, either.

Quote:
They existed as smallbands and had limited carrying capacity. Large numbers of anaimls were killed when they were vaialble and the tribes came together at that tiome. Once the buffalo left the tribes fragmented into small bands. Unlike post-horse blackfoot culture and not in any way indictive of food storage.
How does limited carrying capacity indicate no storage? Wouldn't it rather indicate that your storage ability is limited to your carrying capacity? How does that equate to NO storage at all? The Blackfeet came together for the Sun Dance (or its predecessor, the medicine bundle gathering) in July. They came together again in September or early October at the Jumps for the buffalo drive. The summer gathering was not dependent on the viability of the buffalo, and the more general small-band structure was not because of a lack of buffalo. And again I see no cites for anything you say.

Quote:
Good grief Jodi, the article states very specifically and very clearly that before they adopted horse agriculture the Blackfoot lived in the river valleys and moved out onto the plains only seasonally when bufflao were present: "Before acquiring the horse ... the Blackfoot ... were foot nomads living in loosely organized bands who seasonally moved out onto the plains to hunt buffalo." How much clearer can they make it? Giving oyu the benefit of the doubt you simply didn't read the reference.
Are you serious? Look, the entire quote is listed in my last post. It is very clear when it is talking about people living in "lush river valleys" and when it is talking about the Blackfeet, and it is crystal clear that the people referenced in the first sentence (dwellers in lush river valleys) are not the Blackfeet. I even helpfully bolded the text demonstrating this -- which you had excised. I really can't make it any clearer than that. The cite says what it says; anyone can read it and decide which of us is off-base here. .

Quote:
Yes, it was for brevity, nothing more.
Ah. And the complete change of meaning was only an unfortunate side-effect. Well, these things happen.

Quote:
I am calling on you for an apology.
Oh.

Quote:
Well let's start with your evidence for what the pre-horse Blackfeet ate all winter long. Do we get to see this evidence?
I've already addressed this. They ate dried buffalo and dried berries -- and dried buffalo mixed with dried berries (pemmican). They also ate whatever else they could catch or find, but that was not a constant supply given the weather. BTW, they gathered berries in July (The Moon Of Ripe Berries) and they stocked up on buffalo in September (The Moon Of The Rains). And what did they do with the berries and buffalo until winter came? They dried it, converted it to pemmican, and kept it (stored it).

Quote:
The mere existence of the jumps tells us nothing other than that these people preferred to stampede buffalo over cliffs rather than try to kill them on foot with a spear. That proves they were clever enough to know that wounded buffalo on open ground is dangerous to a man on foot. It does not prove they stored the meat.
Do you have a cite for the buffalo jump being simply a matter of preference? Because ISTM that the logistics of orchestrating a buffalo hunt were not necessarily easier (to be preferred) to killing buffalo with bows and arrows or spears. To the contrary, ISTM self-evident that the buffalo jumps were used as a means of slaughtering large numbers of buffalo at a single time so that an ample supply of meat would be available for the coming winter. Because here's a news flash: The Jump required lining the tribe or band up on either side of the chute to frighten the buffalo into staying in line. It also required a young man out front of the buffalo (covered by a buffalo skin) to lead the buffalo stampede -- one having enough speed and agility to then get the heck out of the way. ("Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump" takes its name from an unsuccessful example of such a young man.) So perhaps you have some cite weighing the danger of being part of a human wall in close proximity to a stampeding herd of buffalo, versus the danger of of a single wounded buffalo confronted by several warriors on open ground? Because otherwise this is just more speculation, and mine is as valid as yours.

Quote:
A simple question Jody: do you think that evidence people only harvested salmon during one season of the year is proof that they were storing the salmon?
A simple question, Blaik: Is the yearly harvest also accompanied by evidence that salmon is what the people consumed at other times of year? Would that not be proof of storage? Because if they harvest once a year, but eat it at other times, how do you account for that without storage? Again, the Blackfeet ate dried buffalo and pemmican throughout the winter; it was their staple food, the complete mainstay of their diet. How you imagine they accomplished that without food storage is beyond me.

Quote:
Sure, this is so uncontroversial I could bury you in references. the fact that you even challenge it tells me a lot.
Yeah, this tells me a lot about you, too, because what you said -- and what I asked for a cite for -- was "For most HGs, even if you want to restrict it to North am, meat was on the diet year round and was obtained daily." (Emphasis added.)

Tellingly, not a single one of your cites addresses North America. Instead, they are all "worldwide" cites, a great example of how you overgeneralize from a specific circumstance (the Blackfeet) to some universal truth which must apply to all hunter-gatherer societies, when surely you as a practitioner in this field know that every archeological ethnobioligical "rule" is merely a generalization for which there are exceptions. Be that as it may, none of your cites speaks even to North America generally, much less northern (snowy) North America, much less the Blackfeet specifically. So I have seen your evidence. It is not persuasive.

Aaaand, the rest of this seems to be you claiming confusion and inability to see my points, which frankly I don't think require re-posting after having been posted at such length the first time. (I note however, a crucial difference between having explained once and, "not even bothering to explain.")

Quote:
I give up on you.
Oh. Well, if you could see your way clear to "give up" a little earlier, you'd save me a lot of typing, which would be greatly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-25-2007, 06:53 PM
Moirai Moirai is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhyNot
Well, of course not! Then what would they use to make their canes and walking sticks, silly?




*Note: the bull penis canes and walking sticks are not gennyouwine Native American Indian First People's artifacts. They are, however, bull penises.

Oh yeah, my dad has one. It's... odd. We usually let people handle it for a minute or two before we tell them what it is- freaks 'em out totally!

Although dad's bull penis cane is quite straight and not as gnarly-looking as the ones in the link.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-25-2007, 08:32 PM
LouisB LouisB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Seminole, FL
Posts: 8,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life
Ah manys the time I've watched herds of Haggis roaming free in the glen ever alert for predatory Bagpipes!

I love the Highlands.
Has anyone ever domesticated a Haggis? Has anyone ever tried? Will they breed in captivity? Does anyone care?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-25-2007, 08:51 PM
Argent Towers Argent Towers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
This thread has been making me extremely hungry.

Has anyone ever opened up a Native American restaurant? Serving stuff like buffalo, venison, wild game, cornbread, squash, etc? I would totally go.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-25-2007, 09:53 PM
Jodi Jodi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers
This thread has been making me extremely hungry.

Has anyone ever opened up a Native American restaurant? Serving stuff like buffalo, venison, wild game, cornbread, squash, etc? I would totally go.
You can make pemmican yourself if you want to -- and if you like a mixture of dried meat, meat fat, and dried berries.

Here is a traditional pemmican recipe (three of them, actually),

and

here's a recipe for more tasty pemmican.

The difference? Native American food (at least Plains cuisine) tended to be bland, the savoriness of fat being the delicacy. Modern Americans prefer sweeter, saltier, more highly flavored food. That's what the second recipe gives you.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-25-2007, 09:58 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers
This thread has been making me extremely hungry.

Has anyone ever opened up a Native American restaurant? Serving stuff like buffalo, venison, wild game, cornbread, squash, etc? I would totally go.
Check out the thread Are there any American Indian restaurants?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-26-2007, 12:59 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Well, one of the virtues of pigs is that you use the whole animal. Cows, pretty much (I don't think I've ever heard of a use for cow intestines, while pigs' do get used).

But only if you slaughter them in manageable amounts and if there aren't "better" materials around for whatever. Bone jewelry and drinking horns kind of went out of fashion a while back, you know.

I imagine that Native Americans were similarly frugal to, say, medieval European farmers; there might be times when a group of hunters managed to drive off a cliff more buffalo than they could deal with and part of the bounty would go to waste (simply because a vulture got to it first), but in general you used as much as you could. A lot of our wastefulness comes with massification.

Last edited by Nava; 09-26-2007 at 01:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-26-2007, 01:40 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava
I don't think I've ever heard of a use for cow intestines
1) You've never heard of sausages? What do you think sausage skins are made of? Well these days they are often cellulose, but they are still often made of intestine.

2) Never heard of catgut? Used to be used for tennis racquet strings, medical sutures and a milllion other uses. Of course it wasn't atcual cat gut, it was a contraction of cattle gut. Not used so much any more, but still widely available.

4) Never heard of meat meal, or hoof and horn fertiser? A modern cattle abbatoir would never waste anything as valuiable as intestine. Any that doesn't get used for sausage casings or other ends goes into the slops hopper for procesing into meat meal for fish or poultry or is turned into organic fertiliser.


Quote:
I imagine that Native Americans were similarly frugal to, say, medieval European farmers
Many groups, probably most, were far more wasteful. European farmers had the luxury of domesticated animals that they were able to slaughter at their leisure with no risk. Indians lacked that luxury and as such often resorted to wasteful methods.

That was compounded by the problem of common resource ownership. European farmers couldn't poison streams because they belonged to the crown, they couldn't hunt by setting fire to pasture either, or attarct game by lighting forest fires or indulge in the many other wasteful practices that various Indian groups used. Because most Indian groups viewed things like stream and pasture and herd as common property there was little control on how it was exploited. It was an extended tragedy of the commons.

Quote:
there might be times when a group of hunters managed to drive off a cliff more buffalo than they could deal with and part of the bounty would go to waste (simply because a vulture got to it first)
It wasn't simply because the vultures got to it first. It was simply because it went rotten before there was any chance of eating it. See my references above, the Indians never even made the attempt to butcher the animals.

Quote:
A lot of our wastefulness comes with massification.
You have that completely about face: our resource thriftiness comes from "massification".

It has been the use of large abbatoirs that has enabled modern western societies to achieve what no other culture in history has done: we utilise every single part of every single animal we kill. You can not name a single part of an animal entering modern western abbatoir that is discarded. Blood, bones, hooves, horns, even the faeces and paunch. All are collected and sold by modern abbatoirs. And that is true for every single animal processed.

If you can name a single human culture that has managed to waste less animal material than modern western society with massive industrial abbatoirs then your point will have some validity, but I know you will be unable to do so.

I know it's popular with certai elements to claim that western societies are wasteful, but claims that large industrial abbatoirs contribute to waste rather actually run counter to the facts. Massive abbatoirs eliminate wastefulness, they don't cause it.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.