That is one of the highest rated programs in the history of PBS. I have it on my TiVo, and also on a VHS tape I made back when it originally aired. I also have the book he wrote, although I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
If you ever watch it, have a box of Kleenex ready when they introduce the family with the baby. 
So yeah, not going to watch that.
This is one hell of a hijack, or maybe it’s not. There’s a thin line between “Eww, gross, you have dead animals in your house” and “Hey, let’s go see poked, pickled, and preserved Grandma, because that’s normal”. I helped the aforementioned boyfriend study for his exams, and we were both equally scandalized by the fact that incredibly lucrative embalming and the funeral industry and associated lobbies have only been around for about 100 years, that we have somehow managed the leap of cognitive dissonance which separates the Egyptian mummies (Pagans!!) from the current Christian-approved practice of preserving corpses, and that “Ashes, to ashes, dust to dust” are mere words spoken over an artifact so well preserved that we often lift clear fingerprints from exhumed corpses.
It’s gross, it’s atrocious, it’s tragic, and yet it’s normal. How did we arrive at this?
So yeah, there are some preserved specimens and hunting trophies in my house. It’s no grosser than Grandma’s funeral.
Actually, I first read about it in ‘Cassell’s Saturday Magazine’ ( British ) dated circa 1887. I don’t think it caught on except among, presumably, the glitterati.
And, naturally, there was the habit, confined almost entirely to southern Europe, mainly the Italian-speaking places, but even in the grimmer parts of catholic Bavaria ( except these are posed on tombs as in life in finery ), and perhaps Mexico, of sticking the very dried up corpses of monks, plague victims, and others up on the wall in tasteful groups. I’m not sure why.
Mexico - Las Momias de Guanajuato. I can tell you why and it’s another scam of the burial biz. The graves weren’t bought; they were rented. If the family couldn’t afford the rent, the body was exhumed and put on display for a charge. The cemetary folks would probably say that the corpse was reserved for future burial.
To continue the hijack, which isn’t such a hijack because it illustrates what Troppus called our cognitive dissonance regarding respect for the dead, the last I heard some of las momias were touring the science museums of America (for science purposes only, shades of Pastrana) and while in Detroit got put in a warehouse. Lack of funds stuck the chicos far, far from home.
I’m not against it per se. I think hunting is kind of silly, but I also think people should be able to do it. I feel the same about them mounting their kills. Silly, but I’m not against it.
Embalming and the display of the dead all stem from changes in Western attitudes, especially American, in what constitutes a “good death.” The changes first started to occur during the American Civil War.
Embalming was important during the war because being able to bury the body was important for their concept of a good death. Up to and during the war the majority of Americans shared the idea of a “good death” being one in which the dying were surrounded by family and friends. The dying would confess their last sins and face death bravely. How he acted at the moment his death was seen as a final punctuation mark to his life. If the dying could face death with fortitude, calm, and grace, he could “erase at once all the sins of his life” or conversely, “cancel out all his good deeds if he gives way” to his fear.[1] There are still vestiges of this belief. For example, before someone dies it is said their life flashes before their eyes and their actions during this biography determined their eternal fate.[2] Because society believed that the dying’s actions at the moment of death determined the soul’s eternal destination, family and friends surrounded the dying not only to witness them entering into glory but to also offer spiritual encouragement and strength, and these actions would be used to determine the likelihood for reunion in the afterlife.[3] Therefore, if the dying acted brave during the hour of death, they would have been able to assure their families that they would be reunited in the afterlife for eternity. So, the return of the body was seen as vital for the families. And the family lived in when when they’re son was killed in Pennsylvania and they had money, embalming was required.
After the Civil War there was a wholesale shift in what constituted a good death and how people viewed dying. Due to a rise in national secularization, smaller families, and a growth in hospitals, people were no longer as worried about their own deaths as they were about the impact on others. As one historian called thy death, the biggest worry was keeping the dying in ignorance of their own mortality. In fact, it was the duty of family and friends to protect the dying from their own mortality.[4] I once did a google search for images under “good death” and this one popped up. The cartoon is one that is bright and happy and the dying hardly looks as if they are dying in the least. Everything is hidden. Because of this attempt to hide away death we have now moved onto the forbidden death, or the invisible, which explains this need to embalm our dead and slather them in make-up.
The invisible death allows us to pretend that death does not happen. In this thread about hated euphemisms a poster says they hate phrases like “passing on” and such because they hide the true meaning. That’s the point, though. That’s why there are phrases such as “he’s with Jesus” and “kicked the bucket.” When there is a death they say things like, “luckily it was quick” or make note to mention that the deceased “died in his sleep,” both of which illustrate how the dead could not have known they were to die. It’s easier for us to accept. Here’s a religious comic which discusses this use of euphemisms.
If we prefer dying to be invisible, of course we would want to funeral itself to try to mask death. The modern concept of embalming is to best mask the facade of death and try to present some semblance of life. “The impulse is always,” says historian Philippe Ariès, “to use the skills of the mortician to erase the signs of death, to make up the deceased until he looks almost alive.”[5] And then there’s grieving, but I’ve rambled enough already…
TLDR: We embalm to try and hide death due to a change in how death is viewed in the U.S.
[1] Philippe Ariès, Western Attitudes Toward Death: From the Middle Ages to the Present, trans. Patricia M. Ranum (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 37.
[2] Ariès, Western Attitudes Toward Death, 38.
[3] Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2008), 10.
[4]Philippe Ariès, The Hour of Our Death: The Classic History of Western Attitudes Toward Death Over the Last One Thousand Years, (New York: NY, 1981), 562.
[5] Ariès, The Hour of Our Death, 599.
In the 70s, the father in the family next door had a taxidermy shop in the garage.
One day, I walked over there, to see if the kids wanted to play.
I walked around the corner, into their slightly darkened garage.
THIS loomed over me, amid the stench of rotten meat, in the darkness.
I screamed, and damn near had a heart at at 10 years old.
I hate taxidermy.
Sure, that trend arose during the Civil War, but only followed a pressing need to return shattered bodies in tact via train to families several states away in all weather conditions. Followed on the heels by intense pressure from funeral industry lobbies to regulate every step of the burial process and remove the rights and ability of survivors to practice a dignified, affordable burial using their own rituals, materials, and land.
In the interest in romanticizing the “good death” trend, let’s not forget separating the bereaved from their money is the funeral industry’s primary goal; a good death ain’t free. Thankfully consumers are pushing back, and working towards deregulation that will allow the survivors to decide for themselves how best to lay loved ones to rest.
I recently saw a documentary on someone’s TV, by a brother of Ken Burns, about the treatment of such things during the War Between The States, ‘Death and the Civil War’; as far as I remember, bodies were carted reverently into mass graves or in a hole of their own, but whilst the Union forces would transport their own home, they were a trifle careless with Confederate stiffs, sometimes leaving them lying about where they lay, in field or along lanes, until after that long war was ended.
Not that I can blame them, except on the grounds of taste, for it would certainly spoil a picnic, and perhaps because it seems a little unhygienic — because there is no way I would touch a human corse, or even a part of one.
I don’t hunt, but a lot of people in my family do, so I’m used to seeing mounted deer heads and birds. It never really fazes me.
I don’t think there are any laws that a person has to be embalmed. Unless you’re having an open-casket funeral, in which case, please do. We don’t want to smell you. 
Or maybe it has to do with bio hazards, various chemicals, and just plain dignity for the dead? But thank you soooo much for the insinuation that my father is an unethical money grabber. :rolleyes:
It wasn’t my intention to malign your father or my former boyfriend. Your dad is an employee of an industry I find corrupt and self-serving, as many industries with heavy lobby representation are wont to be. But it’s been around a long time, in most states there are few if any legal alternatives to the policies and procedures of funeral homes. Like it or not, most of us are legally obligated to procure the services of a funeral home since we can’t chuck Grandma in a hole in the backyard anymore, and I’m glad there are people with the stomach and/or heart to help us dispose of our dead. But I don’t have to like the process or the expense. Every member of my immediate family has requested cremation after all usable organs are donated because we’re a little too familiar with the process.
I wonder if those bothered by the common taxidermy mounts of game that include the full head and shoulders are less opposed to a European style mount that simply displays the rack / antlers. There’s no eyes staring at you, no facial recognition of an animal you might prefer to see alive in the wild. As mentioned before I’ve got a caribou shed mounted that way, the animal didn’t perish and he drops these each and every year. Or are those disturbing too?
Hah!
Those eyes. Staring at me. . .
Here’s a link to bad taxidermy.com. That derpy bobcat is hilarious… http://www.badtaxidermy.com/
Ha! I am, and was going to lead my response with “I find embalming humans creepy as fuck, too.” I get extremely uncomfortable at funerals where a body viewing is part of the deal; I’d much prefer a memorial or wake which doesn’t involve that, because if I care about someone I want to celebrate their life and remember them as they were (for which photographs are a better tool), not as some sort of caricature of themselves, made up to pretend they’re just sleeping/deny their death. It’s morbid. I am completely grossed out by the idea of filling remains with preservatives and cotton batting. It is just so… antithetical to the whole idea of letting go after death. I know people mean well, but I find it disrespectful, and at least a little emotionally unhealthy. Nor does it help that embalming and the sealed vault means the remains putrefy rather than decay normally. Ugh. I’ve even discussed with my family that I want a natural burial, should I go before they do.
Anyway, I do find taxidermy creepy, and it seems like a brutish sort of dominance display, honestly. As if men have this need to declare that they control all other animals even in death. I don’t like being in a room where dead things are staring at me, and I think it would be a greater show of respect to give the remains back to nature (in the case of humans, too).
That said, I don’t really get all moralistic about taxidermy. I just shot a music video in a creepy old Victorian house stuffed full of Victorian-era taxidermy, including domestic cats, a zebra, and a lion, which I can understand in its historical context, and can appreciate that the home owner goes out of her way not to buy new mounts. I’ve photographed my BIL’s mounts (he IS a taxidermist), and while they are creepy, I recognize death is a part of the cycle of life (humans are not the only predators), and I think hunting respectfully is more important than what you do with the skin afterwards. (Although, I admit, I think humans hunting with modern tools gives them an unfair advantage. Doubt I’ll ever win that argument, though.)
I DO object to hunting/killing for sport. There’s no saving grace that can make that okay; and I am disgusted whenever I hear of modern big game hunters, whether they preserve their kills or not.
I agree with you, but keep in mind that it is difficult or impossible to find such a thing in most states.
I have no idea why, but it’s true.
If you want something unique like that, I think you should figure out the logistics of it before you die, that way your stressed out and grieving family doesn’t have to scramble around trying to fulfil your wish for a natural burial.
I have a bunch of bookmarks already, yeah. Sadly the nearest green funeral home is in Wisconsin (at last check), but believe me, I’ve done the research. Though it may be time for another Google search to see if anything has changed. The Wisconsin funeral home was new(ish) when I found it. Before that the nearest green burial land was in South Carolina.
Huh. On double checking, it seems my place in Wisconsin has disappeared, so I guess it IS time for another Google search. 
Hey, fab new(ish) resource: http://www.greenburialcouncil.org/finding-a-provider/
