Re: Re: oreos

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>A person in a healthy community should NOT have to spend half their lives

>researching what is good and bad.

That's the truth -- or there is no truth.

-

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>And The desperate struggle for survival thing, gimme a break. Most

>of the western world is NOT " struggling for survival " most of us

>are too busy with misappropriated priorities.

You're obviously doing pretty well, and good for you -- you obviously

deserve it for the important services you're providing people. But while

there are certainly millions of people in this country with misplaced

priorities, I think you're overlooking the millions who struggle with

poverty and near-poverty. I've lived in rich communities, so I know how

easy it is to lose sight of how the other half lives, but I've also lived

in poor areas, and I see people struggling all the time. I live in a

ghetto now, in a tenement building, in fact, and you should see what the

supermarkets and bodegas and whatnot here offer and how little money most

people here have to live on. Could they eat more healthily by avoiding

some of the processed garbage and hydrogenated oils being pimped in their

stores? Of course. But there's just no way they could live optimally

healthily or even close to it, because many of these people obviously

couldn't subsist largely on grains. Many of them are already very fat, for

example. It just wouldn't work.

>And as for leaving them to their fate? it works for all the other

>mammals on planet earth, why not?(he said flippantly)

Do you think the damage to the environment and the drastic reduction in

biodiversity that's happening as we speak won't have dire consequences to

the entire human race, sheeple and libertarians and misguided critical

thinkers like me alike? Like it or not, everything on earth is

interdependent with everything else.

I have a book recommendation on this subject too, _The Sixth Extinction_,

by E. Leakey and Lewin. If you're interested, you can read

some sample pages and reviews at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385468091/qid=1053211108/sr=8-1/r\

ef=sr_8_1/104-9288758-6795103?v=glance & s=books & n=507846

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>So it all comes back to that -- the woman, her place in life, where

>food fits in.

I agree, but what do you say to women who want to have full-time careers

and also want to have kids? It's basically become a feminist plank that

there's no obligation for the woman to stay at home to raise kids and that

biology and evolution have not after all equipped mothers to do necessary

things for children that fathers can't (just as fathers must do things

mothers can't). There are no easy answers.

-

[Guest guest]

Mike-

I don't think any of us are trying to make excuses for bad parents and

other ignoramus types. But we are saying it's not necessarily 100% their

fault, and if blame is divided among multiple parties, then all fractional

causes of the problem need to be addressed. Banning poisonous non-foods

like hydrogenated fats and oils would be one great step in one direction,

that's all. It's certainly not the total solution. Making sure there are

consequences for parents who feed their kids so much junk (of all types)

that those kids become diabetic Jabba the Huts would probably be a good

idea too. All of us trying to educate as many consumers as we can --

including parents and children -- about what they should really be eating

is another step, and I'm sure many of us have taken that one.

Solving the entire set of macro and micro problems will take many steps in

many different programs undertaken by many people. So when I say I believe

that the lawsuit which attempted to effect a ban on selling hydrogenated

fats and oils to children should've been pursued to its conclusion, and

should have succeeded, that doesn't mean that I think we should just rely

on lawsuits to fix the wretched mess our country -- and really the whole

world -- is in. It just means I believe that it's one effective tool in

our toolbox, useful and appropriate for certain elements of the overall

problem but not others.

>It becomes even more frustrating when people I

>respect appear to want to make excuses for those too lazy, too busy,

>too poor, too whatever, not getting their house in order.

-

[Guest guest]

Mike-

OK, my mistake. I just thought you were saying that lack of time and

resources was never a valid reason, at least here in the US.

>I am not saying there are not

>lots of poor who need help. I am simply saying that The vast

>majority of the western world is not wondering where their next meal

>is coming from.

-

[Guest guest]

.. It was culture that helped

>traditional cultures to navigate the many dietary choices they did have,

>often in very difficult circumstances. We don't have culture today. I

>would call it " vulture " because it doesn't come from life but feeds off

>life. To rebuild culture, again, we must rebuild local economies and

>food systems which by increasing wealth, giving us our time back, making

>affordable high quality foods available, and encouraging us to work

>together and know each other, provide the breathing room from the global

>economy to do more than tread water - we can build sustainable wisdom

>cultures! Simply trying to create and enforce a native diet in one's

>family today is as we all know - very difficult.

See, that is the crux of the issue: who decides and builds culture? At one

point it was your tribe -- lately it has been the corporations, more or

less: the media IS the culture, to some degree. But believe it or not, I

think that it is dialogs like these that are building the future culture.

All of us here disagree, to some extent, what a " healthy diet " really

is. I.e. in MY fantasy world, there would be no wheat! My opinion is that

of the two foods of modern commerce, wheat and sugar, wheat is a far worse

villain. But over the years, the " alternative " community has been building

consensus, helped by a bunch of published research and

self-experimentation. I think that there will ba a new " culture " that

people can accept and follow without knowing a lot about microbiology or

chemistry.

What I've found is that as our family builds our culture (based a lot on

input from you folks and NT), other people copy us. It is different from

the old tofu-and-whole-grain-wheat days in that NT food actually tastes

better than the alternative. I tried to give away my old Crisco and no one

would take it -- they've all switched to butter! And when we serve tacos

people go to the fridge and ask " do you have any of that KEFIR sour

cream??? " and they steal our cookies.

And the rest of the world is actually kind of reaching consensus too, to an

NT perspective. Emeril made Steak Tartar the other day, and raw fish is

" in " in Seattle restaurants, and fat is coming back. Food show hosts rarely

use prepared foods -- fresh is " in " . The Naked Chef had a great program

where he took over a rock star's house for the day and made dinner -- he

bought a roast, then went to the backyard " kitchen garden " to get some

carrots and herbs to cook with it. The whole " slow food " movement has the

big boys a bit scared: they are trying to package " real " food but so far

not with much success. Well, Trader Joe's might be doing it, with organic

packaged " ready to eat " vegies. Maybe that is why they are trying so hard

to reach the young'uns ...

-- Heidi

P.S. you can't ban sugar, otherwise it will be too hard to make kombucha.

[Guest guest]

>And The desperate struggle for survival thing, gimme a break. Most

>of the western world is NOT " struggling for survival " most of us

>are too busy with misappropriated priorities.

Gee whiz, you mean folks at the top of the food chain can choose to work

less? Wow. That is amazing. I'd challenge you to try living off a standard

Walmart salary. You could do it 30-40 years ago -- but not now. In case you

haven't noticed, there is a big problem with the " working poor " in this

country, and it has been getting worse, not better.

You comment reminds me of a person I know who charges $165 an hour for his

services. He just can't understand how people have a hard time making ends

meet -- they need to balance their budgets better!

" Let them eat cake "

Try reading " Nickle and Dimed " ... summary below.

------------

Essayist and cultural critic Barbara Ehrenreich has always specialized in

turning received wisdom on its head with intelligence, clarity, and verve.

With some 12 million women being pushed into the labor market by welfare

reform, she decided to do some good old-fashioned journalism and find out

just how they were going to survive on the wages of the unskilled--at $6 to

$7 an hour, only half of what is considered a living wage. So she did what

millions of Americans do, she looked for a job and a place to live, worked

that job, and tried to make ends meet.

As a waitress in Florida, where her name is suddenly transposed to " girl, "

trailer trash becomes a demographic category to aspire to with rent at $675

per month. In Maine, where she ends up working as both a cleaning woman and

a nursing home assistant, she must first fill out endless pre-employment

tests with trick questions such as " Some people work better when they're a

little bit high. " In Minnesota, she works at Wal-Mart under the repressive

surveillance of men and women whose job it is to monitor her behavior for

signs of sloth, theft, drug abuse, or worse. She even gets to experience

the humiliation of the urine test.

So, do the poor have survival strategies unknown to the middle class? And

did Ehrenreich feel the " bracing psychological effects of getting out of

the house, as promised by the wonks who brought us welfare reform? " Nah.

Even in her best-case scenario, with all the advantages of education,

health, a car, and money for first month's rent, she has to work two jobs,

seven days a week, and still almost winds up in a shelter. As Ehrenreich

points out with her potent combination of humor and outrage, the laws of

supply and demand have been reversed.

Rental prices skyrocket, but wages never rise. Rather, jobs are so cheap as

measured by the pay that workers are encouraged to take as many as they

can. Behind those trademark Wal-Mart vests, it turns out, are the

borderline homeless. With her characteristic wry wit and her unabashedly

liberal bent, Ehrenreich brings the invisible poor out of hiding and, in

the process, the world they inhabit--where civil liberties are often

ignored and hard work fails to live up to its reputation as the ticket out

of poverty. --Lesley --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

-- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

:

>I agree, but what do you say to women who want to have full-time careers

>and also want to have kids? It's basically become a feminist plank that

>there's no obligation for the woman to stay at home to raise kids and that

>biology and evolution have not after all equipped mothers to do necessary

>things for children that fathers can't (just as fathers must do things

>mothers can't). There are no easy answers.

I don't have any easy answers to that one. My boss basically told me I was

fired when I told him I would not put my baby in day care -- hence I am

self-employed. So I worked with a baby in a sling, at the keyboard. Then I

hired a nanny to help out. I couldn't quit work because I was the major

wage-earner at the time. I'm always here for the kids, but there are lots

of adults in the house (mom and dad, and employees).

But that strategy only works if you are in the upper percentile of jobs.

Having been at the lower percentile, I DO appreciate that!

Our society is NOT family-friendly. Most parents have to put their kids in

daycare, which I think is deadly (no bonding with the family, no

breastfeeding). The whole economic profile of the country needs overhaul if

we want healthy sane people. I don't agree with that particular feminist

plank -- though if I had to stay home and NOT work I'd go insane. In the

past, most moms DID work: often with a baby on their back and time out when

they needed it to breastfeed or take care of a sick child.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Why is it people who do " real work " get rewarded

>with social security (and private retirement funds) but stay-at-home parents

>who don't " work " (but who are really doing the most basic, vital work there

>is) are not?

Well, there's a lot of complicated history behind it, but basically it

comes down to compromise between people who'd want to help all the needy

out and people who want to help none of the needy out. This way it became

a retirement program in which you pay in and draw out, at least on the surface.

-

[Guest guest]

Read Nickel and Dimed.

Fabulous book.

At 05:54 PM 5/17/03, you wrote:

> >And The desperate struggle for survival thing, gimme a break. Most

> >of the western world is NOT " struggling for survival " most of us

> >are too busy with misappropriated priorities.

>

>

>Gee whiz, you mean folks at the top of the food chain can choose to work

>less? Wow. That is amazing. I'd challenge you to try living off a standard

>Walmart salary. You could do it 30-40 years ago -- but not now. In case you

>haven't noticed, there is a big problem with the " working poor " in this

>country, and it has been getting worse, not better.

>

>You comment reminds me of a person I know who charges $165 an hour for his

>services. He just can't understand how people have a hard time making ends

>meet -- they need to balance their budgets better!

>

> " Let them eat cake "

>

>Try reading " Nickle and Dimed " ... summary below.

>

>------------

>

>Essayist and cultural critic Barbara Ehrenreich has always specialized in

>turning received wisdom on its head with intelligence, clarity, and verve.

>With some 12 million women being pushed into the labor market by welfare

>reform, she decided to do some good old-fashioned journalism and find out

>just how they were going to survive on the wages of the unskilled--at $6 to

>$7 an hour, only half of what is considered a living wage. So she did what

>millions of Americans do, she looked for a job and a place to live, worked

>that job, and tried to make ends meet.

>

>As a waitress in Florida, where her name is suddenly transposed to " girl, "

>trailer trash becomes a demographic category to aspire to with rent at $675

>per month. In Maine, where she ends up working as both a cleaning woman and

>a nursing home assistant, she must first fill out endless pre-employment

>tests with trick questions such as " Some people work better when they're a

>little bit high. " In Minnesota, she works at Wal-Mart under the repressive

>surveillance of men and women whose job it is to monitor her behavior for

>signs of sloth, theft, drug abuse, or worse. She even gets to experience

>the humiliation of the urine test.

>

>So, do the poor have survival strategies unknown to the middle class? And

>did Ehrenreich feel the " bracing psychological effects of getting out of

>the house, as promised by the wonks who brought us welfare reform? " Nah.

>Even in her best-case scenario, with all the advantages of education,

>health, a car, and money for first month's rent, she has to work two jobs,

>seven days a week, and still almost winds up in a shelter. As Ehrenreich

>points out with her potent combination of humor and outrage, the laws of

>supply and demand have been reversed.

>

>Rental prices skyrocket, but wages never rise. Rather, jobs are so cheap as

>measured by the pay that workers are encouraged to take as many as they

>can. Behind those trademark Wal-Mart vests, it turns out, are the

>borderline homeless. With her characteristic wry wit and her unabashedly

>liberal bent, Ehrenreich brings the invisible poor out of hiding and, in

>the process, the world they inhabit--where civil liberties are often

>ignored and hard work fails to live up to its reputation as the ticket out

>of poverty. --Lesley --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

>

>

>-- Heidi

>

>

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am sorry but I have read your posts thouroughly as a matter of fact.

Perhaps it is you that has not really read mine. However you may choose to

respond or not as is your wish.

Irene

At 03:57 AM 5/17/03, you wrote:

>Irene you clearly have failed to read my posts and I won't be

>replying to any more of yours on this thread.

>

>I have not said at any time that nabisco has no responsibility and

>shouldn't be accountable.

>

>Once again who buys 75-80% of the nabisco product? PARENTS!!!

>

>DMM

>

>

> > >I think this is now time number 8. I at no time have said the

> > >companies should NOT be held accountable. They should.

> > >

> > >BUT, its no different than someone purposely shooting themselves

>in

> > >the head with a firearm. Who is ultimately responsible. The

>bullet

> > >maker, gun maker, gun seller, gimme a break a human being makes

>the

> > >conscious choice to put a gun in their mouth and the consequences

> > >rest comfortably at their own feet, nobody elses. Yes the gun

> > >maker, seller, etc... you might find morally and ethically

> > >implicated but it is not their fault or responsibility that

>someone

> > >CHOOSES to commit such an act. In the same vane I have NEVER

>heard

> > >about the nabisco concentration camps where small children and

>their

> > >parents are bathed in coca-cola and forcefed oreos at gun point.

> > >These things are willingly consumed, as a matter of fact the

>sheeple

> > >would raise holy hell if you tried to stop them from feeding this

> > >stuff to themselves or their kids.

> > >

> > >DMM

> > >

> > >--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

> > >wrote:

> > > > Mike-

> > > >

> > > > >Kids eat it because their parents tell them to!!!!

> > > >

> > > > And every parent who tells a kid to eat margarine or oreos or

> > >whatever is

> > > > doing a very bad thing, and is responsible for the kid eating

> > >those bad

> > > > things. But at the same time, companies creating poisonous

> > >products and

> > > > marketing them directly to kids are creating demand among kids.

> > >They're

> > > > responsible too. We have to oppose those companies just as

>much

> > >as we push

> > > > parents to be more educated and responsible.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >Sponsor<<http://rd./M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egrou>htt

> p://rd./M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egrou

>pweb/S=1705060950:HM/A=1564415/R=0/*<http://www.netflix.com/Default?>http://www\

..netflix.com/Default?

>mqso=60164784 & partid=3170658>

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

>It seems normal that a

>stay-at-home mom is not " paid, " to us, but that is really a great artificial

>distortion of where a " mom " would fit into a more primitive economy.

>

>Chris

No kidding. How much is the batch of kimchi I made today worth?

However, I don't think women were valued much in some primitive economies

either. I read in one and account that a wife cost less than a

good dog. Some of the traders " went native " because they could buy a wife

or two and they'd do all the work.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>>It seems normal that a

>>stay-at-home mom is not " paid, " to us, but that is really a great artificial

>>distortion of where a " mom " would fit into a more primitive economy.

>>

>>Chris

>

>No kidding. How much is the batch of kimchi I made today worth?

>

>However, I don't think women were valued much in some primitive economies

>either. I read in one and account that a wife cost less than a

>good dog. Some of the traders " went native " because they could buy a wife

>or two and they'd do all the work.

>

>-- Heidi

In the beginnings of the Clinton administration, after Hillary wrote It

Takes A

Village there was very short press on stay at home moms receiving what

amounted

to minimum wage from a Social Security special fund. National health care was

in there too.Then as we know welfare reform and republicratism became the

platform. Here is an article Dedy sent me this week appropriate to this

thread.

Three Indian contributions to Western Civilization

By C. Mohawk, Ph.D/ Columnist / Indian Country Today

Posted: May 02, 2003 - 7:08pm EST

This article can be found at http://IndianCountry.com/?1051917201

When first arrived in New England, he set about the task of

converting the heathen Indians to Christianity. He, one of the authors of the

American tradition of freedom of religion and founder of Rhode Island; his

life

is instructive of what " freedom of religion " really means. had ideas

about freedom of religion before he left England, and his views about the

rights of the Indians to their property were not popular among the English. He

also was strongly against forced conversion of the Indians to Christianity.

is thought to be the first Euro-American to advocate complete freedom

of conscience, and complete separation of church and state. This latter

advocacy resulted in his banishment from the Massachusetts Bay Colony and

that,

in turn, led to the foundation of Providence, which welcomed the first Jewish

synagogue.

Shortly after his arrival, found some Indians, learned their

language,

and taught them his version of Christianity. The Indians were receptive and

proceeded to embrace the new teachings. Shortly after this triumph, however,

discovered that while his new converts were practicing Christianity,

they were also practicing their ancient religion as well. hastened to

explain to them that they had to choose one or the other, that Christianity

was

to be the religion to the exclusion of all others.

America is the birthplace of a single contribution to world philosophy:

pragmatism. Its roots extend into the Indian cultures of the Americas.

Pragmatism relies not on an ideology about how the world ought to be but

rather

on thinking about what the outcome should be. It is characterized by Sitting

Bull’s admonition about putting minds together to create a world for our

children, an admonition to work for a desirable outcome. Those who know of the

Iroquois Great Law will recognize this impulse in the admonition that the

chiefs should weigh their actions against the impact it will have on seven

generations into the future. had wandered into a set of cultures

which

embraced outcome-oriented thinking.

When insisted that the Indians set aside all their beliefs and follow

the one true religion, some Indians would have summoned him to a sidebar

conversation. " Mr. , " one would have said, " we do not insist that

people believe this or that. We are relatively small in number, and it is very

important that we maintain peace and harmony in our world. If we told people

what to believe, there would be nothing but discord and disharmony. People

would spend all their time arguing about religion. The more insistent we

became, the more discord and disharmony. In the end, we would be a society

which did nothing but argue about things that no one knows for sure. And we

don’t do that, like some people we have heard about.

" Among us, some people believe things that other people do not believe. Some

people believe that the otter, for example, has the power to cure disease.

They

have called upon the otter spirit when they were sick, they were administered

medicine, and they became well. Now they believe in the otter spirit’s

power to

cure. Surely, it cured them. But there are others who would be very skeptical.

So we have a custom. The people who believe in the otter form a " secret

society. " Those who seek cures from the otter, if they live, join that

society.

But it has rules. It is a secret society. People can’t tell what they know

about it. You cannot proselytize. When it comes to religion, we leave

people to

their own conscience. "

seems to have gotten the message. He also understood the nature of

the

European government, and he felt it was important to protect religion from the

corrosive force of the state. spent years living with the

Naraggansett

Indians and wrote the first book about their language and customs. He seems to

have had an inclination to defend the rights of individuals against the

coercive powers of the state and this was reinforced by his time with Indians

whose society lacked even a notion of the coercive state. This was but the

first of three areas of impact of Native American culture on relationships

within Western Civilization.

Other Europeans, especially members of the British military, noted that women

were often present at peace negotiations. This was considered men’s affairs,

and Indian men did do most of the talking, but there was a definite female

presence. As they came to know each other better, Europeans realized that

women

had a far greater role in Indian society than in white society. In European

society of the early contact years, a woman had no right to property, divorce,

or even personal safety from her husband. Indian women of the Northeast

woodlands enjoyed all of these. When young English women were captured or

otherwise came to join Indian societies, they were treated with respect. Quite

often, when offered repatriation with English society, they declined and chose

to stay instead with their adopted Indian families. Although the English found

Indian customs of women’s rights peculiar, the Indians might have pointed out

that European practices excluding women were in fact impractical and rendered

half of the society as marginally productive and deprived society of the

wisdom

of half its people.

A third area involved treatment of children. Early Jesuit missionaries were

exasperated that their new converts did not beat or otherwise force their

children to their will. A book on the subject, " Chain her by One Foot, "

recounts how Jesuits browbeat their charges to do something because a young

woman insisted on seeing a young pagan male. English customs of the time

favored using the rod as an instrument of discipline. It was not a practice

based on class. Even children at exclusive boarding schools such as Eaton were

beaten with such force that were a headmaster to do so today, he or she would

be arrested and charged with felony child battering.

These were three ideas from the Americas which must be forever vigilantly

guarded. Freedom of religion encompasses ideas of freedom of speech and

freedom

of association. Women’s rights are the key to solving problems of the world’s

poor and dispossessed. And children’s rights involve those of the most

powerless in society. On reflection, Western Civilization has adopted ideas

from the Americas which render the common thinking in most western societies

around these three issues much more like the thinking of the Indians than like

the thinking of seventeenth century Europeans. Good thing.

C. Mohawk, Ph.D., columnist for Indian Country Today, is an author and

professor in the Center for the Americas at the State University of New

York at

Buffalo. He is currently serving as the Director of Indigenous Studies at the

Center.

[Guest guest]

>>>>>Three Indian contributions to Western Civilization

By C. Mohawk, Ph.D/ Columnist / Indian Country Today

Posted: May 02, 2003 - 7:08pm EST

This article can be found at http://IndianCountry.com/?1051917201

------->very interesting article, wanita. thanks for posting it!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>It seems normal that a

>stay-at-home mom is not " paid, " to us, but that is really a great

artificial

>distortion of where a " mom " would fit into a more primitive economy.

>

>Chris

No kidding. How much is the batch of kimchi I made today worth?

-------->priceless :-)

>>>>However, I don't think women were valued much in some primitive

economies

either. I read in one and account that a wife cost less than a

good dog. Some of the traders " went native " because they could buy a wife

or two and they'd do all the work.

------->this is totally unreliable info because i'm recalling something that

stuck in my head a number of years ago and i forgot the source...but, it was

reported that women in africa do 80% of the agricultural work, IIRC. i think

i've read of other societies where women actually do MOST of the labor,

unsurprisingly, i guess. and anecdotally, i've certainly gotten that

impression from some of the countries i've visited.

BUT, that of course doesn't translate into being *valued* in a patriarchal

society...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/18/03 1:16:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> However, I don't think women were valued much in some primitive economies

> either. I read in one and account that a wife cost less than a

> good dog. Some of the traders " went native " because they could buy a wife

> or two and they'd do all the work.

>

From the little knowledge that I have, it is my understanding that women

tended/tend to have status proportional to the role they play in food

*supply* in egalitarian/h & g societies, and all such societies women have

higher status than in pre-modern stratified societies. Though my guess is

more research into it would find a more nuanced situation.

Chris

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/18/03 8:53:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ------->this is totally unreliable info because i'm recalling something that

> stuck in my head a number of years ago and i forgot the source...but, it

> was

> reported that women in africa do 80% of the agricultural work, IIRC. i

> think

> i've read of other societies where women actually do MOST of the labor,

> unsurprisingly, i guess. and anecdotally, i've certainly gotten that

> impression from some of the countries i've visited.

>

> BUT, that of course doesn't translate into being *valued* in a patriarchal

> society...

Well, they certainly don't mean the same thing, but I think there is a

general tendency for societies where women do so much agricultural work (or

gathering, or *hunting* even) for women to have a higher status. From the

countries you've visited, do you get this sense?

In terms of native Americans, I've gotten the impression from the little

history I've learnt that the role of women started going downhill parallel

with increasing stratification and more or less imperialism that started

developing after contact with white people that was essentially a protective

reaction against the threat the Europeans posed.

Wharton mentioned in 10,000 years from Eden that there is evidence that early

*woman* was very involved in *hunting*, breaking down the myth that men are

always hunters and women always gatherers. He mentioned it more or less in

passing, so I don't know what the evidence is really.

, you're the anthropology guy, what do you think?

Chris

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

But all these societies you're talking about are stratified societies. What

about the other 120,000 years of homo sapiens' existance?

(and all the modern-age non-stratified societies)

Chris

In a message dated 5/18/03 2:13:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Exactly. Women do most of the work, but don't have most of the power.

> Legally they can be bought and sold, in many or most cultures, and in India

>

> a bride can still be killed.

>

> In actuality though, the women DO have a fair bit of freedom, from what

> I've read -- many primitive societies are " split " into two societies: the

> women's and the men's, and they work on completely different rules. The men

>

> are gone much of the time, and don't pay attention to what the women are

> doing. The women gossip and chatter and work and pretty much have a good

> life, while the guys are out making weapons and going on hunts. Greek

> society worked something like that too -- women could not vote, but they

> ran the household. So it may just be that the guys *think* they are running

>

> things.

>

> In general, I agree that the Indian society was " pragmatic " -- sometimes to

>

> extremes we would not tolerate. They didn't need welfare for " working moms "

>

> because moms worked -- Sacajawea did a 5,000 mile journey pregnant and

> nursing, apparently as a matter of course (for her, although she did almost

>

> die in the process, maybe because there was no midwife). When population

> pressures got too high, the tribes fought a lot and killed each other off.

> Mentally deficient folks might be adopted by a family as workers, and there

>

> was a fair amount of slavery (though it seems the slaves were more part of

> the tribe and family than in the Southern version).

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>------->this is totally unreliable info because i'm recalling something that

>stuck in my head a number of years ago and i forgot the source...but, it was

>reported that women in africa do 80% of the agricultural work, IIRC. i think

>i've read of other societies where women actually do MOST of the labor,

>unsurprisingly, i guess. and anecdotally, i've certainly gotten that

>impression from some of the countries i've visited.

>

>BUT, that of course doesn't translate into being *valued* in a patriarchal

>society...

Suze:

Exactly. Women do most of the work, but don't have most of the power.

Legally they can be bought and sold, in many or most cultures, and in India

a bride can still be killed.

In actuality though, the women DO have a fair bit of freedom, from what

I've read -- many primitive societies are " split " into two societies: the

women's and the men's, and they work on completely different rules. The men

are gone much of the time, and don't pay attention to what the women are

doing. The women gossip and chatter and work and pretty much have a good

life, while the guys are out making weapons and going on hunts. Greek

society worked something like that too -- women could not vote, but they

ran the household. So it may just be that the guys *think* they are running

things.

In general, I agree that the Indian society was " pragmatic " -- sometimes to

extremes we would not tolerate. They didn't need welfare for " working moms "

because moms worked -- Sacajawea did a 5,000 mile journey pregnant and

nursing, apparently as a matter of course (for her, although she did almost

die in the process, maybe because there was no midwife). When population

pressures got too high, the tribes fought a lot and killed each other off.

Mentally deficient folks might be adopted by a family as workers, and there

was a fair amount of slavery (though it seems the slaves were more part of

the tribe and family than in the Southern version).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

I don't think chickens offer good insight to human societies ;-) There are

and have been plenty of societies that aren't stratified in the sense that

there is no hierarchy-- disputes are settled without " judges, " etc. Sure

there is some degree of division of labor but that has nothing to do with

stratification.

As to your other comments, thank you, they were very interesting.

Chris

In a message dated 5/18/03 4:21:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Near as I can tell, from ALL my reading of any " primitive " society, and

> from archeological remains, humans have always been stratified. The fact

> guys got bigger than women, and got more muscle, probably says something!

> As for the other 120,000 years or whatever -- most of Creation is

> stratified (whether by Design or by Darwin, your choice). All I have to do

> is look out my window at the hens and the big ol' rooster guarding them.

> His job is to fight off foxes and other roosters, their job is to make

> chicks.

>

> I don't think it was so much a matter of " master and slave " though as of

> division of labor. The folks who study such things seem to be in agreement

> that the women stayed near camp, near the kids, near safety, for the most

> part. They did things that kids could participate in, or at least wouldn't

> kill them. They did a fair bit of hunting and most of the gathering (the

> kids too), using woven nets, traps, baskets.

>

> They guys participated some, but usually there was a sort of longhouse or

> " men's spot " where the guys and older boys hung out and made spears,

> practiced hunting, told stories, etc. What they were doing was often too

> dangerous for young kids, is the thought -- and guys today very often do

> NOT want to be around babies for any length of time (not all guys, but this

>

> seems to be a universal observation by the women I know: guys don't like

> shopping or babysitting!). They made war on other villages, or defended

> against invaders, and hunted large animals when they could. They died a lot

>

> doing these things.

>

> From the women's point of view, the guys were kind of peripheral. Women

> were peripheral from the men's point of view. The anthropologists got two

> different stories depending on which sex they interviewed! Women had less

> power in some senses -- they got carried off as spoils of war, and sold

> off, and given to visiting guys. On the other hand, the guys had a much

> greater chance of being killed by large animals or warring tribes. As one

> person put it -- you see in Africa a tribe walking down the road, with the

> women burdened down with huge baskets and kids. They guys walk in front and

>

> behind, carrying nothing but a spear. Seems like the women have it worse

> ... but if a lion comes, it is the guys who take more risk.

>

> So you have two different worlds ... but there wasn't a lot to " own " and

> little heirarchy in general, so I don't think either side suffered more

> than the other, and there was little " free choice " for anyone (even artwork

>

> was dictated by what tribe you were in), and things remained the same for

> eons so I'd guess everyone was pretty content in general. The real problems

>

> didn't arise until we started having a lot of personal possessions and

> property.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

Good questions. Yes I agree that in our disconnected world these

internet discussions are helping to create culture to a certain and

important extent. I don't have as much time as I'd like to respond

right now (moving our offices) but I would like to say that Chilton

Pearce has said that culture is what focuses attention, which would

certainly suggest the media matrix of our time. I think that the real

wisdom cultures will emerge when we get our local economies and food

systems really rolling. In the meantime our own example to our families

and immediate circles in the context of the global economy is very

important. Also in the anthropological world, where the rubber meets

the road with respect to culture is when we pass on our knowledge to the

next generation.

Your points about the changing world opinion are very interesting. I am

offering a fascinating article from the NY Times by M. Pollan (below,

after your post) which elaborates on the same themes.

Gotta run -

RE: Re: oreos

.. It was culture that helped

>traditional cultures to navigate the many dietary choices they did

have,

>often in very difficult circumstances. We don't have culture today. I

>would call it " vulture " because it doesn't come from life but feeds off

>life. To rebuild culture, again, we must rebuild local economies and

>food systems which by increasing wealth, giving us our time back,

making

>affordable high quality foods available, and encouraging us to work

>together and know each other, provide the breathing room from the

global

>economy to do more than tread water - we can build sustainable wisdom

>cultures! Simply trying to create and enforce a native diet in one's

>family today is as we all know - very difficult.

See, that is the crux of the issue: who decides and builds culture? At

one

point it was your tribe -- lately it has been the corporations, more or

less: the media IS the culture, to some degree. But believe it or not, I

think that it is dialogs like these that are building the future

culture.

All of us here disagree, to some extent, what a " healthy diet " really

is. I.e. in MY fantasy world, there would be no wheat! My opinion is

that

of the two foods of modern commerce, wheat and sugar, wheat is a far

worse

villain. But over the years, the " alternative " community has been

building

consensus, helped by a bunch of published research and

self-experimentation. I think that there will ba a new " culture " that

people can accept and follow without knowing a lot about microbiology or

chemistry.

What I've found is that as our family builds our culture (based a lot on

input from you folks and NT), other people copy us. It is different from

the old tofu-and-whole-grain-wheat days in that NT food actually tastes

better than the alternative. I tried to give away my old Crisco and no

one

would take it -- they've all switched to butter! And when we serve tacos

people go to the fridge and ask " do you have any of that KEFIR sour

cream??? " and they steal our cookies.

And the rest of the world is actually kind of reaching consensus too, to

an

NT perspective. Emeril made Steak Tartar the other day, and raw fish is

" in " in Seattle restaurants, and fat is coming back. Food show hosts

rarely

use prepared foods -- fresh is " in " . The Naked Chef had a great program

where he took over a rock star's house for the day and made dinner -- he

bought a roast, then went to the backyard " kitchen garden " to get some

carrots and herbs to cook with it. The whole " slow food " movement has

the

big boys a bit scared: they are trying to package " real " food but so far

not with much success. Well, Trader Joe's might be doing it, with

organic

packaged " ready to eat " vegies. Maybe that is why they are trying so

hard

to reach the young'uns ...

-- Heidi

P.S. you can't ban sugar, otherwise it will be too hard to make

kombucha.

********************

May 4, 2003, Sunday

MAGAZINE DESK

STYLE; The Futures of Food

By Pollan (NYT) 1988 words

When I was a kid growing up in the early 60's, anybody could have told

you exactly what the future of food was going to look like. We'd seen

''The Jetsons,'' toured the 1964 World's Fair, tasted the culinary

fruits (or at least fruit flavors) of the space program, and all signs

pointed to a single outcome: the meal in a pill, washed down, perhaps,

with next-generation Tang.

The general consensus seemed to be that ''food'' -- a word that was

already beginning to sound old-fashioned -- was destined to break its

surly bonds to Nature, float free of agriculture and hitch its future to

Technology. If not literally served in a pill, the meal of the future

would be fabricated ''in the laboratory out of a wide variety of

materials,'' as one contemporary food historian predicted, including not

only algae and soybeans but also petrochemicals. Protein would be

extracted directly from fuel oil and then ''spun and woven into 'animal'

muscle -- long wrist-thick tubes of 'fillet steak.' ''

By 1965, we were well on our way to the synthetic food future. Already

the eating of readily identifiable plant and animal species was

beginning to feel somewhat recherché, as food technologists came forth

with one shiny new product after another: Cool Whip, the Pop-Tart,

nondairy creamer, Kool-Aid, Carnation Instant Breakfast and a whole slew

of eerily indestructible baked goods (Wonder Bread and Twinkies being

only the most famous). My personal favorite was the TV dinner, which

even a 10-year-old recognized as a brilliant simulacrum -- not to

mention an obvious improvement over the real thing. My poor mother,

eager to please four children whose palates had already been ruined by

the food technologists (and school lunch ladies), once spent hours in

the kitchen trying to simulate the Salisbury steak from a Swanson TV

dinner.

What none of us could have imagined back in 1965 was that within five

short years, the synthetic food future would be overthrown in advance of

its arrival. The counterculture seized upon processed food, of all

things, as a symbol of everything wrong with industrial civilization.

Not only did processed foods contain chemicals, the postwar glamour of

which had been extinguished by DDT and Agent Orange, but products like

Wonder Bread represented the worst of white-bread America, its very

wheat ''bleached to match the bleached-out mentality of white

supremacy,'' in the words of an underground journalist writing in The

Quicksilver Times.

As an antidote to the ''plastic food'' dispensed by agribusiness, the

counterculture promoted natural foods organically grown, and whole

grains in particular. Brown food of any kind was deemed morally superior

to white -- not only because it was less processed and therefore more

authentic, but because by eating it you could express your solidarity

with the world's (nonwhite) oppressed. Seriously. What you chose to eat

had become a political act, and the lower you ate on the food chain, the

better it was for you, for the planet and for the world's hungry. Almost

overnight the meal in a pill became a symbol of the forces of reaction

rather than progress. The synthetic food future appeared doomed.

Though claims for the moral superiority of brown food have been muted in

the years since 1970, the general outlines of this alternative vision of

food's future are no less relevant or compelling today. If the postwar

food utopia was modernist and corporate, the new one is postmodern and

oppositional, constructing its future from elements of the past rescued

from the jaws of agribusiness. It goes by many names, including ''slow

food,'' ''local food'' and ''organic'' -- or, increasingly, ''beyond

organic.'' Its agriculture is not only chemical-free but also

sustainable, diversified and humane to workers as well as animals. Its

cuisine (or, as it's sometimes called, ''countercuisine'') is based on

traditional species of plants and animals -- those that predate modern

industrial hybrids and genetic modification -- traditionally prepared.

Its distribution system aims to circumvent the supermarket, relying

instead on farmers' markets and C.S.A.'s (community-supported

agriculture) -- farms to which consumers ''subscribe'' to receive weekly

deliveries of produce. As for the consumption of this food, it too is to

be overhauled, in an effort to recover the sociality of eating from the

solitary fueling implied by fast food.

It's a beguiling future in many ways, full of promise for our physical

and social health as well as for the health of the land. It's tasty too.

So what's not to like?

Plenty, if you're one of those supermarket chains being circumvented, or

an agribusiness corporation nervously watching organic foods gobble

market share or, for that matter, if you're a harried working parent who

simply hasn't the time or money for food to be any slower or more

expensive than it already is. And so with one eye on that family's

predicament and the other on its own, Big Food has been hard at work

developing a counter-counter food future, one that borrows all that it

can borrow from the countercuisine and then . . . puts it in a pill. Or

if not literally in a pill, into something that looks a lot more like a

pill than the kind of comestibles we've traditionally used the word

''food'' to denote.

To thumb through the pages of Food Technology, the trade magazine for

food scientists, is to realize that the dream of liberating food from

the farm wasn't killed off by the 60's after all. The food-in-a-pill

future has simply been updated, given a new, more natural and

health-conscious sheen.

Food Technology offers a pretty good window on the industry's future,

and the first thing you notice when you look through it is that the word

''food'' is about to be replaced by ''food system.'' Which is probably

as good a term as any when you're trying to describe edible materials

constructed from textured vegetable protein and ''flavor fractions,'' or

''antioxidant bars'' built from blueberry and flaxseed parts. (According

to an ad for Land O' Lakes, that company is no longer in the business of

selling butter or cheese, but ''dairy flavor systems.'')

The other thing you notice is that those ''food systems'' are rapidly

merging with medical systems. The industry has evidently decided the

future of food lies in so-called nutraceuticals and ''functional

foods'': nutritional products that claim to confer health benefits above

and beyond those of ordinary foods.

The growth of the American food industry will always bump up against a

troublesome biological fact: try as we might, each of us can eat only

about 1,500 pounds of food in a year. True, the industry has managed to

nudge that figure upward over the last few decades (the obesity epidemic

is proof of their success), but, unlike sneakers or CD's, there's a

limit to how much food we can each consume without exploding. Unless

agribusiness is content to limit its growth to the single-digit growth

rate of the American population -- something Wall Street would never

abide -- it needs to figure out ways to make us each spend more each

year for the same three quarters of a ton of chow.

The best way to do this has always been by ''adding value'' to cheap raw

materials -- usually in the form of convenience or fortification.

Selling unprocessed or minimally processed whole foods is a fool's game,

especially since the price of agricultural commodities tends to fall

over time, and one company's apples are hard to distinguish from any

other's.

How much better to turn them apples into a nutraceutical food system!

This is precisely what one company profiled in a recent issue of Food

Technology has done. TreeTop Inc. has developed a ''low-moisture,

naturally sweetened apple piece infused with a red-wine extract.'' Just

18 grams of these ''apple pieces'' have the same amount of

cancer-fighting ''flavonoid phenols as five glasses of wine and the

dietary fiber equivalent of one whole apple.'' We've moved from the

meal-in-a-pill future to the pill-in-a-meal, which is to say, not very

far at all.

The news of TreeTop's breakthrough comes in a Food Technology trend

story titled ''Getting More Fruits and Vegetables Into Foods.'' You

probably thought fruits and vegetables were already foods, and so didn't

need to be gotten into them, but that just shows you're stuck in the

food past. We're moving toward a food future in which the processed food

will be even ''better'' (i.e., contain more of whatever science has

determined to be the good stuff) than the whole foods on which they are

based. Once again, the food industry has gazed upon nature and found it

wanting -- and gotten to work improving it.

All that's really changed since the high-tech food future of the 60's is

that the laboratory materials out of which these meals will be

constructed are nominally ''natural'' -- dried apple bits, red-wine

extract, ''flavor fractions'' distilled from oranges, resistant starch

derived from corn, meat substitutes fashioned out of mycoprotein. But

the underlying reductionist premise -- that food is nothing more than

the sum of its nutrients -- remains undisturbed. So we break down the

plants and animals into their component parts and then reassemble them

into high-value-added food systems.

It's hard to believe plain old food could ever hold its own against such

sophisticated products. Yet while the logic of capitalism argues

powerfully for the meal-in-a-pill food future, it is at least

conceivable that, flaky as it might seem, the alternative food future

has behind it an even more compelling logic: the logic of biology. The

premise of the alternative food future -- slow, organic, local -- has

always been that the industrial food future is ''unsustainable.'' In the

past, that word has mainly referred to the industry's impact on the

land, which organic farmers insisted could not indefinitely endure the

reductionist approach of industrial agriculture -- treating the land as

a factory, into which you put certain kinds of chemicals (pesticides,

fertilizers) in order to take out others (starches, proteins, flavonoid

phenols). Eventually, the land would rebel: soils would lose fertility,

the chemicals would no longer work, the environment would grow toxic.

But what about the biological system at the opposite end of the food

chain -- the human body? It too is ill served by industry's powerful

reductions. Increasingly, there is evidence that breaking foods down

into their component parts and then reassembling them as processed food

systems is also unsustainable -- for our health. It is not at all clear

that the ''healthy'' ingredients we're isolating function in isolation

the same way they do in whole foods. Already we're finding that beta

carotene extracted from carrots, or lycopene from tomatoes, don't work

nearly as well, if at all, outside the context of a carrot or a tomato.

Even in the pages of Food Technology, you now find nutritionists

cautioning industry that ''a single-nutrient approach is too

simplistic.''

Foods, it appears, are more than the sum of their chemical parts, and

treating them as collections of nutrients to be mixed and matched,

rather than as the complex biological systems they are, simply may not

work. Which probably shouldn't surprise us. We didn't evolve, after all,

to eat phytochemical extracts or flavor fractions or mycoproteins grown

on substrates of glucose. Rather, we evolved to eat that archaic and yet

astonishing array of plants and animals and fungi that most of us are

still happy to call food. Don't write it off just yet.

[Guest guest]

>Your points about the changing world opinion are very interesting. I am

>offering a fascinating article from the NY Times by M. Pollan (below,

>after your post) which elaborates on the same themes.

I had read that .. thanks for sending it again. I agree with you and him

wholeheartedly. The part below says it all ... Have fun moving your offices

(moving is so FUN!).

-- Heidi

" It's a beguiling future in many ways, full of promise for our physical

and social health as well as for the health of the land. It's tasty too.

So what's not to like?

Plenty, if you're one of those supermarket chains being circumvented, or

an agribusiness corporation nervously watching organic foods gobble

market share or, for that matter, if you're a harried working parent who

simply hasn't the time or money for food to be any slower or more

expensive than it already is. And so with one eye on that family's

predicament and the other on its own, Big Food has been hard at work

developing a counter-counter food future, one that borrows all that it

can borrow from the countercuisine and then . . . puts it in a pill. "

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>But all these societies you're talking about are stratified societies. What

>about the other 120,000 years of homo sapiens' existance?

>

>(and all the modern-age non-stratified societies)

>

>Chris

Chris:

Near as I can tell, from ALL my reading of any " primitive " society, and

from archeological remains, humans have always been stratified. The fact

guys got bigger than women, and got more muscle, probably says something!

As for the other 120,000 years or whatever -- most of Creation is

stratified (whether by Design or by Darwin, your choice). All I have to do

is look out my window at the hens and the big ol' rooster guarding them.

His job is to fight off foxes and other roosters, their job is to make chicks.

I don't think it was so much a matter of " master and slave " though as of

division of labor. The folks who study such things seem to be in agreement

that the women stayed near camp, near the kids, near safety, for the most

part. They did things that kids could participate in, or at least wouldn't

kill them. They did a fair bit of hunting and most of the gathering (the

kids too), using woven nets, traps, baskets.

They guys participated some, but usually there was a sort of longhouse or

" men's spot " where the guys and older boys hung out and made spears,

practiced hunting, told stories, etc. What they were doing was often too

dangerous for young kids, is the thought -- and guys today very often do

NOT want to be around babies for any length of time (not all guys, but this

seems to be a universal observation by the women I know: guys don't like

shopping or babysitting!). They made war on other villages, or defended

against invaders, and hunted large animals when they could. They died a lot

doing these things.

From the women's point of view, the guys were kind of peripheral. Women

were peripheral from the men's point of view. The anthropologists got two

different stories depending on which sex they interviewed! Women had less

power in some senses -- they got carried off as spoils of war, and sold

off, and given to visiting guys. On the other hand, the guys had a much

greater chance of being killed by large animals or warring tribes. As one

person put it -- you see in Africa a tribe walking down the road, with the

women burdened down with huge baskets and kids. They guys walk in front and

behind, carrying nothing but a spear. Seems like the women have it worse

.... but if a lion comes, it is the guys who take more risk.

So you have two different worlds ... but there wasn't a lot to " own " and

little heirarchy in general, so I don't think either side suffered more

than the other, and there was little " free choice " for anyone (even artwork

was dictated by what tribe you were in), and things remained the same for

eons so I'd guess everyone was pretty content in general. The real problems

didn't arise until we started having a lot of personal possessions and

property.

A lot of our dissatisfaction also comes because we have too many choices,

and so few of those choices really WORK -- food is a really good example. A

Vilhamur noticed, a diet of just raw fish can be perfectly satisfying -- if

raw fish meets all your dietary needs. No western society has an easy,

satisfying paradigm that works for the average person, yet.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

<<My orneryness if that's a word is more frustration from seeing the

fact that few people work on the " micro " level of their own lives

and many complain about the " macro " aspect and how victimized they

are. I see this daily in private practice and all around me in

virtually every venue. So generally I don't tolerate " adjusting the

macro " as a solution in that as I said few address the location of

real change which is the " micro " their own lives>.

I have observed two distinct phenomena, however: The one you describe and its

opposite, where people (very often, but not always, female) blame themselves

always and utterly, focusing so minutely on the micro that they become

completely blind to the fact that things outside themselves have an impact on

their lives and their well-being.

There is a saying that for some is very good advice: Take the cotton out of your

ears and stuff it in your mouth. But for people (again, very often women) who

have spent their entire lives with downcast eyes and silent tongues, that is

terrible advice. THEY need to learn to step back and look at the big picture,

and develop a normal and healthy understanding of macro vs micro, self vs

others, etc., in short, become more aware and more assertive.

Perhaps there are more blamers and poor me-ers than there are those who take it

all on themselves, I don't know. That seems to be your experience. In my

experience it's around 50-50, with men tending toward the " macro " and women

tending toward the " micro, " both to the extreme detriment of themselves, their

families, and their communities. While the conditions are equally unhealthy and

equally incorrect, the initial steps to fixing it are not the same.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistic Husbandry Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>I don't think chickens offer good insight to human societies ;-)

Oh, I dunno -- we make comments all the time when someone we know starts

acting like a rooster! I swear he looks like a politician I know ...

-- Heidi