How odd to think that in Burke's time, 'professional' meant 'lower class' (as in a person who has a profession rather than living off his land), and, now, it means 'upper class' (a person who has a white-collar job, rather than working in retail or in a factory or being unemployed.) (You can see this latter use in Craigslist postings for roommates. Everyone describes himself as 'professional', since he is afraid of saying 'rich', 'educated' or 'white'.)
A note on the increasing democratization of society, and on the importance of a job to Americans.
In other news, I learned that I am technically a member of the middle quintile--the middle middle class. Better than I thought, but still unsatisfying. The paychecks come too slowly, and I still don't know how to dress.
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
January 18, 2010
January 3, 2010
Women and cooking
I have finished a book called Perfection Salad: Women and Cooking at the Turn of the Century.
Fascinating to learn that in the last years of the nineteenth century, foods were thought healthy in proportion as they were easy to digest. Vegetables and fruits were thought to be near valueless, and when vegetables were served, they were boiled into submission; the authorities recommended that cucumbers be boiled for twenty minutes, celery for half an hour, green beans for one to three hours! and beets for twelve hours. After which, vegetables were nearly always served covered in a white sauce made of flour, milk, butter, and usually no other flavorings. This is the dainty, aspirational cuisine of Edith Wharton.
The female authorities on cooking were not exactly feminist rebels--although they tried to introduce scientific and businesslike methods into the kitchen, they showed no resistance to certain common prejudices--for instance, the belief that women don't really know what it's like to be hungry--if not reminded to eat by their husbands and children, they might go for days without nourishment. Even female cooks bragged about the smallness of their appetites.
Even today, although women would seem to be associated with food, too often they have kept themselves apart from culinary hedonism. Recipes in women's magazines are described as cheap, low in calories, and most importantly, simple and easy to prepare. Most often women are given snacks rather than full meals. Men's magazines, on the other hand, offer us flavorful, spicy dishes with exotic ingredients and generous amounts of meat. Men's cocktails are made of expensive whiskey and arcane kinds of bitters. Women's 'cocktails' are pomegranate-mango juice with--if you must--a 'splash' of vodka.
And, while articles on restaurants and bars are a staple of men's magazines, there is no suggestion in women's magazines that these establishments even exist--well, except the constant warnings that a woman who drinks will probably get herself killed. How annoying.
There is also classism to laugh at; for instance, the bizarre assertion that, when people have different tastes in food, it shows that they have "not enough other interests besides that in eating and drinking". If people were enlightened and exercised enough, all personal preferences would disappear, and the Southerners, Negroes, Irish and Italians would all adopt the diet of bourgeois Bostonians.
Fascinating to learn that in the last years of the nineteenth century, foods were thought healthy in proportion as they were easy to digest. Vegetables and fruits were thought to be near valueless, and when vegetables were served, they were boiled into submission; the authorities recommended that cucumbers be boiled for twenty minutes, celery for half an hour, green beans for one to three hours! and beets for twelve hours. After which, vegetables were nearly always served covered in a white sauce made of flour, milk, butter, and usually no other flavorings. This is the dainty, aspirational cuisine of Edith Wharton.
The female authorities on cooking were not exactly feminist rebels--although they tried to introduce scientific and businesslike methods into the kitchen, they showed no resistance to certain common prejudices--for instance, the belief that women don't really know what it's like to be hungry--if not reminded to eat by their husbands and children, they might go for days without nourishment. Even female cooks bragged about the smallness of their appetites.
Even today, although women would seem to be associated with food, too often they have kept themselves apart from culinary hedonism. Recipes in women's magazines are described as cheap, low in calories, and most importantly, simple and easy to prepare. Most often women are given snacks rather than full meals. Men's magazines, on the other hand, offer us flavorful, spicy dishes with exotic ingredients and generous amounts of meat. Men's cocktails are made of expensive whiskey and arcane kinds of bitters. Women's 'cocktails' are pomegranate-mango juice with--if you must--a 'splash' of vodka.
And, while articles on restaurants and bars are a staple of men's magazines, there is no suggestion in women's magazines that these establishments even exist--well, except the constant warnings that a woman who drinks will probably get herself killed. How annoying.
There is also classism to laugh at; for instance, the bizarre assertion that, when people have different tastes in food, it shows that they have "not enough other interests besides that in eating and drinking". If people were enlightened and exercised enough, all personal preferences would disappear, and the Southerners, Negroes, Irish and Italians would all adopt the diet of bourgeois Bostonians.
January 2, 2010
the Donner Party
Have you ever heard of the Donner Party? Everyone has, yet not many have read the real, fascinating story! Intellectually fascinating, I mean, because an intellect such as my own would never be attracted to the mere sensational story of cannibalism and death. The book I refer to, of course, is Ethan Rarick’s book Desperate Passage: The Donner Party’s Perilous Journey West. I kept a list of the fifty or sixty members of the party and crossed them off as they died!
The patterns of death are fascinating. The many children (some born along the way) died in droves--they were fed well, but were very susceptible to infectious disease. Married men did fairly well; single men, however, almost all died. I was surprised to learn that a young, unfettered single man at his physical peak actually had a worse chance of survival than a middle-aged widow with many young children to feed.
In general, the women (almost all married) fared better than men. Among those who were in their twenties, only one woman died, while only one man lived. Of course, women need fewer calories than men; moreover, once their bodies run out of calories, they have more body fat to draw upon. But I suppose that having the moral and practical support of a family made a big difference.
This story also illustrates one of my favorite maxims--that man can get used to anything. Take a look at this journal entry from a 12-year-old girl, describing her night spent on the salt plains in Utah, miles from shelter of any kind--it sounds like typical adolescent hyperbole, until you realize she is telling the literal truth.
Now, what happened, to be clear, was that the Donner party got stuck in early winter a few miles below a pass in the Sierra Nevada mountains. The pass became impassable just before they got there, and they were forced to winter in the valley, in jury-rigged huts, sending up the occasional expedition to check on the pass. Ultimately one of these expeditions succeeded and brought back several different rescue parties--but before that, there were long months of waiting. So the cannibalism wasn’t a momentary act of desperation--it became a routine for them. They ate their cattle, sucked the marrow out of its bones, ate their pets, and drank soup made from their boiled shoes. But after all of those expediments failed, they started eating dead bodies. Again, after having to contemplate the possibility of cannibalism for weeks and months, they were capable of talking about it in blasé tones. Here is the first mention of cannibalism in their journals:
Yes. Distressing.
It might be relevant to point out here that, since the ground was frozen and snow-covered, and the gravediggers weak with starvation, no one who died in the valley of whatever cause received what used to be called a Christian burial. Instead, typically, a few of the stronger people dragged the corpse outside, only a few feet away from the huts, and covered it with a few shovelfuls of snow--if that. Naturally, the bodies never decomposed in the cold. Thus, as more and more died of starvation and disease, the pioneers were unintentionally creating a sort of meat locker outside their front doors. This makes it easier to explain how, almost on impulse, a person might eat human flesh.
When people turn to cannibalism, they follow a certain pattern. (There are studies, you see.) When a body is fresh, the warm blood of the jugular is most prized. The arms and legs provide meat, but the most nutrition comes from the inner organs. The hips are a good source of fat. The head and hands, being the most identifiably human and personal parts, are only rarely eaten. So you see, even in cases of cannibalism, there is an etiquette to be followed. The real distressing part came when this etiquette was violated--after the rescue.
After a few of the party (known as the Forlorn Hope) finally got through over the pass, they still hadn’t reached civilization. They reached only one farflung outpost--a fort almost a hundred miles from the nearest town. The men at the fort immediately got together all the supplies they could and all the men who willing to go, and set out to hike over the snow-covered pass. Three different rescue parties arrived, and brought out with them all the people they could; the younger children could be carried, but the adult survivors would have to hike out. But when the fourth (and last) rescue party arrived at the camp, they had to leave behind the few adults who were lame or too ill to hike--and only a minimal amount of supplies could be spared for them.
I can only imagine how wrenching it must have been to get through the entire winter, finally witness the arrival of the rescue party, and have to watch them hike away again. They promised to return in spring.
When spring came around, the men of the fort returned with ample supplies. They found the camp covered with blood and guts. A number of bodies were lying in the open, ribcages ripped open. Skulls were stewing in a cooking pot. Of the five pioneers left behind, four had died and been eaten. The one man left was a lame German named Louis Keseberg. He bragged about his cannibalism, talking about which parts of the body he considered most delicious, and sounding glad that he had so many bodies to choose from. When given beef and bread to eat, he rejected it, saying he preferred human meat to any other. One supposes he must have been a little deranged after his ordeal. Ultimately, unlike any of the other survivors, he was put on trial for his actions. (He had never been very sociable and, remember, this was during a period in American history when Germans were still considered dangerous foreigners.) However, since there was no firm evidence that he had killed in order to eat, he was acquitted.
In the end, it could have been a lot worse. Of the original 87 pioneers, 39 died and 48 survived. With the possible exception of Keseberg, there was only one incident in which the pioneers killed someone in order to eat him. This was during the passage over the mountains--and even then, they did not kill one of their one, but rather their Spanish-Indian guide. Here is the author on the remarkably law-abiding behavior of the early pioneers in general:
The patterns of death are fascinating. The many children (some born along the way) died in droves--they were fed well, but were very susceptible to infectious disease. Married men did fairly well; single men, however, almost all died. I was surprised to learn that a young, unfettered single man at his physical peak actually had a worse chance of survival than a middle-aged widow with many young children to feed.
In general, the women (almost all married) fared better than men. Among those who were in their twenties, only one woman died, while only one man lived. Of course, women need fewer calories than men; moreover, once their bodies run out of calories, they have more body fat to draw upon. But I suppose that having the moral and practical support of a family made a big difference.
This story also illustrates one of my favorite maxims--that man can get used to anything. Take a look at this journal entry from a 12-year-old girl, describing her night spent on the salt plains in Utah, miles from shelter of any kind--it sounds like typical adolescent hyperbole, until you realize she is telling the literal truth.
It was the couldes night you ever saw. The wind blew and if it haden bin for the dogs we would have Frosen.
Now, what happened, to be clear, was that the Donner party got stuck in early winter a few miles below a pass in the Sierra Nevada mountains. The pass became impassable just before they got there, and they were forced to winter in the valley, in jury-rigged huts, sending up the occasional expedition to check on the pass. Ultimately one of these expeditions succeeded and brought back several different rescue parties--but before that, there were long months of waiting. So the cannibalism wasn’t a momentary act of desperation--it became a routine for them. They ate their cattle, sucked the marrow out of its bones, ate their pets, and drank soup made from their boiled shoes. But after all of those expediments failed, they started eating dead bodies. Again, after having to contemplate the possibility of cannibalism for weeks and months, they were capable of talking about it in blasé tones. Here is the first mention of cannibalism in their journals:
Mrs Murphy said here yesterday that thought she would Commence on Milt & eat him. I dont think that she has done so yet. It is distressing.
Yes. Distressing.
It might be relevant to point out here that, since the ground was frozen and snow-covered, and the gravediggers weak with starvation, no one who died in the valley of whatever cause received what used to be called a Christian burial. Instead, typically, a few of the stronger people dragged the corpse outside, only a few feet away from the huts, and covered it with a few shovelfuls of snow--if that. Naturally, the bodies never decomposed in the cold. Thus, as more and more died of starvation and disease, the pioneers were unintentionally creating a sort of meat locker outside their front doors. This makes it easier to explain how, almost on impulse, a person might eat human flesh.
When people turn to cannibalism, they follow a certain pattern. (There are studies, you see.) When a body is fresh, the warm blood of the jugular is most prized. The arms and legs provide meat, but the most nutrition comes from the inner organs. The hips are a good source of fat. The head and hands, being the most identifiably human and personal parts, are only rarely eaten. So you see, even in cases of cannibalism, there is an etiquette to be followed. The real distressing part came when this etiquette was violated--after the rescue.
After a few of the party (known as the Forlorn Hope) finally got through over the pass, they still hadn’t reached civilization. They reached only one farflung outpost--a fort almost a hundred miles from the nearest town. The men at the fort immediately got together all the supplies they could and all the men who willing to go, and set out to hike over the snow-covered pass. Three different rescue parties arrived, and brought out with them all the people they could; the younger children could be carried, but the adult survivors would have to hike out. But when the fourth (and last) rescue party arrived at the camp, they had to leave behind the few adults who were lame or too ill to hike--and only a minimal amount of supplies could be spared for them.
I can only imagine how wrenching it must have been to get through the entire winter, finally witness the arrival of the rescue party, and have to watch them hike away again. They promised to return in spring.
When spring came around, the men of the fort returned with ample supplies. They found the camp covered with blood and guts. A number of bodies were lying in the open, ribcages ripped open. Skulls were stewing in a cooking pot. Of the five pioneers left behind, four had died and been eaten. The one man left was a lame German named Louis Keseberg. He bragged about his cannibalism, talking about which parts of the body he considered most delicious, and sounding glad that he had so many bodies to choose from. When given beef and bread to eat, he rejected it, saying he preferred human meat to any other. One supposes he must have been a little deranged after his ordeal. Ultimately, unlike any of the other survivors, he was put on trial for his actions. (He had never been very sociable and, remember, this was during a period in American history when Germans were still considered dangerous foreigners.) However, since there was no firm evidence that he had killed in order to eat, he was acquitted.
In the end, it could have been a lot worse. Of the original 87 pioneers, 39 died and 48 survived. With the possible exception of Keseberg, there was only one incident in which the pioneers killed someone in order to eat him. This was during the passage over the mountains--and even then, they did not kill one of their one, but rather their Spanish-Indian guide. Here is the author on the remarkably law-abiding behavior of the early pioneers in general:
[People] quit the United States when they crossed the Continental Divide–the western boundary of the Louisiana Purchase–and so technically they were no longer subject to American law. Nevertheless, the developing credo of the western migration was one of remarkable commitment to legal procedure. When crime struck, emigrants typically formed courts to try the defendant, often with a rather elaborate legal structure that included a judge, jury, and lawyers for the prosecution and defense...Nor were these show courts. Emigrants took great pains to ensure some element of fairness, often recruiting people from other companies to act as judge or jury so as to gain greater impartiality. In some cases, even though the wagons were racing against time, parties halted their progress to find suitable jurors in other companies or spent precious hours tracking down suspects or investigating a crime scene.
October 24, 2009
In The Illusion of American Omnipotence, DW Brogan pointed to a state of mind which he called “ the illusion of American omnipotence”--defined as “the illusion that any situation which distresses or endangers the United States can only exist because some Americans have been fools or knaves.” When the Chinese Revolution occurred, instead of concluding that this was a response to massive strategic and economic realities largely beyond our control, millions of Americans were apparently convinced that this enormous country had been in our pocket, and had been lost or stolen only because of the mistakes (or treachery) of Roosevelt, Marshall, and Acheson, mistakes which could easily have been rectified by greater statesmen like Walter Judd or Senator Jenner.
---Hofstadter
---Hofstadter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)