Oregon bill seeks to criminalize breeding/raising livestock for meat

[U_Stormcrow]

Cows and pigs both, for insulin.

 

[Tilhana]

There is a difference between a carcass and meat. A pork chop and a rib eye are similar cuts of meat, but even raw the color and texture and taste are different. I know that in some South Pacific languages human meat literally translates as long pig. But I don't think anything in my experience would let me look at meat and guess that it was human based on appearance. And I'm happy to be that ignorant.

I've often heard carcasses referred to as "meat", especially during the butchering process. I'm not going to argue semantics. The similarity I was noting referred to the way the raw flesh of a pig being butchered looks similar to human flesh. I wouldn't know what a cannibal's dinner looks like, and other than bacon and the quintissential holiday ham you see in movies and photos, I'm not all that familiar with the appearance of cooked pork, either.

 

[Tilhana]

Individual reporters have different strengths and weaknesses. Given its inaccuracies, focus, and self-generated controversy, I'd say this story was written by someone lazy whose research for the piece consisted of reading a press packet put together by the group sponsoring the ballot initiative. It's not balanced and it's deliberately misleading. It's the kind of story no reputable news source should publish.

The article I originally linked to is actually pretty accurate from what I can tell. If it's unbalanced it's because the source is a publication that specializes in news related to agriculture, so naturally they're primarily concerned with how it would affect the industry. It doesn't actually refer to the initiative as a bill, I added that in my original post because the person I originally heard about it from referred to it as a bill and I repeated it. I don't know if/how it was reported in the regular news media, but as far as I know the only errors were on the part of me and other people who are not professional reporters or journalists.

 

[Sierra G]

The term is probably apocryphal, originating in the late 1800s, popularly reported in the oft sensationalist media, and ascribed to some unnamed cannibal tribe (location varies) whose language no longer exists, as reported by some far off explorer.

That said, pork is remarkably similar to human in many important ways - one of the reasons its used for organ graft studies. Heparin, and a number of other drugs are derived from pig. Their skin is used in early dermal absorbtion experiments for transdermally delivered medication dosages etc.

Long pig probably isn't apocryphal, but that doesn't mean it's a good translation. Especially since the pig was the only other meat animal those people probably had. And even cannibals might want to euphemize when talking about some things.

 

[MysteryChicken]

I've often heard carcasses referred to as "meat", especially during the butchering process. I'm not going to argue semantics. The similarity I was noting referred to the way the raw flesh of a pig being butchered looks similar to human flesh. I wouldn't know what a cannibal's dinner looks like, and other than bacon and the quintissential holiday ham you see in movies and photos, I'm not all that familiar with the appearance of cooked pork, either.

The only difference between human meat, & pork is that we contain red meat, & pork is white meat.

I recently watched an interesting video on this subject yesterday night.

 

[aart]

I recently watched an interesting video on this subject yesterday night.

Online...gotta link?

 

[MysteryChicken]

Online...gotta link?

I'll look for it.

 

[MysteryChicken]

Online...gotta link?

 

[Geckolady]

One of those threads that starts at the bottom and then goes downhill. Yuck.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Long pig probably isn't apocryphal, but that doesn't mean it's a good translation. Especially since the pig was the only other meat animal those people probably had. And even cannibals might want to euphemize when talking about some things.

I did not intend to suggest that cannibalism was apocryphal, I meant rather to suggest that the translation "long pig" was likely apocryphal - particularly as the pig was introduced to many of the islands which were later suggested as source for alleged term, by the European explorers who provided the lurid tales which were the source for the reporting. Most likely, the tellers of tales invented the term themselves - stories of shipwrecked explorers falling upon their fellows in desperation are older than the written word, cannibalism is hardly unique to distant savages - as a way of making the story of (allegedly) meeting cannibals more memorable.

The view is further supported by the fact that no one has plausibly suggested the root language from which "long pig" would be derived.

Camping among Cannibals is often pointed to as a source supporting the claims, but its from the late 1800s, almost 1900, long after the term first saw use, and claims puaka balava "long pig" and puaka dina "real pig". When, I ask, prior to almond milk and veggie "burgers", have you heard a language call a common critter "real critter" to distinguish it from another sometimes serving as a meal?

Even the word, puaka, is alleged to be a corruption of the English "porker" as early as 1920. So to buy the claim, you have to believe that a culture practicing cannibalism before the appearance of the white man and his pigs changed their naming of a long-standing, perhaps ritualistic, foodstuff in response to our introduction of a highly destructive foreign species.

It doesn't pass the "smell test".