Humanities desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 9

Do some primitive diet people really try to acclimate to rotten meat?

I ran across a bizarre link (www.ehow.com/how_7718564_prepare-rotten-meat-primal-diet.html) that makes me wonder if people really do that, or if the page is an elaborate practical joke with a potentially fatal punch line. Can someone comment on whether primitive diet people (or others) really try to get themselves used to eating raw meat? Extra info on how successful they are in acclimating, and how many casualties they suffer would also be very welcome. :) (Note: I'm not asking about the science of whether this is a good idea, just if people do it) Wnt (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raw, or rotten? They are totally different things. I love sushi and rare beef. I just had a rare steak-and-gorgonzola salad to die for this weekend. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what in the world does raw meat have to do with a primitive diet? Homo erectus used fire. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is about rotten meat produced under specific circumstances, which is why I found it surprising. Paleolithic diet describes raw foods, but not rotten meat. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)i[reply]

Oh. Can one not make this a clickable link? follow the first link here μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try searching that Swedish rotten fish delicacy, although I have no idea what it's called. Uhlan ^talk 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is just what is often called the pickling of meat done by northern peoples. The Eskaleuts (not sure which race, specifically) sew birds inside seal skins and let them ferment over the summer. The Nivkh people (used to) cover pits of fish, allow the fish to ferment, feed the fermented fish to dogs, and then eat the dogs. Calling it "rotten" meat is probably just marketing. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably refers to the (presumably) disgusting 'rotten' smell of the meat, although perhaps not to the Swedes... Uhlan ^talk 04:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of Lutefisk, which is not rotten, but may in fact taste even worse. There is also the matter of defining "rotten". Cheese, yogurt, beer and stinky tofu are all examples of foods that microorganisms have been allowed to grow in, but are perfectly edible. But eating rotten meat seems unusual to me - the bacteria that decompose meat are sometimes toxic or pathogenic to humans (in the four examples I gave above the microorganisms are harmless to humans). When I search online for articles about eating rotten meat, I just find a lode of sites warning not to do it. I don't find anyone suggesting that cavemen regularly ate rotten meat. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the problem with the inaccuracies in language and with people's understanding of food science. Much (I dare say maybe even most) food is processed with some form of microorganism at some point, be it bread (yeast, anyone), cheese, wine, beer, yogurt, etc. etc. Such food is usually called (perhaps euphamistically) as "cultured", but really, its just bacteria/yeast/mold/ etc. The difference is really in "microorganisms that make my food tasty" versus "microorganisms that make my food cause me to be sick." Our language calls the former "cultures" and the latter "rotten", but that's the primary distinction. People have an odd phobia when dealing with the effect (even positive) of microorganisms on their foodstuffs. --Jayron32 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the question title should be changed from 'rotten' to 'raw' to avoid confusion. Uhlan ^talk 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lew-eez-us. I'll quote the text of the put-on (?) so there's no more confusion: Cut the organic beef or chicken into small chunks. Place the chunks of meat in the jar; air it at least every 3 days. Airing keeps the bacteria moving and is necessary to advance the bacteria through all the stages of decomposition. Only air outside, as the smell of the rotten meat can linger in your home for more than 24 hours. After 1 month of frequent airing and rotting, begin sampling marble-size amounts of the now somewhat "high" meat daily. It will taste a putrid and may stir up past feelings of fear of food poisoning, maybe even to the point of inducing a panic attack. But within 10 to 20 minutes, you should begin to experience a positive and drastic change in mood and energy levels... Wnt (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I really wouldn't trust an ehow website, I don't believe the articles have ratification from medical minds. Uhlan ^talk 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'm not asking about the science of its advisability. I'm just curious if such a group of experimental subjects really exists that is available for study, as it would be unethical to initiate the experiment, but not to take advantage of it. (For example, I'd be curious whether they do acclimate over time, if they have higher or lower rates of autoimmune disease, asthma, ulcerative colitis, etc., whether their expression of odorant receptors changes, whether their serum levels of polyamines are different and if that has (various effects)... etc. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article is total garbage. In other words, the author laid a thousand year old egg. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rancid seal flipper is supposed to be a delicacy. While this explains the health hazards. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on everything, in this case Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Paleolithic diet. I don't think the health benefits are very plausible, but of course, "rotten" is relative, and the perceived risk of raw food is not always justified. Also compare dry aged beef, which is a delicacy that only a barbarian would cook beyond medium. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly about this -- rotting (fermenting) fish forms the basis for a number of Asian sauces, was the basis for the original Chinese ketchup, and also the basis for Worcestershire sauce. And the British believe in cooking everything to "well-done" including veggies until they are sure they are dead <g>. Collect (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on your last point - at least one less than 50 years old <grin back through clenched teeth>. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] BBC: What is the UK's national vegetable? says And overcooked cabbage, cauliflower and sprouts are classic school dinner fare. [2] At two, Dad would return and start hacking away at the joint, and slices of beast, overcooked vegetables, and a fatsoaked pudding would be consumed etc. All recent still. Now I note that London appears to have foreigners undercooking veggies <g>, but the main idea is still there out in the countryside. At least until the EU issues some new regulations, of course. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well done. To be fair though, the first source is referencing a stereotype (school dinners haven't included boiled cabbage or sprouts for several decades) and the second is an American expatriate recalling his childhood. Alansplodge (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one mentioned the Icelandic Hákarl, fermented shark buried in sand and pressed under stone for months, then hung and dried for more more months. Rmhermen (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The putrid fish that Swedes consider a delicacy is called Surströmming. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pheasant, and other game birds, is sometimes hung for days, even a week or two, until its otherwise unremarkable taste has matured. This, and a brief section in On Food and Cooking, suggest that the process which produces the desired effect is indeed bacterial decay and that the refined product, if not actually rotten, is on the cusp of being so. It would be interesting to know (neither source really says) whether this change in flavour is accompanied by an improvement in the flesh's food value (whether, e.g., the action of the bacteria has broken down otherwise indigestible tissues).-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article says; "In earlier times, birds would be hung by their heads until the body fell off, at which point they would be ready for cooking." It says that the purpose of hanging, besides changing the flavour, is to tenderise the meat which probably comes from an adult animal - domestic animals are slaughtered when they're very young. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for someone to verify the contents of an article

I'm trying to find someone who can find an article from the Manchester Guardian, May 19, 1984, by Polly Toynbee titled "The Value of a Grandfather Figure". There are a few copies floating around on blogs, but we want to verify that those are true to the published version. Any idea on where to find this? I don't have access to any paid archive services or anything beyond the big G.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only Manchester Guardian I'm ware of was renamed to simply The Guardian in 1959. Is that the paper you're referring to? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. This is the non-official version of the article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the Guardian, old editions are unfortunately not available for free. You can buy old editions from this site, but they are rather expensive. You may be able to contact that site to at least find out if Polly Tonybee actually wrote something in that edition. You may also make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, to see if any Wikipedia editors have subscriptions to old newspapers (a lot of editors have rather extensive access to stuff through their local libraries). Someguy1221 (talk)

You the man...err guy. Thanks. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

website problem

I've been looking on the website of Lil Bub. Apparently something is off. I can't seem to find her online store. When I try, all I get is her book. What's going on? Anyone know?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to www.lilbub.com and clicking on "store" seems to do the trick for me. - Karenjc (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Constitution of Brunei the Basic law of Brunei?

[Constitution of Brunei] Alevero987 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert but for any other country the Common Law tends to be separate to the Constitution, perhaps that is indicative of Brunei also. Uhlan ^talk 22:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP should be an expert by now, because this type of question gets raised about every week or two here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Brunei specifically? Uhlan ^talk 22:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question that keeps getting repeated is what the official language or languages of Brunei are, and I suspect this question is a twist on that. The editor is obviously quite interested in Brunei (Alevero987 (talk · contribs)), but they might get faster answers re-reading the ref desk archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany the Basic Law *is* the Constitution. Maybe this is indicative of Brunei also? 86.148.57.175 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the term "basic law" is recognised in international jusriprudence, but given that the point of a Constitution is that all other laws must conform to, or at least must not be antipathetic to, its strictures and conditions, I can't see how any other law could be considered the "basic law" of a country. Keener legal minds than mine might be able to comment more usefully. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question that gets confusing to some people is the distinction between the constitution (little c) of a nation, and a document whose title is The Constitution (big C). A nation's constitution is its organizational principles: how it is organized, how the state is run, how it is governed. All nations have a constitution if they exist; saying a nation lacks a constitution would be like saying a person has no personality: the existence of a person implies that they have some personality, but people have different personalities. The existence of a nation automatically means it has some way it is run and organized: it has a constitution. That's what the word means, to constitute means to make up or compose or create. The constitution of a nation is the set of principles that gives the state a structure and organization. All states have one. Some states also have a document titled The Constitution, which explains the constitution of that state. Some states have documents titled other things, like "Basic Law", i.e. Basic Laws of Israel, Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, etc. These documents are not titled "The Constitution", but they are, nonetheless, the document that serves the same purpose as, say, the Constitution of the United States does for the United States. The U.K. doesn't have a single document titled anything that acts as its single constitution, but it does have principles that determine how the state is run, so there is still, of course, a Constitution of the United Kingdom. That's the key distinction between Constitutional law and other forms of law; constitutional law is primarily about how the state is run, not about how people should behave or what punishments exist for people who misbehave, or how taxes are collected, or whatnot. It's about "Here's how other laws get passed; here's how the legislature is elected, here's who gets to vote, here's what the government does and does not have the right to do to the governed, etc." --Jayron32 01:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the value of Iranian dinar coins grow tenfold in 1932?

Hello,

I have read that the Iranian rial replaced the Iranian qiran at par in 1932. However, the dinar, which was a subunit of both currencies, was worth a thousandth (1/1000) of a qiran before 1932 and a hundredth (1/100) of a rial after. Moreover, new dinar coins were issued only in 1935. Does that mean that the value of the dinar grew tenfold at once, with the transition to the rial? Kulystab (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new dinar was worth ten times the old one. See this article. --Omidinist (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omidinist, allow me to rephrase my question. If all my belongings a day before the transition were 100 coins of one dinar, would I be tenfold richer the day after? That sounds odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulystab (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange was not an overnight transition. It took place gradually, so that the old coin could be collected and the new ones could be distributed. Your wealth would change merely nominally.--Omidinist (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kulystab (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]