quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Who do you think got offended?
The Rabbit (speaking for the whole church of the lds I think...
"Just as an side, we really don't like being called the church of the LDS. Our Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ" not the church of the Latter Day Saints. It is an important distinction. Most people will give you a pass if you call it the Mormon Church or the LDS Church, but the Church of the LDS seriously rubs me the wrong way."
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I ask, because it is generally only people from the west who push the idea of recipes on others.
Fie on your gravies and thick sauces, you heathen! Keep your cream-of-mushroom-and-baby casserole, for it is an abomination in mine sight!
Simplicity! That's how to bake a baby.
Now, now Scott R, I am child of the western states and rarely ever use a recipe and while campbell cream of mushroom soup is an abomination that should be banned in the WW, a fine brown gravy or well made hollandaise sauce can go quite well with Baby.
Have some sympathy on the neophites. If you aren't an experienced cook, a good recipe is a way to learn.
Here's an excellent on for Roast Suckling Baby
quote:Ingredients 1 (15 pound) suckling baby Kosher salt and cracked black pepper 1/2 cup chopped garlic 1/2 cup finely chopped parsley 1/4 cup chopped fresh thyme Salt and fine black pepper 3 bay leaves 2 tablespoons cumin 2 cups julienne onions 6 oranges, halved 3 limes, halved 3 lemons, halved 1/2 cup olive oil 1 cup red punch Rice and hazelnut Dressing
quote:Edited to remove tasteless directions for this recipe
.
If you need, I can provide a recipe for the rice and hazelnut stuffing as well.
[ October 17, 2008, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That rice and hazelnut dressing looks mighty tasty. I could be persuaded to use it on a baby.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints"
If this were a band...What would Jesus Play?
Drums. It the drums that tie all the other players together keeping them in time. Jesus was perfect, so he would have perfect timing. Plus, he has the perfect hair for when he goes crazy during the drum solo.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: It is funny to me that "The Church of the LDS" offends more than "eating babies"...
I think "mildly bothered" might be better than "offended" in this case. We do say "LDS" and "Mormons" all the time, and neither of those refer to Christ. That's just conventional shorthand. Deliberately omitting Christ's name when naming the Church, as happens in quite a few news articles, is a little more annoying, and hints at a whole different set of concerns, but I don't think Thor was doing that.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think mildly bothered is still a bit too strong. It is important to us as Latter Day Saints that we belong to "The Church of Jesus Christ". It is a factual error I thought was significant enough that it should be correct, but I wasn't in the least offended by it. I'd compare it to how I might feel if someone I just met mispronounced my name or perhaps addressed me as "The" rather than "Rabbit". It would be worth correcting but I wouldn't even be mildly bothered unless the persisted in doing it over and over again after I'd corrected them.
"Eating babies" is a running joke at hatrack so there is no comparison.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edmonds and Tucker were both esteemed Republican Senators. OPPS: I mispoke, they were both esteemed Republican members of the US House of Representatives.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Edmund Tucker was a douche.
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Edmonds and Tucker were both esteemed Republican Senators. OPPS: I mispoke, they were both esteemed Republican members of the US House of Representatives.
So you two are basically in agreement?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Edmund Tucker was a douche.
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Edmonds and Tucker were both esteemed Republican Senators. OPPS: I mispoke, they were both esteemed Republican members of the US House of Representatives.
posted
No. By rule of law, only Hatrackians are only allowed to agree with me once, and never on Mormon related issues.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't even agree with me. I finally looked him up. George F. Edmonds was a Republican Senator from Vermont. He also is credited with writing the Sherman Anti-trust Act. I very much doubt, that I would have agreed with much that he stood for. I suspect that Unicorn feels the same. Is disagreeing in tandom tatamount to agreeing?
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then we could have seen how Mormon baby recipes differ from Jewish baby recipes.
You know, atheists eat babies too. It's just that Mormons make such a big deal about it, and nobody pays attention to atheists anyway.
BTW, I was sitting at an intersection today and I saw two young men wearing white shirts and ties, with name tags. I almost yelled out the window to ask if they ate babies, but decided not to.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Those searches should be done with quote marks to be accurate.
1. "Atheists eat babies": 239 2. "Jews eat babies": 284 3. "Mormons eat babies": 48 (one of which Google Desktop found on my computer -- Hatrack, from my cache)
posted
1. Atheists eat dead babies (1,020,000) 2. Jews eat dead babies (251,000) 3. Mormons eat dead babies (92,900)
With quotes: 1. "Atheists eat dead babies" (4) 2. "Jews eat dead babies"(18) 3. "Mormons eat dead babies" (3)
Since the ones with quotes were almost exclusively from single forums I vote to throw out the results. Atheists win.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to take into account that Mormonism has only been a concern in theological circles for (at most) 180 years; Jews and atheists have been around significantly longer.
In terms of historical proportion, Mormons eat MANY more babies than either Jews or atheists.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who gets all squirmy when people deviate from the "Mormons eat babies" joke (which was kind of funny) into detailed recipe territory? I know it's a joke, but it really bothers me.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I get the joke, and I'm generally in favor of taking stupid stereotypes to ridiculous extremes for humor value, but this one makes me uncomfortable.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me three. And yes, I know it's all in good fun.
I sent the baby lobster in a pot link to a friend, and she was squicked out by that, but that was still funny to me. So it's just a matter of thresholds.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps any, I think the eating babies slur is pretty common. I think it was levelled against Christian missionaries in central America, against Christian missionaries in China during the colonial period, Satanists in the US, and so forth.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: Am I the only one who gets all squirmy when people deviate from the "Mormons eat babies" joke (which was kind of funny) into detailed recipe territory? I know it's a joke, but it really bothers me.
I got squirmy too, and at first I was a little unhappy with Rabbit. But I had to recognize that the recipe wasn't actually more terrible than any of the other talk of eating babies - it was just bringing the joke into sharp focus. It forced me to recognize what was being joked about, in other words. I concluded it was just as funny as the other posts about eating babies, but I will also perceive all of those jokes to be darker and edgier than I did before.
Sometimes I've seen (or made) jokes about kicking elderly women [with the intent of parodying character assassination or simply shock humor]. I think this would make people significantly more uncomfortable if it included a detailed description of the footwear, the placement of the kick, and the resulting trauma.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a long history of accusing opponents of cannibalism. Someone I read once even went so far as to claim that there have never been any cannibalistic societies, only societies accused of cannibalism by their neighboring societies. I wonder if anyone feels the urge to research that question? I'm too lazy. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so I looked into it a bit. This is from the article on cannibalism in Wikipedia.
quote: William Arens, author of The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (New York : Oxford University Press, 1979; ISBN 0-19-502793-0), questions the credibility of reports of cannibalism and argues that the description by one group of people of another people as cannibals is a consistent and demonstrable ideological and rhetorical device to establish perceived cultural superiority. Arens bases his thesis on a detailed analysis of numerous "classic" cases of cultural cannibalism cited by explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists. His findings were that many were steeped in racism, unsubstantiated, or based on second-hand or hearsay evidence. In combing the literature he could not find a single credible eye-witness account. And, as he points out, the hallmark of ethnography is the observation of a practice prior to description. In the end he concluded that cannibalism was not the widespread prehistoric practice it was claimed to be; that anthropologists were too quick to pin the cannibal label on a group based not on responsible research but on our own culturally-determined pre-conceived notions, often motivated by a need to exoticize. He wrote: “
Anthropologists have made a no serious attempt to disabuse the public of the widespread notion of the ubiquity of anthropophagists. ... in the deft hands and fertile imaginations of anthropologists, former or contemporary anthropophagists have multiplied with the advance of civilization and fieldwork in formerly unstudied culture areas. ...The existence of man-eating peoples just beyond the pale of civilization is a common ethnographic suggestion.[26] ”
Arens' findings are controversial, and have been cited as an example of postcolonial revisionism .[27] His argument is often mischaracterized as “cannibals do not and never did exist”,[citation needed] when in the end the book is actually a call for a more responsible and reflexive approach to anthropological research. At any rate, the book ushered in an era of rigorous combing of the cannibalism literature. By Arens' later admission, some cannibalism claims came up short, others were reinforced.
posted
Sorry if I crossed the line in posting an actual recipe. There is actually a joke embedded in there. The marinade is made with red punch instead of wine, but alas that appears to have been too deeply buried to have made it past the tastelessness of the rest of the post.
posted
that is clever, Rabbit. If the forum had a strikethrough font tag available, you could have hit us over the head with it (that's the only way I would have caught it in a pretend baby recipe).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: There's a long history of accusing opponents of cannibalism. Someone I read once even went so far as to claim that there have never been any cannibalistic societies, only societies accused of cannibalism by their neighboring societies. I wonder if anyone feels the urge to research that question? I'm too lazy.
Yes, accusing a society of cannibalism is a classic slur and it is doubtful that cannibalism ever exist as it is portrayed in popular culture (i.e. cultures that hunted people for food). In the Americas, there was actual incentive given to accuse peoples of cannibalism because Spain made it illegal to murder or enslave the Ameri-Indians unless they were cannibals. Follow that ruling, suddenly every Ameri-Indian group that fought back or had valuable territory were found to be cannibals.
Unfortunately, the history of unjustly accusing peoples of cannibalism makes anthropological research in this area highly controversial. There is however substantial evidence for two forms of cannibalism. The first is cannibalism during times of famine which has been documented in modern times (i.e the Donner Party, the plane crash in the Andies) and there is substantial evidence that cannibalism became quiet common during periods of famine in medieval Europe.
The second is ritual cannibalism and there is compelling evidence that many societies have in the past (and possibly even in the present day) practiced various types of ritual cannibalism. For example the kuru in Papua New Guinea have an extraordinarily high incidence of Creutzefield-Jakob syndrome which is believed to be spread by burial rituals in which the brains and other organs of the dead are eaten. This practice has been banned but there is some question as to whether it has actually stopped.
There is also compelling evidence that many societies practiced some form of ritual cannibalism which may have involved eating parts of honored dead, eating respected enemies killed in battle and possibly eating people sacrificed in religious ceremonies. It is reported that after Captain Cook (or at least part of him were eaten by the Hawaiians. It is reported that being eaten was a honor reserved for the greatest chiefs and this indicated the high regarded the Hawai'ians has for Cook, even though they killed him (probably because he was defending men who had stolen from them). Evidently many cultures have believed that one could gain the virtues (strength, bravery etc) of a deceased warrior by eating his flesh.
There was a very controversial book, Man Corn, published about 5 years ago which documents the extensive evidence that ritual cannibalism occurred at Chaco Canyon (Northern New Mexico). Although Chaco was abandoned over 800 years ago, the Pueblo peoples of the region consider themselves descendants of the occupants of Chaco Canyon and revere Chaco as a holy site. The modern Pueblo religion involves veneration of ancestors (but definitely not ritual cannibalism) and so this is a highly inflammatory issue. A lead archeologist who is also Puebo Indian, announced when the first presentations on this were made that he would not believe it unless they found human remains in human dung, which then they did. After which he announced he would not believe that this was more than an isolated incident.
When you consider that the US undertook a systematic genocide of the Ameri-Indians, that these people today continue to suffer from prejudice and extreme poverty, and that cannibalism was indeed one of the lies told to justify their oppression -- it is not at all hard to understand why there would be so much controversy of archeological evidence of cannibalism, even if ancestor worship was not involved.
There is understandably much less controversy over the discovery of evidence for Cannibalism among the ancient Celts. It also gets a lot less press and one wonders whether that isn't evidence of continued prejudice in our society.
[ October 17, 2008, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
