How to use this Page

I’m really just having way too much fun here.

What is SkADaMo? Why this is SkADaMo.

Sometimes what is considered edible is subject to a given culture or region of the world; what someone from Nicaragua would consider “local grub” could be entirely different than what someone in Paris would eat. How many different types of meat have you experienced? Are there some types of meat you would never eat? Below are nine different types of meat, listed in The Oxford Companion to Food, that you may not have considered trying:

Camel: Still eaten in some regions, a camel’s hump is generally considered the best part of the body to eat. Its milk, a staple for desert nomads, contains more fat and slightly more protein than cow’s milk.

Beaver: A beaver’s tail and liver are considered delicacies in some countries. The tail is fatty tissue and was greatly relished by early trappers and explorers. Its liver is large and almost as tender and sweet as a chicken’s or a goose’s.

Agouti: Also spelled aguti; a rodent species that may have been described by Charles Darwin as “the very best meat I ever tasted” (though he may have been actually describing a guinea pig since he believed agouti and cavy were interchangeable names).

Armadillo: Its flesh is rich and porky, and tastes more like possum than any other game. A common method of cooking is to bake the armadillo in its own shell after removing its glands.

Capybara: The capybara was an approved food by the Pope for traditional “meatless” days, probably since it was considered semiaquatic. Its flesh, unless prepared carefully to trim off fat, tastes fishy.

Hedgehog: A traditional gypsy cooking method is to encase the hedgehog in clay and roast it, after which breaking off the baked clay would take the spines with it.

Alligator: Its meat is white and flaky, likened to chicken or, sometimes, flounder. Alligators were feared to become extinct from consumption, until they started becoming farmed.

Iguana: Iguanas were an important food to the Maya people when the Spaniards took over Central America. Its eggs were also favored, being the size of a table tennis ball, and consisted entirely of yolk.

Puma: Charles Darwin believed he was eating some kind of veal when presented with puma meat. He described it as, “very white, and remarkably like veal in taste”. One puma can provide a lot of meat, since each can weigh up to 100 kg (225 lb).

Has this list changed the way you view these animals? Would you try alligator meat but turn your nose up if presented with a hedgehog platter?

Headline Image: Street Food at Wangfujing Street. Photo by Jirka Matousek. CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

The post Nine types of meat you may have never tried appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• What’s your gut feeling?
• What exactly is intelligence?
• Does political development involve inherent tradeoffs?

 

By Kirsty OUP-UK

Now perhaps more than ever our society is conscious about offending religious viewpoints. In Blasphemy in the Christian World: A History, a new and timely book, David Nash traces the history of blasphemy from the Middle Ages up to the present day. Today I am thrilled to be able to bring you a piece written by Dr Nash especially for the OUP blog, focussing on Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’, which was accused of blasphemy and caused a huge outcry upon its release almost 30 years ago.

One of the most frequently asked questions about blasphemy is why do people do it, since it sometimes seems such a victimless crime. The Roman Emperor Tiberius suggested that if God was offended by an individual’s behaviour he was capable of exacting his own retribution, so why should man concern himself with such issues. Since medieval times, however, we have tended to automatically think that states and individuals have been progressing away from policing the opinions of others substituting religious tolerance for persecution.

The motives of blasphemers became the subject of some debate in the medieval world. Whether people were misled by the actions of devils or demons, or had spoken blasphemy when scared, or whilst drunk, it was deemed clear that an incidence of blasphemous speech had occurred as some form of accident. In the modern world things have become more complex and the motives of those who blaspheme become linked to issues of personal rights. Our modern western world has empowered freedom of expression but has equally begun in recent years to consider the rights and feelings of those who might be offended by the ideas and words of others. Thus in our modern world artists and writers have been those who have caused most lasting and high profile offence. If these people can cause offence we perhaps should ask why they are prepared to do so.

Perhaps it is most pertinent to ask this question of the film ‘Monty Python’s ‘ Life of Brian.’ This film is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary, was recently voted Britain’s best comedy film of all time by a BBC Radio Times poll, and remains the best known attempt to lampoon the history of religion in Britain and America. More importantly it could never claim that its motives were ‘serious’ in the manner that Mel Gibson could with ‘Passion of the Christ’ or Martin Scorsese could with ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’. So what did the Python team think they were doing? Did they set out to undermine and topple the leading religious ideology of the Western World?

Certainly it looked like it; the nativity scene was reworked with fiercely comic content, the Sermon on the Mount focussed upon the stupidity of those at the back who couldn’t hear properly, the crucifixion, moreover was turned into a sing-along comment on the potential miseries afflicting this life rather than paradise in the next. Taken as a whole the film seems unashamedly intent upon offending people – so were these the motives that persuaded the Monty Python team to make ‘Life of Brian’ and stir up the biggest controversy around blasphemy in the Christian World during the twentieth century? We know much about its development through television documentaries, newspaper clippings, and not least through Michael Palin’s recently published diaries. These suggest that ‘Brian’ emerged in the same way that other Python material did. Members of the team wrote separately and sometimes in teams in pursuit of situations that they primarily found funny. The initial idea was to show the life of an individual, ‘St Brian’, who was too late on the scene for all of Christ’s miracles, a situation that was clearly funny without being blasphemous. When the material was eventually put together its sum was greater than the parts and resembled the life story of an inadequate prophet, made inadequate through the shortcomings of the religion and religious people of his day. Thus the Python team began to focus upon the fact that they had produced a send–up of organised religion.

Once again their judgement of what was funny, worked well on celluloid, or adequately expressed their intentions made them cut material from the film. For example, the character of Otto, a Jewish fascist, never made the final version of the film because his presence diluted the power of other scenes. The Pythons could also censor themselves when it was required and this character would have made distribution in America potentially more difficult than it need have been.

So Monty Python wanted to make money, be funny and please its audience, and it succeeded in all of these. It was Python’s opponents who turned ‘Life of Brian’ into a threat to Christianity. It was these attitudes that made the Monty Python team, if only for a moment, become serious about what their film had done and made them strident proponents of freedom of expression. The Bishop of Southwark may have said to them that ‘Life of Brian’ would not have been made if the character of Christ had not existed. John Cleese and Michael Palin might equally have replied that ‘Brian’ would not have been made if the pretensions of people like the Bishop of Southwark had not existed.

Share This