Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture

I read this book 13 years ago and it was in many respects an eye-opener to me:1. the statement that meat was positively good to eat, not something to frown upon as many nutritionists (and Jeremy Rifkin!) do. Gradually, this perspective is reinforced by the discoveries of human paleontologists that fat and meat might have played a key role in the evolution of the human brain.2.that religious prescriptions can be reduced to a materialistic background e.g a live cow for Indian peasants is of greater use than after slaughtering etcetera.Not that I put all his advices in practice: I take perhaps horsemeat once or twice a year. But I can recommend grasshoppers! Nice nutty taste.When preparing a lecture about food choice I wanted to check if the book was still in print, and I was glad to discover that it is! Let everybody profit from it!

I have become increasingly interested in nutrition of late and although this book deals less with the issue of nutrition and more with the issue of culture. I found it extremely useful in putting my developing nutritional beliefs in perspective. Harris does a brilliant job of answering many of why(s) in a manner that removes the hocus-pocus and the just-because(s) that we've been fed growing up. I consider myself fortunate to have read this book and have since recommended it several of my of my friends. There is a caveat to this book. The author cares nothing for religious reservation or social delicacies. He tells it like it is and if you can't approach this book with your mind wide open then you probably shouldn't approach it at all. I intend to read the rest of his work because I respect his method of thought.

As with anything by Harris, a thoroughly enjoyable read. It is mind-boggling that Harris's work and his cultural materialist theories are not better known than the sociobiological garbage so beloved of the media and academia these days. In spite of the sociobio claims that virtually anything that humans do is based on genetics, Harris consistently trumps their arguments with examples of the variability of cultural beliefs, from refusing to eat foods because the gods don't want us to, to beliefs that perfectly edible foods are disgusting, to the belief that the gods want us to eat human flesh. And he demonstrates how all that talk about the food preferences of the gods is really a smokescreen for (originally) practical survival issues.

Harris is a gifted writer of expository prose who knows how to connect with his readership. Nonetheless some of this is a little depressing since it is about eating insects and human beings. If you can get past that, it's fascinating."Warfare cannibalism" is a concept encountered here. That's what the Aztecs practiced. Harris explains it all. Modern states don't practice cannibalism because the power structure benefits more from keeping the vanquished alive and producing for the state. Before the rise of the state, the bands and village societies had not the bureaucracy nor the technology to take advantage of the labor of prisoners and slaves, so it was more cost effective to eat them. And they did. Before reading Harris I used to think the Conquistadors were horrible and I despised the Spanish state and all of Christendom; however now that I know the nature of the savages of America, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Harris makes it clear that we don't eat horsemeat because the horse is less effective at turning grass into meat than ruminants and so horse meat would be more expensive than beef. He shows how horses were extremely valuable as instruments of war. Calvary troops easily defeated infantry. He recalls the Asiatic pastorales who became the mongrel hoards who learned to ride their little horses so effectively that they conquered vast areas from China to Europe. They would ride practically from birth, more on a horse than off. They kept several horses in a caravan and cut the artery in the horse's neck on a ten-day or so rotation and drank the blood. They rode their horses until they dropped and then ate them, but only then.The Europeans learned from them to use the horse as an instrument of war. The European horses were breed much larger to hold a man and a hundred pounds of armor, and to pull wagons and plows. Horses were only eaten after the horse was too old to work. It became a clear status symbol to own horses, and so eating horseflesh became something the upper classes would never do, but something the lower classes were sometimes reduced to.Meat hunger and fat hunger have been facts of life for humans for the millennia. Our populations have always increased to the point that meat and fat became hard to get for the poorer people, and in many cases, impossible. Reading Harris makes one believe that the single most important detriment to human well-being is overpopulation. Again and again humans overwhelmed their resources. Today we have so much here in America while in India and places like that most people are hungry, especially for meat and fat. It is only the amazing explosion in technology and the use of fossil fuels that has allowed the current population growth. Still we have too many people.Insects are eaten by most societies, but seldom as an important source of protein because the supply is unstable. Monkeys that jump from branch to branch eating

Este libro de Marvin Harris es fundamental para todo aquel que crea que la mesa y la plaza pública están íntimamente ligadas. En un vertiginoso y suculento viaje -aunque no es recomendable para estómagos débiles- el antropólogo nos lleva a través de la historia de la humanidad y nos permite ver como los hábitos alimenticios hicieron la cultura y viceversa.