Posted on 10/11/2016 2:52:46 PM PDT by JimSEA
Score!!! Ten points for a great post.
Cowboy’s of old...called their cattle..beef.
I’ve heard them called “beeves” before, but not beef. Beef cows, beef cattle, using it as an adjective, I’ve heard that plenty too. But not “beef” by itself in the singular.
all I wish to say is... “Paradox This!!”
Yeah.
Those who actually raise the animals make the distinction. Historically, ‘cows’ (female beef) were for birthing and milking. ‘Beef’ was the steers who had little other use except as eventual breakfast, lunch and dinner meat.
I would suspect that the underlying philosophy from the U of Oslo is that meat is bad, veggies are good.
It's okay,,,,,
Harvest is to slaughter what investment is to taxes.
IF the clowns who came up with the study are saying
that the word ‘beef’ is utilized to avoid saying ‘cow’
then they need to go back and study a little history
of the matter, at least from the American point of view.
The terms were set long before there was any popular
organized vegetarian movement. True, beef and cows are
both bovine (aka cattle). But specifically, cows are females
that have produced offspring. They can be beef cows or
dairy cows. Females that have not produced calves are
referred to as heifers.
The main function of dairy cattle is to provide dairy products. Beef cows produce offspring that are raised
to be SLAUGHTERED to provide meat. Could both dairy
cows and bulls and beef cows and bulls be slaughtered at
some point? Yes, once their usefulness for their
designed purpose has passed. Also, there are only so
many dairy bulls that are needed to breed X number of cows
so many dairy bull calves are castrated to become
beef cattle. But the rules still apply.
The point is that it is the vegetarian and animal rights
extremists that are playing terminology games, not
the meat industry.
"Pork" is different from "pig on the hoof" because the people who raised the food in the Late Middle Ages in England were not the same people who ate it. In German, where Anglo Saxon originated, there is no distinction: Das Schweinefleisch vs. Das Schwein.
It has only to do with the history of the language, and nothing whatsoever to do with trying to distance ourselves from what we eat.
Professors used to know that the nobility in England spoke French, and the peasants spoke English. Apparently, they're not terribly well educated anymore.
The reason for this lies deep in England, after the Norman invasion.
Good old Anglo-Saxon words like cow, pig, sheep are stilled used for the animal.
However, the meat was demanded by the new royals and aristocratic Frenchmen, and the Saxon servants fed it to them by the French name; for cow, Le Boeuf; for pig, Jambon; for sheep, Mutton.
It is not about distastefulness at the thought of wishing a poor animal no ill will.
If the peasants could, they’d have ate animals all day long!
The people with all this sympathy for cattle have never spent much time around them.
Or pigs. I was never so ready to kill something as when it was finally sausage season. Chased those danged things all over the county every year!
I agree about the naming thing. Names are for registered
breeding stock while market animals go in the freezer.
When I encounter a 4H or FFA kid who is writing letters
to attract bidders for their county fair junior
livestock auction market animals I suggest they don’t
include the names they have given the animals. Some
buyers don’t care to know that some kid’s pet is going
in their freezer. In fact, if I catch them soon enough
I suggest they dispense with the naming of the animal
altogether. Of course that doesn’t fly very well with
most young 4H girls.
If only he were a mere PhD candidate. He’s a post-doc fellow. Heads don’t come any pointier than his.
As I understand it, the earleist settlers in the British Isles moved in after the last period of glaciation, but didn't leave us much evidence of their racial or language characteristics. Paleolithic hunters and gatherers, maybe 8000 BC. That was when the British Isles were still connected to continental Europe (and to each other) by a land bridge, before the glacial melt made the sea level rise, turning the area into islands.
Then the Celts came in, pushed west by the Roman conquest of France (Gallic Wars) (1st century BC). Eventually the Romans pushed right into what's now England ( 1st century AD), and the islands' inhabitants were still, loosely, Celtic, and spoke the Breton, Welsh and related languages.
The Romans withdrew in the 4th century AD, which cleared the way for barbarian raids from the North and East.
They were invaded by the Angles and Saxons in the 5th century , and gradually evolved the Anglo-Saxon language, which is West Germanic. The Celts (Gaelic) were pushed even further to the margins, north to Scotland and west to Wales and Ireland.
Then in the 11th century Anflo-Saxon Britain was invaded and settled by the Normans from France.
So it was Paleolithics (unknown race and language) ==> Celts (Gaelic) ==> Romans (Latin) ==> Angles and Saxons (Germanic)==> Normans (French)
Oh, and ell of them were meat-eaters. No matter what language. Of course!
That is a hoot!
.
Those “Paleolithics” left behind inscriptions on the northern most shores rocks in ‘paleo-Hebrew,’ a pictographic language that may have been what all of the people used, pre-Babylon.
Better yet, Ironjack, if you stun the steer with a
sledge hammer or a 22 cal bullet to the crop in the
middle of the forehead you can hang him by the hind
legs, cut his throat and let the heart pump the blood
out on the ground. That way you get 85% of the blood
out of the carcass instead of just 15%.
I worked in the University slaughter house when I
was a college punk........
But the evidence is scarce.
Link to the alleged paleo-Hebrew? And what century, approx?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.