Posted on 12/21/2004 10:42:13 AM PST by quidnunc
Do we need to amend our Christmas tradition to reflect modern affluence and abundance?
Modern American Christmases typically feature huge feasts and lavish gift exchanges. The feasting, at least, dates back long before the birth of the Christ child. The Yuletide was the time of the winter solstice, the shortest days of the year.
It was a natural time for lavish meals and blazing fireplaces. Mid-winter was when feed for the livestock began to get scarce. Even in the years with good harvests, the rats and weevils were at work in the stored grain. Winter rains moldered the haystacks. Keeping livestock past Christmas was a chancy business. Most of the poultry and livestock had to be killed, or there would not be enough feed to keep the breeding stock alive for the next spring and summer.
The meat had to be eaten within a fairly short time or it would spoil. Thus Christmas became one of the few times during the year when common people could count on having meat. The summer solstice was another big feast day — the culinary highlight being scones with butter! But mostly, they ate porridge — grain soup — made with milk when they had it, water when they didn't.
The 17th Century British and French began to invent modern farming with crop rotation and animal-drawn machines. This was the first time in history that the common people of Europe could think about having meat for Sunday dinners.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at americanoutlook.org ...
Great article that puts things in perspective!
Golly, and here I always thought we raised livestock for the purpose of slaughtering most of them for food.
Now I know we did it because there was not enough feed to keep them all alive. Just goes to show how ignorant a country bumpkin can be.
I assume you're being sarcastic.
My grandfather tended to sell off the steers, smaller cows, and less fecund cows every year, but he'd keep the Brahma and Hereford bulls and the most productive cows (i.e., the breeding stock). That is partially a rancher's business decision, but tradition also plays a role in some areas. The concern you denigrate may well be a tradition and sensible practice for the times. Sure, you can get feed all you want, now. Back then it might have been a serious concern. And feed is still expensive.
Nope.
I just found the phrasing bizarre. "Most of the poultry and livestock had to be killed" sounds as if it was unplanned.
Mmmmm. 'Most' of them were raised for the purpose of being used for food which means their killing was part of the plan. They didn't 'have' to be killed because feed ran short. The killing is planned, barring disaster.
Aha. Gotcha now.
Yeah, the connotation does make it seem like the farmer messed up. "Aw, crap, we forgot to buy feed for the winter AGAIN?!?!? Better go shoot Elsie!"
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.