Pig Lovers and Pig Haters
ANP 320
9-26-2013
Pig Lovers and Pig Haters This article relates to what we have learned about materialism. Harris goes in depth explaining the differences between pig haters and pig lovers, and what that meant for their societies. Harris wants to know “how to account for an apparently bizarre and wasteful taboo” (45). He explains the history of pig hatred for the Jews and Moslems, stating that the Bible condemned them from eating pig because they were dirty. Every reason given for why pigs are hated was irrational in the sense that the same thing could ultimately be said about most other animals. Harris’ reasoning brings the history of the people and the land into account. They were nomadic pastoralists and the climate and location simply was not good to be raising pigs. They would have required too much energy to raise, for not as much output for the people. Harris took and ecological approach to explain away pig hatred. When it comes to pig lovers, Harris goes into great detail on the Maring clans in New Guinea. Long story short, they raise pigs because they are holy and need to sacrifice them to their ancestors in order to declare war and make peace. They are raised for years on end, and take up more and more energy as the years go on. However, unlike the pig haters, the Maring people live in an area perfect for pigs. Pigs also give them necessary nutrients and protein for their fighting. Harris states, “Rappaport insists –correctly, I believe- that in a fundamental ecological sense, the size of a group’s pig surplus does indicate its productive and military strength and does validate or invalidate its territorial claims. In other words, the entire system results in an efficient distribution of plants, animals, and people in the region, from a human ecological point of view”(56). Both of his examples show materialism taking place in cultures and he goes further in to explain how these pigs actually affect the lives of the people and, in
9-26-2013
Pig Lovers and Pig Haters This article relates to what we have learned about materialism. Harris goes in depth explaining the differences between pig haters and pig lovers, and what that meant for their societies. Harris wants to know “how to account for an apparently bizarre and wasteful taboo” (45). He explains the history of pig hatred for the Jews and Moslems, stating that the Bible condemned them from eating pig because they were dirty. Every reason given for why pigs are hated was irrational in the sense that the same thing could ultimately be said about most other animals. Harris’ reasoning brings the history of the people and the land into account. They were nomadic pastoralists and the climate and location simply was not good to be raising pigs. They would have required too much energy to raise, for not as much output for the people. Harris took and ecological approach to explain away pig hatred. When it comes to pig lovers, Harris goes into great detail on the Maring clans in New Guinea. Long story short, they raise pigs because they are holy and need to sacrifice them to their ancestors in order to declare war and make peace. They are raised for years on end, and take up more and more energy as the years go on. However, unlike the pig haters, the Maring people live in an area perfect for pigs. Pigs also give them necessary nutrients and protein for their fighting. Harris states, “Rappaport insists –correctly, I believe- that in a fundamental ecological sense, the size of a group’s pig surplus does indicate its productive and military strength and does validate or invalidate its territorial claims. In other words, the entire system results in an efficient distribution of plants, animals, and people in the region, from a human ecological point of view”(56). Both of his examples show materialism taking place in cultures and he goes further in to explain how these pigs actually affect the lives of the people and, in