Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!rigney
From: rigney@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Cannibals [I suppose 'Orphaned R - (nf)
Message-ID: <3872@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Nov-83 05:01:57 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3872
Posted: Wed Nov 16 05:01:57 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Nov-83 06:03:25 EST
Lines: 26

#R:utcsrgv:-263900:uokvax:2700007:000:1073
uokvax!rigney    Nov 14 20:12:00 1983

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!   The old fable that pork was forbidden to
prevent trichinosis is completely false on closer examination.
Give the ancients some credit - they knew very well that eating
certain foods raw led to disease; this wouldn't lead to a ban on
pork, just a ban on raw pork.  And a commandment not to eat raw
pork is no harder to remember than one not to eat pork at all,
especially since there are a number of other foods listed as taboo
(I believe the list is in Leviticus).  Pork was the most significant
of these; many of the others were never significant food sources
anyway.

I didn't give Marvin Harris's explanation for two reasons:
1) I wasn't sure I could do it justice in an abbreviated form.
The ideas are very simple, but are liable to be brushed aside 
unless proper background is laid.
2) His books are well worth reading in their entirety.
By not extracting random bits out of context I hoped (in vain
perhaps) to intrigue a few netters into reading them.

Anyway, the correct explanation follows in the next comment.

	Carl
	..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney