Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: svrn on March 05, 2013, 12:11:34 am
-
I just finished reading gangs of new york which has a slang dictionaryat the end of it. One of the terms is black ointment which means raw meat. This means that it was common knowledge in america (even the the lowest class of uneducated criminals knew) that raw meat had healing powers up through at least the nineteenth century.
here is a web page i found on the topic as well. It says they said it was "soothing to dogs and men"
http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/dictionary/black-ointment (http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/dictionary/black-ointment)
-
Fascinating.
-
I like it. "Soothes Dog's and men."
-
Nice find.
In old medical texts prior to antibiotics, I found physicians prescribing sunlight and freshly butchered raw beef and raw muscle blood for Tuberculosis daily.
-
Nice find.
In old medical texts prior to antibiotics, I found physicians prescribing sunlight and freshly butchered raw beef and raw muscle blood for Tuberculosis daily.
In a few classic novels (1800s) I also came across prescriptions like: lots of sun, raw meat, bone broth, avoid dairy, and thyroid problems were treated with raw thyroid.
Back in the medieval times, there were also some alternative remedies out there that are similar to what we know know through RPD. Especially "witches", midwives etc. Were knowledgeable.
-
Hi Goodsamritan,
I came across your cure manual and this forum for RPD. I am already switching slowly toward this RPD. Eating sashimi fish only with any fruit that I meet and complex carbohydrate (yam, plantain and taro) cooked since I don't know a way to eat them raw yet. I still eat rice but slowly removing it from my plate. I eat my rice mixed with pounded banana or pumpkin with coconut cream. I still have to learn more from you.
Now, I just have a few things to ask or clarify regarding eating raw especially raw meats. In your cure manual website you provided a link to one ebook called "Natural Medicine" by Jerry Hoover. In his book, he mentioned about the danger of eating raw meats such as chicken (they are carriers of cancer diseases), fish (they may be contaminated with tapeworms, human viruses and toxic dumped into lakes and oceans) and eggs (they contain bacteria such as salmonella not killed by boiling or cooking as well as high cholesterol) and meat (bacteria in meat are identical in character to those in manure) pp 37-39. Do you have any comment or advise on this or are there are exceptions. I am a raw fish eater (Micronesian from Kiribati living in Pohnpei).
Another thing I am trying to investigate is the allusion that Apple pioneer Steve Jobs decision to choose alternative medicine to treat his cancer led him to his death. Do you have any comment on which alternative therapy or treatment he was on? I bet it's not RPD. I practice alternative medicines and therapies especially herbal, acupressure and massage to help others and I came across many testimonies from alternative medicines throughout the internet but this news is a blow on the face to alternative medicine. Please advise. Tetaake (you can call me Ted)
-
Jerry Hoover is a vegan promoter.
In that short amount of time in his clinic, raw vegan does some people well.
But long term, this is not the case.
Of course I also have experience helping people trying out vegan / fruitarian first, but turned out that was not for him, so switched to raw carnivorous and found that that was for him.
In 2013 we have the benefit of the internet and experiences of people around the world and we know there are different strokes for different folks.
You will find out that there is a time to go vegan and a time to go carnivorous and a time for somewhere in between. That somewhere in between is the art we are trying to balance for ourselves and for our sick loved ones.
I think Steve Jobs did vegan. If he did electro medicine, herbal parasite cleansing or grounding or inclined bed therapy or whatever, I do not know.
"Alternative Medicine" is just too darn broad. No one can know everything. I myself am just getting into EMF elimination, bought a wired router and ditched the wifi at home.
Maybe Steve Jobs was bombarded by all the EMFs around him, as is with Apple's fortunes depend on wireless technologies. That may have contributed a lot. He may have turned a blind eye to EMF dangers.
-
did you ever go into an apple store? would be interesting to do some testing there, or on the long term health changes of employees in one.
-
Goodsamaritan,
Thank you for the information and advise.
I agree that "Alternative Medicine" is a broad area and that is why I am investigating the allusion. The media demonstrated lack of knowledge on what Alternative medicine is. We cannot count the number of alternative medicines and therapies out there.
Is there a special way to prepare raw animal fat? Here in Micronesia, beef is imported or shipped into the country. Is it safe to eat it raw? Do you have a link on how to prepare raw paleo meats dish? Warm regards.
-
An ointment is a substance applied to the skin. Black ointment is a raw steak applied to a black eye, not eaten raw. Gangsters had a particular need for it.
Cassel Dictionary of Slang - Page 121
books.google.com/books?isbn=0304366366
Jonathon Green - 2005
"black ointment n. [mid-19C] (UK Und.) a piece of raw meat. [its use as a cure for black eyes] "
-
An ointment is a substance applied to the skin. Black ointment is a raw steak applied to a black eye, not eaten raw. Gangsters had a particular need for it.
Cassel Dictionary of Slang - Page 121
books.google.com/books?isbn=0304366366
Jonathon Green - 2005
"black ointment n. [mid-19C] (UK Und.) a piece of raw meat. [its use as a cure for black eyes] "
thats just what one slang dictionary says. The other one says "soothing for dogs and men" which, since im assuming that people dont put steaks on their dogs black eye, means that its meant for eating as well.
-
Why then call it an "ointment," why the gangster connection, and why does no source at all claim it was eaten? If gangsters had some tradition of eating raw meat, that would be rather unusual and notable and we likely would have found at least one reference to it somewhere by now. Soothing can mean soothing to the eye/skin/bruise as well as soothing to the stomach. It wouldn't make sense to assume that it means the latter. The simplest explanation is that gangsters fight and get black eyes and used the well-known remedy of a raw steak on black eyes.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeefBandage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeefBandage)
-
If you read the other definitions in the slang dictionary you would see that making sense is not on the top of the list in terms of coming up with slang words. In fact many slang terms for them meant the opposite of what it sounded like.
Anyway,butchers in the old days were known to try the meat while cutting it up. Also the soothing to dogs and men part shows me they ate it beacause using it externally on a dog sounds absurd to me.
-
It could just as easily mean soothing to men for their black eyes and dogs as food. It would be interesting if raw meat was thought of as food fit for dogs back then, as nowadays most people feel they shouldn't even feed dogs raw meat, for whatever bizarre reason. As much as I'd like to believe it, I'm not convinced that "ointment" refers to food for humans, as I've never seen the word used that way, but feel free to believe whatever you wish.
-
"soothing to men for their black eyes and dogs as food"
I think a statement like that only serves to try and fit the statement in question into what you want to believe. The manner in which soothing to both dogs and men was written clearly has a default interpretation of being used for dogs and men in the same way. to say that the statement indicates its uses for dogs and men as different is to read into it that which is not there, It seems to me like you want to believe that they were not eating raw meat back then for some reason but I personally believe the evidence is in favor of them eating raw meat.
-
It doesn't make any sense for a raw meat eater like me to be biased against raw meat eating. The opposite is far more likely for raw meat eaters--wanting to believe that the ointment was eaten instead of used as an ointment, to support our WOE. Such bias is common on dietary forums, unsurprisingly. I would welcome any evidence you have that black ointment was primarily a food, rather than a topical therapy for black eyes. I could use it with friends and relatives who claim that my raw-meat-eating is crazy. The only reported explanation found so far--regarding gangsters and black eyes--makes too much sense for me to just dismiss it.
At any rate, it's not worth arguing--believe whatever you wish. I'm not even claiming that the ointment was never eaten raw, just not convinced that "black ointment" solely or primarily refers to a food for humans rather than primarily a topical treatment.
-
"SOOTHING FOR DOGS AND MEN"
unless people put steaks on their dogs black eye (which is absurd) then they are talking about eating it. THis is very simple to me, I dont see why it is so hard for you to interpret this quote,
-
did you ever go into an apple store? would be interesting to do some testing there, or on the long term health changes of employees in one.
Shoot, I wish I could find the article I read about a young man who was devastated by brain cancer, guess where he worked? a cell phone store. There are numerous law suits from individuals who claim their cell phone usage has given them cancer. I am super sensitive to the emf and noticed that when I had an older phone that was constantly stuck on the strongest signal my head would ache if the phone was too near it.
As for the steak reference, to put a steak on a black eye, it kind of predates throwing a bag of frozen peas on there.........http://mentalfloss.com/article/23246/should-you-really-put-steak-shiner (http://mentalfloss.com/article/23246/should-you-really-put-steak-shiner)
-
I hope you're right, Troll. Again, if you find any evidence that black ointment was primarily a food for humans, please share it so I can use it. I told a friend of mine I happened to chat with your accusation about me and she laughed, because she thinks I'm way too PRO raw-meat.
-
I wasnt acusing you of being biased just voicing my confusion towards why you would say a quote such as "soothing for men and dogs" means that its soothing for both of them but applied in different ways. The quote implies nothing of the sort and any standard reading of that quote would by default be interpreted as dogs and men being soothed byit in the same way.
to read anything else into that quote is simply adding things from your own head. I would like you to address only that quote because in that quote is the answer to your entire issue with this definition and its interpretation.
-
I wasnt acusing you of being biased...
I hope this means that you accept my pro-raw-meat view and that I would be happy if it turns out that your view is correct.
Again, if you find any evidence to support your view, please do share it. It would be helpful to me. Just debating theory endlessly isn't going to get us anywhere.
When I saw "black ointment" I first thought of a topical therapy, as I am familiar with another alternative black ointment (aka "black salve") therapy that is used on the skin and in my experience in the healthcare industry, I have only seen "ointment" used to refer to topical treatment, never to food. I hope that helps explain why that seems like the most plausible explanation to me. Just in case I'm rare in this, I asked my friend what "black ointment" sounds like to her and she said it sounded like something one would use on the skin, and she didn't buy the raw food notion (for humans) based on "soothing to dogs and men." I need supporting evidence to convince people of your idea. I've had some luck in countering the criticisms from friends and relatives of my raw meat eating by pointing out the countless traditional raw meat/fish dishes like steak tartare, but more evidence would be welcome. I'm hoping that if it's that important to you, that you'll look and that you'll find something.
Even given my first impression, I was hoping that there might be something to your raw food notion, as that would be interesting as well as useful ammunition, and I looked for some evidence of it. Unfortunately, I failed to find any. The only explanation I found was "its use as a cure for black eyes." If you don't believe me, please check yourself. Maybe it will turn out that gangsters used it on their eyes first and then ate it raw for a double-benefit?
-
I dont care what your friend says or how many excuses you want to make for god only knows what bizarre reason.
"soothing to dogs and men." says all you need to know and to say that it means anything other than that raw meat soothes dogs and men in the same exact way then You are reading something into that statement which is not there . what IS there in that quote is very self explanatory
i know that you are pro raw meat so the reason for you to deny the very simple statement in the slang dictionary is beyond me and I do not wish to hurt my head trying to figureout that reason.
it doesnt help our argument either way because those gangsters were incredibly stupid and extremely unhealthy as well if you looked at their pictures. That they knew raw meat to have healing properties is nothing but a fun curiosity and doesnt do much to help our argument either way.
the only reason im arguing at all is because the interpretation of the slang dictionary is so straightforward that i feel a need. Anyway i wont be arguing this point any more.
-
the most pragmatic way to determine the correct reading of a sentence is to look at the sources.
http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/dictionary/black-ointment (http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/dictionary/black-ointment) lists four sources, interestingly none of them contain the quote "It soothes dog and men." In fact, here is what each says:
A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon, and Cant.
http://archive.org/stream/adictionaryslan00lelagoog#page/n160/mode/1up (http://archive.org/stream/adictionaryslan00lelagoog#page/n160/mode/1up)
"(thieves), pieces of raw meat."
A Dictionary of Slang and Colloquial English.
http://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofslan00farmrich#page/49/mode/1up (http://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofslan00farmrich#page/49/mode/1up)
"Uncooked meat."
Vocabulum: Or, the Rogue’s Lexicon.
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924073798740#page/n20/mode/1up (http://archive.org/stream/cu31924073798740#page/n20/mode/1up)
"Raw meat."
A Dictionary of the Underworld
http://books.google.com/books?id=VPBMA1ciCNgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=VPBMA1ciCNgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false)
" 'Pieces of raw meat' (B. & L.); c.: from ca. 1870. Perhaps ex idea of meat poultice for a black eye. (Alexander McQueen.) "
Unless you find the source that backs up "It soothes dog and men.", then it appears this argument has no basis. From the sources the site actually lists, the black eye poultice interpretation seems best supported.
-
A Dictionary of the Underworld
http://books.google.com/books?id=VPBMA1ciCNgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=VPBMA1ciCNgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false)
"'Pieces of raw meat' (B. & L.); c.: from ca. 1870. Perhaps ex idea of meat poultice for a black eye. (Alexander McQueen.)"
Thanks for your open-minded curiosity and good sleuthing, a87.pal. The term "meat poultice" was quite helpful. It is apparently a more common name for the treatment and produced many more hits. Since Troll doesn't appear to like this explanation of black ointment, and since my interest is in learning more and also since the meat poultice therapy was used for much more than just black eyes, I'll create a separate thread to share and discuss findings on the broader topic of external (topical) meat therapies.
[Update: Here's a link to the other thread for anyone interested:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/raw-meat-beneficial-externally-as-well-as-internally/msg107031/#msg107031 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/raw-meat-beneficial-externally-as-well-as-internally/msg107031/#msg107031) ]
-
well they must have gotten soothing to dogs and men from somewhere. or they made it up which I cant understand.
From what I can tell the last source A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English
By Eric Partridge is not the same source source as that used by the website I gave. The proper source would have been A Dictionary of the Underworld not what you gave and perhaps the quote was taken from there.
-
That only further undermines the assumption that "soothing to dogs and men" in the 1961 edition of A Dictionary of the Underworld was speaking of food rather than topical therapy for gangsters' black eyes, because the cited A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English is by the same author and is a more recent edition (2006). It also was not likely a fluke error, as the 1973 edition of Partridge's The Routledge Dictionary of Historical Slang contains the same language of "Perhaps ex idea of meat poultice for a black eye" (http://tiny.cc/srystw (http://tiny.cc/srystw)) and we haven't found a single source explicitly giving a food explanation. It looks like we can safely put this one to bed unless someone finds a source that says something along the lines of "black ointment: a dish of raw mince meat mixed with molasses that was favored by early 20th century American gangsters; so called due to its similarity in appearance to a black skin ointment." :)
Besides, it's actually pretty cool that raw beef was also regarded as a beneficial topical therapy, not just a healthy food. That didn't occur to me at first, and now I think that's actually more intriguing.
-
I dont think this can be put to rest.
THe fact that the website says soothing to dogs and men means they either got it somewhere or made it up completely.
Until we check the exact volume cited in the website we cannot put it to rest and any investigations of the sources are meaningless until all sources are checked.
-
Until we check the exact volume cited in the website we cannot put it to rest and any investigations of the sources are meaningless until all sources are checked.
So why not check the sources and prove to us that old new york gangsters were eating raw meat to "soothe" them... What ever that means.... Long day of being a gangster? Tired? Have some soothing raw meat. lol
-
the last unchecked volume is not available for free online. Someone will have to buy it if they want to check.
-
THe fact that the website says soothing to dogs and men means they either got it somewhere or made it up completely.
I already pointed out that it doesn't matter if you find "soothing" in that 1961 dictionary by Partridge when newer (1973 and 2006) editions of other dictionaries by the same man contain the explanation: "Perhaps ex idea of meat poultice for a black eye." How do you get that the meaning was primarily food for gangsters and other humans out of that?
I never doubted that Partridge's 1961 dictionary said "soothing" in it, but as I explained before, that doesn't necessarily imply gangster/human "food," especially given Partridge's more recent definitions. That's just your interpretation of soothing. Even if we were to accept your interpretation, people don't normally consider a person's older work to override their newer work. It's normally the later work that is regarded as correcting earlier errors and adding newly learned information.
I hope that explains it. I don't know how to make it any more clear. If it doesn't, it may be best to just agree to disagree, unless you can find something that says that "soothing" meant food for gangsters/humans (preferably newer than the 2006 edition Partridge dictionary or from a source regarded as more authoritative than Partridge), as I don't wish to beat a dead horse. Feel free to cite any source at all, there's no reason to limit yourself to the 1961 edition of a dictionary by a man who had many editions of multiple dictionaries.
-
WHy dont you reread my posts again so you dont misinterpret my interpretation of that quote again.
my point was never to say that the fact that it says soothing means that they ate the meat.
my point was the fact that it says soothing to DOGS and men implies that dogs and men utilized raw m eat in the same way and to say that people put raw meat on a dogs black eye is simply absurd.
please address the underlined point directly or I shall note that you are avoiding it.
-
my point was never to say that the fact that it says soothing means that they ate the meat.
my point was the fact that it says soothing to DOGS and men implies that dogs and men utilized raw m eat in the same way and to say that people put raw meat on a dogs black eye is simply absurd.
No one said that people put raw meat on a dog's black eye, so I don't know why you mention that straw man. Since no one made that claim, it's pointless to discuss it. Please don't bring it up again.
If you're not implying that soothing means gangsters ate the meat, then do you accept or deny the possibility that there was something to the later Partridge dictionaries that said "Perhaps ex idea of meat poultice for a black eye", or what point, if any, are you asserting, beyond the irrelevant straw man?
Whether Partridge was "talking about eating" black ointment and/or we accept the possibility that he was right about "Perhaps ex idea of meat poultice for a black eye," it's good news for rawists, so it's a win-win and no cause for any fuss or disappointment, and let's please try to remember that we're all on the same team, in a sense.
-
You are the one putting words in my mouth.
Please point out where I said that somebody said people put meat on their dogs black. I never said such a thing.
Hopefully you can work on your reading comprehension skills and actually understand what im saying instead of attaching your own meaning. I will explain myself on this point for the last time. I will attempt to be as clear as possible by stating it in the style of a geometric proof. Perhaps i will adopt this method of explaining things from now for those whose reading comprehension needs a bit of help.
1.the quote says that it is soothing to both dogs and men.
1a.THe structure of the sentence implies that the meat soothed the dogs and men in the same exact manner.
2. There are only two ways in which raw meat can sooth someone.
2a.one way is by applying it externally as in a meat poultice
2b. the other way is by internally ingesting it by eating the meat.
3. It is normal for a human with a black eye to apply a meat poultice to that eye.
3a. It is absurd for a dog to have a black eye and even more absurd for an owner to apply raw meat to that dogs black eye to soothe said condition.
3b. Since the sentence implies that the raw meat soothes dogs and men in the same way we can eliminate the option that the quote was discussing a meat poultice since it would only be applied to a human and would be absurd for a dog.
4. It is normal for a human to eat raw meat (much less absurd than applying a meat poultice to dog)
4a. it is normal for a dog to eat raw meat
4b. Since it is normal for both dogs and humans to eat raw meat, we have satisfied the requirements of this sentence (for the specified use of the raw meat to apply to both dogs and men in the same manner).
5. (conclusion) The sentence means that the dogs and men are both soothed by eating raw meat.
If you still disagree with this please state your argument by telling me exactly which section (ex. 2b, 3, 4a) my logic is flawed in and why. Avoid choosing the conclusion however as that would defeat the whole purpose of me listing my logic step by step for the sake of a more structured argument.
there is no fuss or disappointment over this on my end. I am simply after the truth.
-
To insist that this quote means it soothes both men and dogs in the SAME manner is of your interpretation. This quote in no way states that it was soothing to both man and dog in the same way. All the quote is stating is that it is 'soothing' to both dogs and men.
You mention that the 'manner' in which it was written clearly has a default interpretation of being used for the same purpose. Can you please point out the manner mentioned ?
' to say that the statement indicates its uses for dogs and men as different is to read into it that which is not there'
To say that statement indicates its use for dogs and men is the same would be reading into that which is not there as well, don't you think?
"It soothes dogs and men."
I'm not dismissing the possibility that they may have eaten raw meat. All I am saying is that there is no default interpretation although evidence does seem to point towards meat being used to sooth gangster's black eyes.
"soothing to men for their black eyes and dogs as food"
I think a statement like that only serves to try and fit the statement in question into what you want to believe. The manner in which soothing to both dogs and men was written clearly has a default interpretation of being used for dogs and men in the same way. to say that the statement indicates its uses for dogs and men as different is to read into it that which is not there, It seems to me like you want to believe that they were not eating raw meat back then for some reason but I personally believe the evidence is in favor of them eating raw meat.
-
also you have to realize that humans have been playing with words since the beginning of words. even in the most ancient texts there is so much room for interpretation and honestly you notice that they most ancient texts were folk tales that cleverly wove morals and lessons. its a human thing to have this amazing ability to communicate and to control large amounts of the human population with LANGUAGE, lawyers, politicians, they are all masters of ancient languages.....
-
I said that the standard interpretation of that sentence would be that it soothes them in the same way.
Im sorry but that IS the standard interpretation. THe author of that quote may have meant something else but that would not be standard first interpretation.
-
Partridge later clarified the meaning with "Perhaps ex idea of meat poultice for a black eye," though you're apparently not accepting that for some reason, which is your choice and we can agree to disagree. If your interpretation turns out to be correct, that would certainly be fine with me.
-
Pretty much every culture ate some amount of raw meat until recently. I dont see whats so hard to believe about this.
-
Sure, they may have eaten raw meat but there is nothing in the quote that suggests it being soothing for the same reasons; therefore, how you are interpreting the quote is merely an opinion.
Pretty much every culture ate some amount of raw meat until recently. I dont see whats so hard to believe about this.
-
so do you think a more appropriate interpretation of the sentence is that it was soothing in different ways?
tell me which you thought to be more appropriate and why.