RE: WHO is the sub-culture?

[Guest guest]

Hi Suze,

This reminds me of labels in the grocery store. There was this type of

Apple Sauce that you could buy, and had a choice.....Regular or natural!

Regular was filled with sugar, preservatives, etc. and natural was just

apples.

That is the way our society has become...regular. In order to be natural

you have to go to great length and to pay a great deal for them NOT to ruin

your foods!

Funny thing is you are considered a " nut " if you want to eat natural! That

is an example of mass brainwashing.

Kat

http://www.katking.com

----- Original Message -----

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

" " < >

Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:34 AM

Subject: WHO is the sub-culture?

> hi all,

>

> i had dinner with a fellow NTer last night (erica feldman) and her new

> husband. my best friend, a fellow NTer and the guy i'm dating (a SADer)

were

> also present. erica and i were talking about how we feel like freaks among

> the mainstream at this point. how, some of our friends, family and other

> people in our lives see us as oddballs because we are so interested in

> nutritious traditional foods, and go to some lengths to procure them.

>

> at the end of the evening the SADer referred to us (in a friendly way) as

a

> 'sub-culture.' that got me to thinking that, in the narrow context of this

> sickly contemporary american society (in which the majority of americans

> will die of a chronic degenerative disease), we are indeed just that. but

in

> the much broader context of human history, it_is_the_opposite. We, who

spend

> a good amount of our energy and time working to procure nutritious foods,

> and fix them using traditional methods to enhance the nutritional value

and

> reduce the anti-nutrients and toxins, are, in fact, the NORM.

>

> Spending much time and energy procuring nutritious foods and preparing

them

> so as to maximize nutritional value (fermenting, soaking, sprouting,

> pounding, etc) is what homo sapiens have been doing for our entire

history,

> up until the advent of mass produced foods - starting approx. 150 years

> ago, but becoming really widespread probably at the beginning of the 20th

> century, right? So, what...for 99.9?% of our history, that is what we ALL

> did - spend time and effort procuring nutritious, life giving and

sustaining

> foods. and in this much larger context, the contemporary SAD diet, is in

> fact, an anomaly - an abnormality, where food is chosen merely for

> convenience, taste, or as a result of effective advertising, and without

> much thought to nutritional value, nor how it was prepared. and the food

> itself is nutrient-deficient, often toxic, often disease-causing and

> ultimately, deadly.

>

> everything depends on perspective. from a narrow perspective of

contemporary

> mainstream american society, WE are a sub-culture. But when you broaden

that

> to a global and historical perspective, WHO really, is the subculture?

>

>

>

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@...

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 07:04:30 -0700, you wrote:

>Hi Suze,

>

>This reminds me of labels in the grocery store. There was this type of

>Apple Sauce that you could buy, and had a choice.....Regular or natural!

>Regular was filled with sugar, preservatives, etc. and natural was just

>apples.

Years ago when the idea of health food was just beginning to form, I saw, in the

health food isle of a grocery chain " Natural Artificial Ketchup " " Bout says it

all :-)

Mike E

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Suze for your philosophical musings...

It's hard since I've been awakened to NT--a " casual " chat about nutrition (soy,

fats, etc.) is never just that. Most people I know have a hard time believing

me and I run out of energy (and feel like a broken record sometimes). I don't

push info on folks, but when they ask....

I had a really intense experience at a " Shop Rite " (hah!) coming back from the

Jersey Shore (read: nutritional wasteland). I was starving, so my boyfriend

stopped while I ran in to get water and something healthy to snack on (ha ha!)

It was the the largest grocery store I have ever been in. All I could see were

aisles and aisles of packaged, sprayed, processed, compromised food product. I

circled the store twice amazed at the zombies pushing carts full of crap (to use

's term)--all I could think about was the cancer, heart disease, ms, etc.

that many of these people have or will have. The only thing even remotely worth

eating was a stonyfield whole milk yogurt, and even this had sugar in it.

Boy, was I depressed and angry when I left the store. I thanked the heavens for

my coop in Brooklyn; imperfect as it is, it is paradise compared to a

conventional grocery store.

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>But when you broaden that

>to a global and historical perspective, WHO really, is the subculture?

The people who are going to eat themselves and their progeny right out of

existence are the sub-culture in the longer-term view.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze,

It's interesting to think about the effort that people have put into

preparing their foods over the centuries. I suspect that there were plenty

of people who got careless about their food, but they got sick and died out,

or they just didn't get their meal planning right. I'm thinking of something

I think I heard in graduate school, that some native American tribes hadn't

figured out the trick of soaking corn in lime. The tribe that did was much

healthier. So maybe the healthiest tribes were always a subculture.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio

If you want to hear the good news about butter check out this website:

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html

----- Original Message -----

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

" " < >

Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:34 AM

Subject: WHO is the sub-culture?

> hi all,

>

> i had dinner with a fellow NTer last night (erica feldman) and her new

> husband. my best friend, a fellow NTer and the guy i'm dating (a SADer)

were

> also present. erica and i were talking about how we feel like freaks among

> the mainstream at this point. how, some of our friends, family and other

> people in our lives see us as oddballs because we are so interested in

> nutritious traditional foods, and go to some lengths to procure them.

>

> at the end of the evening the SADer referred to us (in a friendly way) as

a

> 'sub-culture.' that got me to thinking that, in the narrow context of this

> sickly contemporary american society (in which the majority of americans

> will die of a chronic degenerative disease), we are indeed just that. but

in

> the much broader context of human history, it_is_the_opposite. We, who

spend

> a good amount of our energy and time working to procure nutritious foods,

> and fix them using traditional methods to enhance the nutritional value

and

> reduce the anti-nutrients and toxins, are, in fact, the NORM.

>

> Spending much time and energy procuring nutritious foods and preparing

them

> so as to maximize nutritional value (fermenting, soaking, sprouting,

> pounding, etc) is what homo sapiens have been doing for our entire

history,

> up until the advent of mass produced foods - starting approx. 150 years

> ago, but becoming really widespread probably at the beginning of the 20th

> century, right? So, what...for 99.9?% of our history, that is what we ALL

> did - spend time and effort procuring nutritious, life giving and

sustaining

> foods. and in this much larger context, the contemporary SAD diet, is in

> fact, an anomaly - an abnormality, where food is chosen merely for

> convenience, taste, or as a result of effective advertising, and without

> much thought to nutritional value, nor how it was prepared. and the food

> itself is nutrient-deficient, often toxic, often disease-causing and

> ultimately, deadly.

>

> everything depends on perspective. from a narrow perspective of

contemporary

> mainstream american society, WE are a sub-culture. But when you broaden

that

> to a global and historical perspective, WHO really, is the subculture?

>

>

>

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

[Guest guest]

>>>>It's interesting to think about the effort that people have put into

preparing their foods over the centuries. I suspect that there were plenty

of people who got careless about their food, but they got sick and died out,

or they just didn't get their meal planning right. I'm thinking of something

I think I heard in graduate school, that some native American tribes hadn't

figured out the trick of soaking corn in lime. The tribe that did was much

healthier. So maybe the healthiest tribes were always a subculture.

----------->but the ones who were 'careless' or didn't prepare their foods

to neutralize toxins didn't have modern medicine to keep their sick bodies

alive, so wouldn't they ultimately have been selected out of a population?

i'm sure preservation methods and methods to neutralize plant toxins weren't

developed overnight, so along the journey, some folks were probably not

getting maximum benefits. but, throughout most of human history, much of

life's efforts and energies went into procuring nutritious foods - probably

more so during our hunting/gathering days, and less so after

sedentism/agriculture for *some* folks, because you could at that time feed

something like 100 people on the amount of land it takes to feed one

hunter/gatherer (which freed up some of their time to do other stuff, like

develop civilizations...

OTOH, maybe you're right...maybe all of WAP's tribes/groups were

sub-cultures...(i suspect not, though)

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Uni-culture possibly can only create sub-culture until it realizes one size

does not fit all unless all are truly the same.

Wanita