Obligatory post-Thanksgiving post
Thanksgiving was good. I made roasted butternut squash with garlic, and brussel sprouts, and apple crisp (courtsey roommate's recipe). Anna made salad and fried plantains with cranberry syrup, and other stuff I don't remember. She also served cranberry sauce, but that was from a can, so it didn't count. Mom made yams and potatoes and tofurky with apricot dressing. And of course there was pickled cabbage and salted mushrooms and marinated fish and such from the Russian grocery store, because it can't be a holiday meal without food in brine.
Tofurky was surprisingly good! I was doubtful when my mother first informed me of its purchase, because a) I'm not intensely fond of fake meats, and b) uncooked, it looks like large-intestine-in-a-bag. (It does!)
But then I really liked it when we ate it. Or rather, at first bite, I was pleasantly surprised at it not being terrible. Then I decided that it didn't taste that great, but that it tasted not-too-good in the same way real turkey tasted-not-too-good, so basically it tasted just like turkey. At third bite, I decided it tasted better than real turkey, especially with gravy. At the end of the meal, I thought it was really quite nice, and was looking forward to finishing it today. And now I'm thinking of buying some to take back to school with me.
So, pooh on you, real-turkey. I never liked you much anyway, but when an imitation product tastes better than you did, you know you've lost.
After dinner, we had tea and cakes at a family friend's house, and that was nice. I petted their cat a lot. It was a cat of good girth.
Cats aside, I'm not sure what to think of Thanksgiving at the moment. I like the idea of taking time out to be thankful for what you have in life, and I'd be happy if it were just what it is at base--an American reworking of your usual fall harvest holiday. But the whole thing with the Indians and the pilgrims rather bothers me in an undefined way. Sure, the event that Thanksgiving claims to celebrate is not in itself objectionable--if anything, it was the one day when the settlers weren't killing or mistreating the Indians. But the fact that it was, in fact, a one-off in that regard (maybe not within that settlement, but American history in general) immediately makes it problematic.
The point is, the Indians are not really part of the story. They're props in the story. The story is about pilgrim settlers and their winter troubles, and the Indians are just a deux-ex-machina to present them with a heart-warming solution. Isn't it nice how they helped out and shared their harvest and bailed the settlers out, and how grateful the settlers were for human compassion and bounty?
What happened to the settlers afterward is implied in the story. Thanks to the aid of the Indians, they survived, and went on to prosper, and built this country, and there we are in the modern day.
What happened to the Indians, isn't. The ensuing genocide and destruction of culture is conventiently swept away and forgotten. And it's that very forgottenness itself that is offensive to me in the story. It's so very... whitewashed. It completely denies the Native American independent experience.
On a different note, so, uh, how about that fish and mercury?
Yes, my life is defined by Boondocks comics.
Anyway, I was talking with a friend about fish and mercury (first person to guess who gets a candy!), and I decided to look it up online, because that's something I've never really heard much about.
Immediately upon putting "fish mercury" into Google, I found a whole batch of articles--from CNN, from BBC, etc., with such lovely titles as "Report: Fish-mercury risk underestimated" and "Fish and Mercury Warning for Kids and Pregnant Women."
Most of these articles noted on the irony of fish generally being thought of as brain food, considering that "exposure to mercury has been linked with damage to the brain and nervous system - particularly in the developing foetus, where relatively small amounts could still be a danger."
But the best thing I found was this site:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html
which actually supports the eating of fish, and starts off with "Fish and shellfish are an important part of a healthy diet" but then almost immediately follows it up with "However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury."
The site then basically goes on to say that there's no way to avoid mercury in fish, but you should still eat it--just try not too eat too much of the mercury. So, for instance, check up on the mercury levels in the fish you eat, and try to eat the fish which aren't too poisoned. If you do have a craving for a high-mercury fish, make sure to decrease your intake of other fish accordingly! Bon appetit!
The cheerful way the site discusses the apparent non-escapability of ingesting potentially poisonous fish just really gets to me. (It does say that by following their instructions, you should be able to avoid any danger, but in never promises a guarantee--it just says that you'll reduce your "exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.")
Tofurky was surprisingly good! I was doubtful when my mother first informed me of its purchase, because a) I'm not intensely fond of fake meats, and b) uncooked, it looks like large-intestine-in-a-bag. (It does!)
But then I really liked it when we ate it. Or rather, at first bite, I was pleasantly surprised at it not being terrible. Then I decided that it didn't taste that great, but that it tasted not-too-good in the same way real turkey tasted-not-too-good, so basically it tasted just like turkey. At third bite, I decided it tasted better than real turkey, especially with gravy. At the end of the meal, I thought it was really quite nice, and was looking forward to finishing it today. And now I'm thinking of buying some to take back to school with me.
So, pooh on you, real-turkey. I never liked you much anyway, but when an imitation product tastes better than you did, you know you've lost.
After dinner, we had tea and cakes at a family friend's house, and that was nice. I petted their cat a lot. It was a cat of good girth.
Cats aside, I'm not sure what to think of Thanksgiving at the moment. I like the idea of taking time out to be thankful for what you have in life, and I'd be happy if it were just what it is at base--an American reworking of your usual fall harvest holiday. But the whole thing with the Indians and the pilgrims rather bothers me in an undefined way. Sure, the event that Thanksgiving claims to celebrate is not in itself objectionable--if anything, it was the one day when the settlers weren't killing or mistreating the Indians. But the fact that it was, in fact, a one-off in that regard (maybe not within that settlement, but American history in general) immediately makes it problematic.
The point is, the Indians are not really part of the story. They're props in the story. The story is about pilgrim settlers and their winter troubles, and the Indians are just a deux-ex-machina to present them with a heart-warming solution. Isn't it nice how they helped out and shared their harvest and bailed the settlers out, and how grateful the settlers were for human compassion and bounty?
What happened to the settlers afterward is implied in the story. Thanks to the aid of the Indians, they survived, and went on to prosper, and built this country, and there we are in the modern day.
What happened to the Indians, isn't. The ensuing genocide and destruction of culture is conventiently swept away and forgotten. And it's that very forgottenness itself that is offensive to me in the story. It's so very... whitewashed. It completely denies the Native American independent experience.
On a different note, so, uh, how about that fish and mercury?
Yes, my life is defined by Boondocks comics.
Anyway, I was talking with a friend about fish and mercury (first person to guess who gets a candy!), and I decided to look it up online, because that's something I've never really heard much about.
Immediately upon putting "fish mercury" into Google, I found a whole batch of articles--from CNN, from BBC, etc., with such lovely titles as "Report: Fish-mercury risk underestimated" and "Fish and Mercury Warning for Kids and Pregnant Women."
Most of these articles noted on the irony of fish generally being thought of as brain food, considering that "exposure to mercury has been linked with damage to the brain and nervous system - particularly in the developing foetus, where relatively small amounts could still be a danger."
But the best thing I found was this site:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html
which actually supports the eating of fish, and starts off with "Fish and shellfish are an important part of a healthy diet" but then almost immediately follows it up with "However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury."
The site then basically goes on to say that there's no way to avoid mercury in fish, but you should still eat it--just try not too eat too much of the mercury. So, for instance, check up on the mercury levels in the fish you eat, and try to eat the fish which aren't too poisoned. If you do have a craving for a high-mercury fish, make sure to decrease your intake of other fish accordingly! Bon appetit!
The cheerful way the site discusses the apparent non-escapability of ingesting potentially poisonous fish just really gets to me. (It does say that by following their instructions, you should be able to avoid any danger, but in never promises a guarantee--it just says that you'll reduce your "exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.")