Two legged eatingTwo legged eating
A number of people have asked me to offer a definitive adjudication on the vexed question of cannibalism. That, I am pleased to say, is a topic on which I may have something very exciting to impart. (Anyone who knows me will attest to my culinary skills, as I am reckoned to be — when not offering visionary and insightful comment on the problems of everyday life — a bit of a whiz in the kitchen.)
I am, of course, familiar with many ethnic cuisines, which oftentimes require the most exotic of ingredients. I therefore believe that human flesh — stewed, roasted, grilled or fried — can surely be turned into a serviceable dinner time commodity. Depending on your gastronomical preferences, there are many recipes that could be adapted to suit. (As far as I know, no cookbooks are commercially available which specifically address the preparation and serving of one's kind. This is a regrettable feature of our local publishing industry that needs to be remedied.)
The problem with such meat is sure to be one of consumer resistance. But an active merchandising arm established for the purpose of developing a market niche is sure to impact on sales. These should experience exponential growth once the full social significance of (what I prefer to call) "two legged eating" is recognised and accepted.
And what of the significance to which I refer? It is none other than the breaking of the impasse we are currently experiencing over the issue of native title. Pauline Hanson and her collaborators have merely offered us the bare bones of a solution — I, on the other hand, have addressed this question with all the imaginative resources of my customary brilliance.
Unlike others, I did not have the honour of living during the golden age of bush tucker, when indigenous Australians ate their way through kith and kin. But let us get this matter absolutely straight: the right to eat one's own was a fundamental and ancient Australian tradition. Question that right, diminish it in any way — and what is left are freedoms unworthy of the name.
It is time we recognised and accepted as part of our way of life the cuisine for which this country was renowned for thousands of years. It is time to bring back such flesh to the dinner table.
Changing the menu won't be an easy task, but it is sure to be expedited if we drop this silly notion that the right to native title conflicts with pastoral activities.
Raising and fattening men and women for the table is a pastoral activity, and once recognised as such by the High Court is sure to resolve this legalistic mess we have got ourselves into. It thereafter behoves us to re-establish the industry to its former glory and dietary significance.
I leave it to people like Ms Hanson to decide which breed the industry should be re-established on.
Dave Riley
email: dhell@ozemail.com.au