The nations which live on animal food are very numerous.
The Ethiopeans, Scythians, and Arabians, ate nothing but flesh.
The miserable inhabitants of New Holland lived wholly on fish when that
country was first discovered, and other tribes on the Arabian and
Persian gulph.
In the Faro islands, in Iceland and Greenland, the food arises from the
same source.
The shepherds in the province of Caracas, on the Oronoko, live wholly on
flesh. The Tartars in Asia, and some savage nations in North America,
live on raw and half putrid flesh, and some barbarous tribes eat their
meat raw.
It appears to be the effect of climate and religion that makes the
Hindoo adopt vegetable rather than animal food; it is the effect of
natural production that makes the Greenlander relish whale-blubber and
train-oil. It is to one or other of these causes that we must refer all
such diversity of national tastes, though it would be difficult in many
cases to separate the influence of each. We see the Englishman enjoying
his under-done roast beef and his plum-pudding; the Scotsman his
hodge-podge and his haggis; the Frenchman his ragouts, omlets, and
fricandeaus; the German his sour-crout, sausages, and smoaked hams, the
Italian his maccaroni; and the Tartar his horse-flesh.[6] “_De gustibus
non est disputandum._”--There is no disputing about tastes. They are too
many, and too various, to be objects of rational discussion.
[6] An article of food which has lately been seriously recommended by
Mr. Grey to Europeans as a most advantageous measure of political
economy.