Old New York Gangsters knew about raw meat

[PaleoPhil]

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) 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.

[svrn]

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.

[LePatron7]

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

[svrn]

the last unchecked volume is not available for free online. Someone will have to buy it if they want to check.

[PaleoPhil]

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.

[svrn]

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.

[PaleoPhil]

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.

[svrn]

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.

[24isours]

   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.

[jessica]

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.....

[svrn]

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.

[PaleoPhil]

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.

[svrn]

Pretty much every culture ate some amount of raw meat until recently. I dont see whats so hard to believe about this.

[24isours]

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.

[svrn]

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.