Vegetarians regard such food as alien to the human system and unnecessary to its sustenance. Added to this the vegetarians entertain a sentimental view of the meat-food question. They claim that man has no right to kill beast, fish, bird or fowl, to secure food supplies, and that all flesh food should be eliminated from the human system. A vegetarian’s table was garnished with delightful dishes, such as sliced oranges, buttered toast, baked quinces, quaking omelet, shredded wheat biscuits, dates with quaker oats, fried hominy, stewed prunes, macaroni and cheese, stewed fig with whipped cream, French-fried potatoes, oyster plant and rice muffins. These dishes are clean and wholesome, although decidedly tame from certain points of view.
Vegetarians in 1999 were more emphatic in their views than their brethren of 1899. Vegetarians Refuse to Wear Shoes. They still enjoyed peanut sandwiches, fried egg-plant steak, health crackers, nut biscuits, spiced beans and other delicacies dear to the hearts of those who have foresworn eating the flesh of “suffering, sentient things.” In 1999 vegetarians refused to wear leather shoes. It came hard at first but shoes had to be sacrificed to principle. They refused to eat meat because it necessitated the killing of beast or fowl. On this account also they refused to wear shoes of leather because the beef must be killed in order to procure the leather. For the same reason vegetarians in 1999 refused to wear silk of any kind because its manufacture cost the lives of the dear little worms. They also refused, for the same reason, to carry alligator skin pocket books. It was so wrong to kill the poor alligators. Vegetarians claim that flesh is from ten to twenty times more expensive than fruits or cereals, and that it is unphilosophical and unbusinesslike to pay the larger sum for inferior food. Neither justice nor benevolence can sanction the revolting cruelties that are daily perpetrated in order to pamper perverted and unnatural appetites. Vegetarians in 1999 were horrified at the practices of the nineteenth century, when butchers would take innocent little lambs, the most harmless and pitiful creatures, and cut their throats in the slaughter house. The seas of blood that flowed through Chicago slaughter pens had no attractions for vegetarians.
In 1999 the world was by no means converted to any single theory or idea on the food question. A delicious cold ham sandwich or slice of turkey with truffles still delighted the palates of millions in that year. The savory hot bird, washed down with a cold bottle, still held captive many epicureans in the closing days of the twentieth century. The birds of the air and beasts of the field still contributed to the world’s gastronomic pleasures. In 1999 the vegetarian remained faithful to his creed. Plum pudding, peaches in wine, haricots vert, and other delicacies held the place of honor at their tables.
But in 1999 the world became more liberal in its views on the meat-food question. In the nineteenth century no argument could shake the prejudice existing against the consumption of horseflesh. Anyone in 1899 who could champion the use of The Prejudice against Horseflesh. horseflesh and advocate its sale in open market on the same counter as hogs and poultry, would be regarded in the light of a barbarian or a person of unwholesome practice.
Such is the utter blindness of custom and prejudice that in 1899 the daintiest maiden, who might faint at the sight of a mouse, would occasionally smell the stench of a pig-sty, yet, without the least compunction, would sit at table and enjoy a pork chop, pork stew, pork roast, in fact pork in any form. At the mere mention of a horse roast or horse stew, the same delicate young lady would manifest her disdain, and if such dishes were set before her, her indignation might turn into riot. This was in 1899.
In 1999 people acquired more “horse sense.” Education, in time, broke down Cleaner Than Hogs or Chickens. the barriers of pure prejudice and senseless custom. In that year it became recognized and fully acknowledged that the cleanest member of the animal kingdom, the horse, was fit food for human beings who had the strength of stomach to eat the hog, one of the filthiest, filth-devouring animals known to man, an animal whose flesh was regarded with horror by many branches of the human family, animals into which our Savior did not hesitate to cast devils. In 1999 it was the universal belief that people who could stomach pork and take their chances in contracting trichinæ, could well afford to digest the clean, wholesome flesh of horses. No animal has any cleaner habits, or more wholesome food than the horse. Such is custom, habit and prejudice. If our ancestors had taught us from the days of the Cæsars to eat horse flesh and to shun pork and poultry, it is more than probable that a man caught eating the latter would have been driven from any community as a disgrace to his kind.
Prejudice and custom are hard task masters. In 1925 it became a custom to eat Eating Raw Fish. raw fish. The fish in such cases were carefully cleaned before serving. The head, entrails and other parts were removed and the raw flesh was served with salt and pepper. Even this simple process required an education. Many with capricious stomachs revolted at the treatment. They could not digest raw fish that had been killed and nicely cleaned before eating, but they would readily eat any quantity of raw oysters from the shell, also clams, and eat them while the bivalves were still alive.
The “servant question” reached a very satisfactory solution long before 1999. As early as 1907, State Normal schools to teach the culinary art and to educate servants were instituted. In the nineteenth century the servant class in America was the hoodoo of the housekeeper and homemaker. Thousands of young women in 1899, without the slightest knowledge or qualifications as housekeepers, entered into matrimony. Unable to cook a loaf of bread or make a simple biscuit, hardly knowing the Some Very “Lame” Cooks. difference between hot and cold water, these zealous but inexperienced wives suddenly discovered themselves in charge of a household and all its responsibilities. In this unhappy condition they relied upon hired help to do the work. In many instances the servant knew as little about cooking as her newly wedded mistress. It was a case of “the blind leading the blind,” and much unhappiness resulted.
Early in the 20th century public exigencies demanded a radical change. The servant question advanced to the front. The dignity of her position was raised in the social scale. The backward civilization of 1899 treated the servant as a drudge or menial. Long hours of service, from early morn till late at night, were imposed upon her, while her wages were slender. In the country her life was more endurable because she was often treated as a member of the family. In cities, however, her lot was an unhappy one. The servant plodded along in her solitary work, often busy and at work fifteen hours every day. Even in free-born, liberty-loving America the servant in 1899 was made to regard herself as an inferior being.
It was in this chaotic condition of affairs that schools for the instruction of housekeepers were opened and assisted by large annuities from the State. Before 1950 every town in the several States throughout the Americas boasted of its State Cooking State Schools for Cooking. School. These schools became very popular in the Central American States such as Mexico, San Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, as well as in the southern States of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and others of that group of the American Union. As a result of this wise policy the fame and laurels of French cookery were transferred to our American culinary artists. Not even the famed cooks of China could equal the skill of the instructed and trained American cooks. No servant could get a situation as cook in 1999 unless they could produce a diploma from a State School of Cookery. They demanded more pay and were allowed to work only eight hours per day. As a result of having skilled housekeepers, homes were rendered better and happier.