Quote: (07-09-2011 12:07 PM)Gmac Wrote:
I was talking about civilizations in general. The wealthier people were obviously able to eat more. What's so hard to understand about that association?
I think the main issue is perception. When you make statements like this...
Quote:Quote:
Kings and wealthy land owners (and their wives) were always more overweight because of the abundance of food available. This led people to associate a larger girth with wealth and status. It's not rocket surgery. It wasn't just Europe, this was widespread in Asia and Africa too.
I'm not saying people found them necessarily more attractive, but fat people in the past weren't as shamed as they are in today's world because of these differing perceptions.
Again, not saying they were "attractive", but they were still desirable because of their status (which was associated with larger weights).
...it becomes very important to also note that what was "fat" in older ages doesn't directly correlate with what we see in modern times. They did not often meet modern standards for the obese or overweight. Your argument presumes this correlation without evidence.
Your association is correct in principle, as it is true that the elite had a superior diet and could consume more food. This does not mean, however (and I believe this is what Blackhawk is getting at) that they were obese or even overweight by today's standards, which means that the assertion you have tried to make (overweight = status) on this basis likely isn't plausible.
Blackhawk is right to bring visual records into the discussion because they are quite relevant. If it were true that there was status in being overweight by modern standards in the past, then that would likely be borne out in the visual depictions of the nobility-we'd see more individuals who would, by modern standards, be "fat". That this isn't the case (most of the nobility appear of a fit, healthy, but medium build, only fattening on occasion with age, as was the case with Henry VIII) shows the notion to be somewhat implausible.
If being overweight by modern standards was a status symbol then(which you claim when you imply that a fat man today would be shamed less in the past), why is it that we see no such depictions in the portraits that nearly every noble/royal had? Obesity may have occurred more commonly amongst the elite, but if it were a norm (much less a status symbol), one would think that it would be more common.
Combine these visual records with what we do know about historical trends for the overweight/obese (read: rates were far lower in the past and have risen largely due to modern technology/nutrition/policy), and we have to conclude that they simply weren't very big. That damages the notion that elites in the past were "more overweight", and that as a result "extra girth = more status". There isn't much evidence that the old rich usually had that extra girth (or met our modern standards of overweight/obese) to begin with.
This is why conclusions like this can't plausibly be drawn from history:
Quote:Quote:
fat people in the past weren't as shamed as they are in today's world
There simply isn't any evidence that people meeting today's standards of "fat" were the norm amongst the old nobility, so you can't say that what is shamed as "fat" today would not have been in the past. If anything, it may have been the other way around. A fat person by modern standards would have stood out much more in the past, and there simply is no evidence of "plump" or obese individuals(by modern standards) forming the standard of beauty/attraction/status in any major civilization-the Rubenesque phenomenon is about as close as we get to that. When such individuals did exist(Henry VIII), it was quite notable(read: uncommon) and their situation doesn't seem to have been portrayed in primary documents as worthy of reverence.
In fact, the literary evidence should be noted too. Just as the visual records don't support your theory, nor do the written records make note of any historical valuation/reverence for those who met modern standards of obesity or "fatness". If girth = status at the time, it is likely that there would be much literary evidence to support that conclusion.
"More fit" would be a better term to use for noble weight standards given the prevalence of more medium builds.
Quote:Quote:
Right, because NO ONE could have WRITTEN about rich fat people in the past right?
Can you show us that anyone did? In order to prove your larger point, you'd need to show not only that they were written about, but that they were also revered and conferred status upon the basis of their meeting our modern standards of fatness.
Quote:Quote:
Art is definitely not the only reference or record we have. It doesn't need to be visual for people to understand this basic concept.
If you argument were plasible, the visual record would show it, as I've already said. If your point cannot be shown in the old visual or literary references(and the burden of proof is on you to bring specific examples of them to us en masse to establish your point), then you don't have an argument.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.