Talk:Pozole

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swad8298.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sardines???

Sardines have never been an ingredient for pozole. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.30.127 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sardines are used in pozole

In some regions of Guerrero, pozole is also made with sardines! I do not know the origin of this controversy, but I am mexican and I know it because it exist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.233.104 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalism in precolumbian Mexico existed

There are a few authors, like Pablo Moctezuma Barragán who dispute this fact. Mainstream archaeologists do not question it. here is a reference to a very reputed archaeological magazine in mexico Talavera González, Jorge Arturo, Juan Martín Rojas Chávez (2003). «Evidencias de sacrificio humano en restos óseos». Arqueología mexicana XI, 63: 30-34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.30.74 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish version of the wiki article says something completely different. I'll try to translate.

• El pozole como receta proviene de épocas prehispánicas por lo que su receta actual es una mezcla de ingredientes mexicanos, europeos y asiáticos; en épocas precolombinas se realizaba en base de la carne de un animal que criaban como fuente de carne los indígenas, erróneamente se piensa que este animal es un perro de nombre Xoloitzcuintle. Estos "perros" típicos de la cocina Mexica se denominaban "itzcuintlis", y dado el parecido con la palabra "xoloitzcuintli" se cree que estos últimos eran consumidos, sin embargo lo que en realidad se consumía era "tepezcuintle" o pacas comunes.También se descubrió que con el maiz se podia hacer una nueva salsa llamada sulitl.
• Pozole, as a recipe, comes from the prehispanic eras, as such it's actual recipe is a mix of Mexican, European, and Asian ingredients; in prehispanic eras it was created on a base of meat of an animal that was raised/domesticated as a food source by the indigenous people, erroneously/(by common misconception) it is believed that this animal is a dog by the name Xoloitzcuintle. The "dogs" in question that were typical of Mexican cuisine were called "itzcuintlis" and due to it's similarity to the word "xoloitzcuintli" people are often confused into believing the latter were eaten, either way what was in reality consumed was "tepezcuintle" A.K.A. common pacas. It was also discovered that with the corn one could make a new salsa named sulitl.

the two references it gives are: 1) A reference to an article that talks about cannibalism and likens it to prehistoric cannibalism in Europe but refers specifically to Miguel Botella's theory 2) A reference to an encyclopedia of dogs.

• http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=317065
• Dangerfield, Stanley y Elsworth Howell (1973). The International Encyclopedia of Dogs. New York, USA.: Howell Book House, Inc. p. 442. 0-87605-623-0

Either way, it is now understood that there was no malnutrition in Mesoamerica that necessitated the need to eat human meat at the time. At best one could allege that it was eaten on special occasions as some sort of religious tradition. Which is what the English article on Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America suggests. The Spanish speaking article covers each culture individually and in the Mexica section has some quotes where the Mexica were condemning the act of cannibalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.226.174 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No Place for Cannibals

I deleted the scabrous, pseudo-historical and almost certainly untrue story of pozole's cannibalistic origins. If it comes back without a reliable attribution, I will delete it again. Accusing preliterate societies of ritual cannibalism is a popular passtime among fearful people with an underdeveloped moral sense. Attempts to verify these stories are overwhelmingly unsuccessful. They must be held to the highest standard of verification. Tom Duff 01:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I also thought it unlikely, so I followed up. I found several mentions in Spanish-language press of ritual cannibalism in connection with pozole, all from around the end of 2007, cited to a professor Miguel C. Botella López, Director of the Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology at the University of Granada. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any of Professor Botella's papers on the subject, or any news accounts in English. The Spanish-language accounts I located are:

• "Un estudio confirma la práctica del canibalismo" ("A study confirms the practice of cannibalism")

• "Un estudio óseo constata la existencia de canibalismo en México prehispánico y Europa neolítica" ("Study of bones notes the existence of cannibalism in ancient Mexico and Neolithic Europe")

• "Canibalismo en el México prehispánico" ("Cannibalism in prehistoric Mexico")

• "Un estudio señala que el canibalismo era habitual en Europa durante el Neolítico" ("One study shows that cannibalism was common in Europe during the Neolithic")

These sources all mention the connection with pozole, and support the claims made in the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately none of them mentioned where (if anywhere) Professor Botella's study had been published. So it may be a fringe theory.

Professor Botella appears to be a legitimate scientist:

• According to this account of the activities of the Museo de América, Professor Botella gave a five-day course there on "Canibalismo y sacrificio humano en Mesoamérica" from 21–25 May 2001. (Museo de América)

• This June 2009 interview with Professor Botella, served from the University of Madrid, discusses his long-standing interest in cannibalism in Mexico, Finland, and Spain.

I tentatively conclude that there is at least some support for this position. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have written to Professor Botella, asking for references. I will post here if he replies. —Mark Dominus (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor Botella indicates that this theory was published in Botella, Miguel C.; Jiminez, Sylvia A.; Aleman, Inmaculada (1999). Los huesos humanos. Manipulación y alteraciones (in Spanish). Barcelona: Bellaterra. ISBN 9788472901322. {{cite book}}: External link in |publisher= (help). The book was published by an established, reputable publisher and seems to be widely-cited in the academic literature, both in Spanish and English, so it certainly qualifies as a reliable source. However, I do not have a copy and I cannot read Spanish, so I cannot confirm that it supports the claims in the article. I hope that another editor will be able to continue investigating this. —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Almost certainly untrue"? Please explain your expertise on mesoamerican cultures from which you reached that conclusion. Your shameful libel of respected researchers is revolting. Cannibalism is not only well documented in some mesoamerican cultures, it is also well documented in white Nordic cultures. This edit was clearly based on a knee-jerk political reaction and should be reverted. 97.88.244.2 (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And yet, the only citation in the article supporting the cannibalism section is a unreferenced Spanish language article that claims something like "As in the Neolithic period in Europe, cannibalism was a frequent activity in prehispanic Mexico, according to a study by a team of anthropologists from the UNAM, the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) and the University of Granada, south from Spain." Where is this supposed study? What is its name? tronvillain (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, what needs to be supported here is not whether cannibalism existed in pre-Columbian Mexico at some point, it's that "on these special occasions, the meat used in the pozole was human. After the prisoners were killed by having their hearts torn out in a ritual sacrifice, the rest of the body was chopped and cooked with maize, and the resulting meal was shared among the whole community as an act of religious communion. After the Conquest, when cannibalism was banned, pork became the staple meat as it 'tasted very similar' [to human flesh], according to a Spanish priest." tronvillain (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have an MA in US and Latin American histories and have studied Caribbean and Mesoamerican cultures, including the Aztecs, and when I was studying for my BA I got a minor in religious studies. I wrote a paper on this very subject. Every instance of so-called 'cannibalism' is mentioned in Western (typically Spanish or Portuguese) writing, and no people admitted to cannibalism themselves. Using any source that is Spanish in origin for the Aztec or other Mesoamerican cultures and religions should be considered suspect. The Spaniards were trying to convince the Spanish Crown, the church, and the rest of Europe that they were fighting against evil religions and peoples who needed to be subdued and Christianized, and one of the ways you dehumanize a people is to claim that they're cannibals. Historians have to detect and filter for bias instead of taking the Spaniards at their unvarnished word.

Now to answer this so-called "study," there's an article on it in the National Geographic from 2011 [1]. The article says that the Xiximes did the so-called 'cannibalism,' and that native group is not Aztec/Mexica. Second, there's still no evidence of cannibalism, or the consumption of human flesh. Rather, what they have evidence of is human bones that were defleshed with knives and boiled in water. You do that to deflesh bones and skulls before displaying them. No evidence that the people who defleshed the bones ate the meat, just evidence that the bones were defleshed. It's a total leap of faith to go from knife and boiling marks on bones to cannibalism. And therefore, leaving the section on cannibalism under pozole is inaccurate, racist, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Incidentally, almost none of the links in this talk page work any more - only the one to the Neolithic cannibalism in Europe, which is also suspect. Citation 13 on the main page does link to a Spanish-language article still in existence, but the article is for a dot-com, not a scholarly journal, and it is entirely possible that (as also happens with English-language publications) the reporter sensationalized Botella's work. And yes, I saw where Botella gave a 5 day course on sacrifice and cannibalism, but all the syllabus says is that he did give the seminar, not that he confirmed the Mesoamericans were cannibals. Last, many people, even with Ph.D.s, don't know what they're doing. Historian and Black Death researcher Samuel Cohn, Ph.D., believes the Bubonic Plague could not have been carried by fleas because, according to him, fleas can't ascend higher on the human body than mid-thigh.

This page doesn't cite enough reliable, good sources in English or Spanish to warrant keeping the cannibalism section. Furthermore, the way the 'history' section is written, it makes the Aztecs look like the cannibals, not the Xiximes. Therefore, I have removed it for unreliable and incomplete citations, a lack of academic rigor, and sensationalism that promotes racism. I'm sure you'll put it back again, and that's the reason people don't trust Wikipedia. Sandarmoir (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The correct thing to do in that case is to add the additional information, with citations, and explain the disagreement. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to point out that the historical indigenous people of Mexico, for example groups like the Aztec, Mexica and Xiximes announce themselves as cannibals. They are not mislabeled as such by ignorant outsiders, they told people that they were cannibals and were open about it. If you look at the art and sculptures they made, the stories they told and so on, you would see this fact for yourself if you looked at the primary sources and things the Mexica made themselves, rather than the research and papers written about them and speculation about their lives today. It is a fact that they ate each other, what you’re doing is history denial and also putting down peoples research. Why do you feel you need to say some people with PHDs don’t know much. Rude 2604:3D09:A17E:8800:580:899B:77A1:4017 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Chitterlings

I was under the impression that in Mexican, Mexican American, and Native American cuisines, chitterlings are often an important ingredient. This should be added to the article. Badagnani 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

- No, that's menudo. 74.57.19.243 (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PS?

The PS at the end seems a little out of place, perhaps remove or rewrite it to be in a description of how it is made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.13.153 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Posol

The "posol" link in the bottom section of the page leads, recursively and frustratingly, back to the same page. Needs to be fixed?

-Jack Vermicelli 98.243.84.182 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Posol is now a disambiguation page, and the tangent re the drink has been removed. --Una Smith (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose move

Because the word is in common use in English in the southwest US, where it is spelled "posole", I think the title of this article should be Posole, not Pozole. --Una Smith (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A response from a northerner: I'm from Michigan, and I have always see it written Pozole. I received a family recipe from a friend and they spelled it Pozole as well. The spelling doesn't matter to me, but the Z is common as well.

"Crossed the border"?

WTH? New Mexico cuisine is native to New Mexico, it did not "cross the border". Hispanics have a long history in New Mexico, and did not "cross the border", if anything, the border crossed them. With quite accurate accounts that when the territories involving New Mexico were annexed, that the Mexicans were offered the choice to stay Mexicans and move out of the land, or stay there. New Mexico was well populated and few chose to leave. What is now Arizona though was sparsely populated at the time, and had most Mexicans leave.

To point, New Mexican cuisine is just as old and "authentic" as Mexican cuisine, and with the variations that it has, it's clear that it's not a "border-crossing" event, but rather a cross-border event... something that developed on both sides of what is now the border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.117.7 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Posole, please

Since this page is the English language page, it's only appropriate that the spelling follows the English common usage spelling. I admit I find the "Z" to be attractively exotic, but in the interest of accuracy "posole" is correct english.Dclanto (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)dclanto

Can we correctly write: Guachinton, just because it is the phonetic sound of Washington in spanish

Posole should be erased, change it to "Pozole (pronounce like posole)" if you wish, but this is a minor error in this very uninformative article, that is focused in teaching "mexicans are cannibals eating humans in posole"

Very bad article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.233.104 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

'Pozole' is also the process of dissolving bodies in lye made famous by 'El Pozolero del Teo'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildave (talk • contribs) 05:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Last sentence on first page - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/09border.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.73.130 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shockingly level of generalization

This:

"The conjunction of maize (usually whole hominy kernels) and meat in a single dish is of particular interest to scholars, because the ancient Americans(which?) believed the gods made humans out of masa (cornmeal dough)."

...is a highly contentious statement.

I'm pretty sure the Inuit as well the Pacific Northwest tribes had no such legend since it's unlikely, especially the former, were ever raising tons of corn.

And given the disparate lifestyles, cultures and languages that developed even within the Mesoamerican/corn sphere (so to speak) such generalization is, well, silly.

Needs to be sourced at the very least.

PainMan

Unreliable sources... "of a commercial nature"

One type of unreliable source not allowed on Wikipedia is sources "of a commercial nature". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and everything has to be backed up by reliable sources. No, Wikipedia is not a food blog and you can't advertise your business via Wikipedia. If what you write is true, you should be able to cite reliable sources. If you can't, your content may be challenged with a template and if no reliable source is added the content may be removed. Notice that I left one source there because it wasn't blatantly commercial. If UNAM really studied posole and cannibalism, it should be published in a reputable scientific journal. If not it can be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)