From Haaretz:
Ultra-Orthodox Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman on Monday declared that Israel would call the new potentially deadly disease that has already struck two continents 'Mexico Flu,' rather than 'Swine Flu,['] as pigs are not kosher.
"We will call it Mexico flu. We won't call it swine flu," Litzman told a news conference on Monday, assuring the Israeli public that authorities were prepared to handle any cases.
Under Jewish dietary laws, pigs are considered unclean and pork is forbidden food, although the non-kosher meat is available in some stores in Israel.
Naturally, according to The Guardian (UK), "Mexico's ambassador to Israel, Frederico Salas, was duly dispatched to register an official complaint over the suggestion. The move prompted a hurried retraction from the Israeli government, which insisted it had no intention of changing the name."
Mexico's action makes sense to me, since they want to minimize the taint attached to their country in people's minds — the sort of thing that could affect tourism even once the outbreak is over and tourism is safe. They have no moral or good-manners entitlement to stop people from using "Mexican flu," but it certainly makes good sense for them to try to persuade people against the name change.
But what is possibly wrong with the name "Swine Flu," even from the perspective of people whose religion tells them that pig meat is forbidden to eat (and even "unclean")? Swine flu is unclean, too. It's not like someone is attaching a bad label to something that Litzman thinks is good, or a good label to something bad. (Contrast pork producers' worry that the label would subconsciously taint their products, which they think are good.) The label stems from what is at least a suspected scientific fact — that the virus is closely related to a disease of pigs. What reasonable objection, even accepting as given Orthodox Jewish religious beliefs, can there to be calling a deadly disease by a name connected to an "unclean" animal?
Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer.
I would think that "swine flu," however, would underscore the practical reasons for the kosher mandates. Religious leaders are often left trying to explain why seemingly random and arbitrary laws (that may have made sense once upon a time) should still be followed today. IMHO, "Don't raise pigs, because it could cause a deadly pandemic" is a pretty solid explanation.
Or stick to the flu family with "Spanish flu" ...hmmm... "Spanish flu" ... "Mexican flu" ... perhaps the trilling of rrrrs is causing heightened transmission?
My point: If don't like something, and a disease carries its name, why the hell change the name?
If prostate cancer were known as "Al-Qaeda Syndrome," I would recommend that we leave it that way.
Since not eating pigs isn't one of the Noachide laws, this would leave them explaining why it's okay for goyim to get deadly diseases.
So there are probably some people in Israel who think that only people who've been breaking kosher or hanging out with pigs could possibly catch swine flu.
.
Add Paris Hilton to that bunch of knuckle-heads.
I'm not going to judge whether it's reasonable, but the stated objection is that Jews should not utter the name of an unclean animal under the dual notions of siag la Torah (lit. 'fence around the Torah') and chumra, an additional restriction in excess of the bare requirement of Jewish law. Both are intended to convey the notion that, due to human fallibility, one who allows himself to be in a situation near sinful acts will eventually cross over all the way* -- better then to take precautionary measures.
The application in this instance is a bit puzzling, however, so maybe Litzman had an entirely different rationale in mind. He's said very little about it.
Disclaimer: I'm not a religious expert, just an interested party. Your interpretation may vary, contact your local religious authority if in doubt.
* The contradistinction between chumra and Bybee's attempt to define "the thin line between harsh non-torture and torture" occurs to me as quite interesting, although probably off-topic
The only times I ever say this within Judaism was Reform rabbis and teachers (when I was a child growing up in a Reform congregation) explaining that because the purpose of kosher restrictions lay in health, they were no longer necessary.
If true, a good reason to give it another name, at least in Hebrew.
But I understand why Mexico doesn't want the disease associated with it. This recalls the 16th century syphilis epidemic, when syphilis was much more deadly. French and Spanish armies fighting a war in Italy were being decimated with the disease. The French called it the Spanish pox, and the Spanish called it the French pox.
Does this mean they'll now associate the flu with the consumption of tacos and burritos?
(sorry, couldn’t resist but your point is a good one)
Seconded. That argument is only used by those that don't want to be convinced.
I hate to get all Wittgenstein-ish again. But "swine" derives its meaning here--as do all words at all times--from the context in which they are used. So "swine" here doesn't mean a pig, as in the animal that one kills to get bacon. It means a kind of flu.
But then W. was (kinda-sorta) Catholic. So what did he know about this stuff, eh?
But there is precedent for naming a strain for a locality, such as "Hong Kong flu" (although it actually originated from interior China). It appears that the poor Mexican town of La Gloria might get that dubious distinction. If it is the origin, then "La Gloria flu" would seem to be the appropriate name.
One thing is clear. People are deferring their travel plans to Mexico, and that could have a devastaing impact on the Mexican economy, one that may kill more Mexicans indirectly than the disease does. A lot of people I know here in Texas go across the border for things like dental and medical care, where the prices are about a tenth the price and comparable in quality to that of the U.S., for ordinary medical and dental problems. A dental crown that would cost $800 in the U.S. runs $75 in Ciudad Acuna, where the factories are that make the crowns for many U.S. dentists. Get to the dentist's office in the morning and by mid-afternoon you have a good crown and can enjoy dinner at Crosby's, the best place in town to eat.
This is the best possible rationale I've heard so far, though it still seems a little silly.
It basically boils down to "People are confused, but instead of correcting them, let's just pat them on the heads."
Killing all the pigs in a country seems pretty overboard though. The prevalence of this disease is still below that of the common diseases found in most livestock. So I suppose we should slaughter every animal in the world as a precautionary measure...
Mexico's infant mortality rate is 3 times the US. Their health care system is second and third world in some areas, the people are more likely to be malnourished, sanitation is often subpar, and hygiene isn't as high a priority. OF COURSE something like this is going to hit Mexico harder. It doesn't take a statistician to ask the simple question- how many more deaths does Mexico suffer than the US per capita on other diseases, like the normal flu? 100 people die of the flu in the US every day. How many more die in Mexico? We don't know, which is the first clue as to a lack of a strong health care infrastructure.
This is political correctness hard at work, and it's scaring people unnecessarily. This is a big enough story already without dancing around the elephant in the room. Or just as likely, after all these years of claiming the US has the worst health-care in the civilized world, MSM reporters can't bring themselves to compare our health-care favorably to anyone.
Is that why there's a dearth of famous Jewish quarterbacks?
/jk
Seems to me this is more political correctness run amok. Swine flu seems to me to be less offensive than Mexican flu, would Litzman want a differing strain labeled the Israeli flu or Jewish flu?
It is now thought, however, that the disease that nearly wiped out the Aztecs was not brought over by the Spaniards, but was a local hemorrhagic fever of some kind, perhaps related to the hanta virus.
The little stuff may get all of us yet.
I doubt we will be seeing any headlines reading, "Local Outbreak of 2009 H1N1 Flu."
Cf. my former employer selling autoclaves in Japan. The Model 6000 sold well and had six vent holes on top. The Model 4000 sold poorly because it had four vent holes on top, and the Japanese have a negative association with the number four. It took the embarrassed Japanese sales rep a surprisingly long time to confess this. Rather than trying to change Japanese culture, we punched two additional vent holes in the smaller model and then it sold just fine.
Subjective preferences define cultures and if harmless should be accomodated.
JNH
I agree with Mark Buehner regarding the reasons why it’s hitting Mexico harder. It’s a third world country so health care, much like crime and poverty is going to be worse than in the United States. If it does turn out that Mexico is the source of the disease, I think that any hopes of “comprehensive immigration reform” anytime soon just became nil.
Hence the Hantavirus family is named for the Hantaan river of Korea, where it was first recognized during the Korean War.
Ebola is named for the Ebola River Valley.
Marburg virus (a close relative of Ebola) is named for Marburg, Germany, where the first patient was discovered, even though the disease is endemic to equatorial Africa and the patient contracted it there.
The American virus commonly called "Hanta virus" is an interesting exception, and an example of the "politicization of science". The technical name is Sin Nombre virus (latin: without a name).
It was first discovered in patients from Canyon del Muerto
and was call the Canyon del Muerto (canyon of death) virus. However, there is a Navajo taboo about mentioning death, so they strongly objected to the name. It was then changed to the Four Corners virus, since it was near the Four Corners (intersection of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado). Politicians from those states objected on the grounds it would scare off tourists. The frustrated scientists thus changed it to the No Name virus.
I mean, so far, ~100 people have died in a poor third world country out of a population of ~ 100 million. That just doesn't seem statistically significant. How many poor Mexican children died, say, this time last year just from random malnutrition and 'ordinary' diarrhea?
New strains of flu represent on of the most common, serious natural threats that we face. Since this flu is unusual, the original reported case fatality rate was high (7-8%), it merits very serious attention. The issue isn't how many deaths out of the whole population (because the flu hasn't run its course) but how many out of those who contracted it.
All epidemics and pandemics start with one person. The 1918 pandemic killed 50,000,000 world wide, but early on was just a little flu outbreak.
The plain old flu claims 36,000 lives every year in the US. But because this is a roughly steady level of morbidity and mortality it is not news. Never mind that most years there is a highly effective vaccine available for it, most people seem to think those 36,000 will be someone else.
I suspect whoever told you that was uninformed. I've seen conservative rabbis playing football. Of course, it was touch football, and they weren't very good, but thats sort of assumed...
So do all 'innocuous' variations.
Let's also not forget that initial reports are always wrong. WHO is now saying there are only 7 confirmed deaths in Mexico. So we don't really have any idea how many cases there are, or how many deaths (aside from the 7). With numbers this small and questionable, trying to calculate a meaningful mortality rate is pointless. But it's certainly not the Outbreak type scenario we all have nightmares about.
Its the flu, it always kills people. Every few years the media and government decide some particular variation is the end of the world an we go through this. Human beings have existed for this long because we have very robust immune systems. If these things were this common we would never have made it out of Africa.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Is the name swine flu hogwash?
U.S. officials said Tuesday they may abandon the term swine flu, for fear it's confusing people into thinking they could catch it from pork — which is flat-out wrong.
"We're discussing, is there a better way to describe this that would not lead to inappropriate actions on people's part?" said Dr. Richard Besser, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "In the public, we've been seeing a fair amount of misconception ... and that's not helpful."
Let's just name it ManBirdPig flu and be done with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfGmf8L3-z0
So... "Freedom Flu"?
Hong Kong Flu, Brisbane Flu, Spanish Flu are just a few that pop in my head.
Naming this strain Mexico Flu or Mexico City Flu isn't out of the realm of the unthinkable.
Now Mexico might be better served by figuring out the little tiny unknown village it originated in and lobbying to get the official name changed to that to get the word Mexico out of the name.
We played football too -- with synthetic footballs.
Actually, most the flu kills a high proportion of healthy 20-40 year olds due to immune system overreaction (cytokine-flood, as it's known in the biz).
Now you know one more useless fact.
Shouldn't they raise that objection to the name of the canyon?
Many of us of a certain age remember the Swine Flu as one of a number of presidential messes from the 1970s (a fairly silly decade, part of that 13th Generation thing.)
See e.g. this CDC dispatch.
Wow, I didn't even know those existed.
today at lunch I ordered a pulled-pork sandwich and almost made a crack about the "Swine Flu Sandwich" but then figured the proprietress might treat me like the guy at the airport making grenade jokes . . .
Of course, that might be because there are no swine in Saudi Arabia--though pork can be found if you look in the right places. Egypt and Israel, to the best of my recall, do have native swine populations for their non-Jewish/Muslim citizens.
I toyed with the idea of wearing a surgical mask (more likely a painter's mask) to work today, but I figured that most people wouldn't get the joke.
I would think this was obvious. If you are an Orthodox Jew and you come down with something called "Swine Flu" someone might assume you were somehow messing around with pigs. Think of the stigma that would attach to someone coming down with "Prostitute Flu" or, for libertarians, "Tax Collector Flu". Educated people would know, of course, that you didn't necessarily get the flu from personal moral failure, but there are a lot of uneducated people out there.
Still, I think renaming it Mexican Flu is a bad move. As far as I know, the disease did not originate in Mexico. The first instance I ever heard of was in the US.
This would clear things up. You can't possibly get Mexican Flu except by eating Mexicans.....
"Sin nombre" is Spanish, not Latin. If it were Latin, it would be "sine nomine" (which, by the way, is the name of a hymn by Ralph Vaughan Williams--sorta the way a playing field at the University of Virginia is (or was) called "Nameless Field").
Because like some folks think every conflict will be another Vietnam, the media and some of the public health community thinks every new flu is another 1918.
I remember the 1976 debacle, and few years before that something called, IIRC, the 'asian' flu. Every few years there is another strain that is touted as having the potential to be the new Black Death.
I'm not saying we shouldn't keep an eye on these situations, but let's keep some perspective.
BTW, at lunch I read an op-ed in the LA Times by a Wendy Orent (I think that was the spelling) that had a good explaination of why it is hitting Mexico harder. Short version: the closer you are to the source, the more virulent the flu virus is, and this is thought to have originated in a large pig farm (ranch?) in Mexico. Read her column for a better descripton.
This is not correct. According to the book of Leviticus, the list of unclean animals includes horses, donkeys, dogs, and other animals that orthodox Jews would have regular contact with and speak about.
There does seem to be a particular discomfort with pigs but the reason is not obvious.
"Sin nombre" is Spanish, not Latin. If it were Latin, it would be "sine nomine" (which, by the way, is the name of a hymn by Ralph Vaughan Williams--sorta the way a playing field at the University of Virginia is (or was) called "Nameless Field").
You see "Sine nomine" attached to Renaissance Mass settings by this or that composer all the time — means basically "this is a Mass in so many voices by so-and-so, but no one gave it a familiar nickname, so we'll call it 'nameless.'"
I can only assume that the Quatuor Sine Nomine (a very good Swiss-based string quartet) couldn't decide what to call itself, and lit on this as a sort of compromise.
How do they pass the concept of unclean animals to young Jews without naming which are which?
Picture books.
The office building where I working in Beijing did not have a 4th, 13th, 14th, or 24th floor due to Chinese and Western superstitions.
It made climbing the stairs to the 16th floor a bit less arduous though.
The prohibition is on frivolous or unnecessary mentioning. Judaism is not dogmatic about rules, they are intended to be interpreted in line with common sense.
Taking this foolish position at face value, Jews would be forbidden to refer to St. Louis, Missouri; St. Petersburg, Florida; and most everywhere in California. Even Satmar Hassidim would be barred from referring to themselves -- because they come from Satu Mare (Saint Mary), Hungary.
Quaere whether Jews even could order knishes. (St. Canisius)
Just a very foolish and thoughtless pronouncement by someone who should focus on filing documents.
It is worth remembering that there have been times and places where it was common for people not to have names, at least not official ones. There is still no constitutional authority to require anyone to have a name, so if one chooses not to adopt one, and others don't agree what to call one, that can present a problem for identification or modern credentials.
"Liberty Measles" makes about as much sense as "Jello Biafra." In fact, it would be a great name for a female musician of his ilk.
TMZ.
Old Onion headline: "World Ends: Women, Minorities hit hardest."
I gave a simpler explanation above. Every disease hits Mexico harder, because their health care system, sanitation, and general health (nutrition) are far inferior to the US.
Or perhaps "porcine malaise".
Or "Pancho Villa's revenge". That is already used for diarhhea contracted by Gringo tourists in Mexico but it could be applied to any disease originating there.
Better would be an auction for the right not to have it named for the winner. That could raise a lot of money at a time we need it.
But, of course, who gets to be the auctioneer, and who owns the languages of the world. Ah well.
In French it actually appears to be "grippe porcine." And I've not heard of "Pancho Villa's Revenge"; "Montezuma's Revenge," sure. Possibly because most Californians have some hazy idea of Montezuma/Moctezuma, but have no clue who Pancho Villa was.
Both terms were invented and are used by Gringos. "Montezuma's Revenge" has emerged for when Mexicans get it and "Pancho Villa's Revenge" when Gringos get it. New Mexicans and Texans know who Pancho Villa was. He invaded New Mexico in a rather disastrous venture (his troops were almost wiped out), and most of our Hispanic citizens are descended from refugees of his revolution. That includes most of my Hisapanic friends. Whenever I go to Mexico conversation frequently turns to Villa, about whom there are mixed feelings.
Israel is a free country. Anyone can buy pork. They don't check your religion at the store before they sell it to you.
Mine was #12A.
I'm pretty sure that with normal flu virus, most killed are the usual suspects - old folks, those with impaired immune systems, chronically ill, etc. Unfortunately (for us turning-old folks) the vaccines don't work well for the same reasons.
The 1918 flu killed via cytokine storm, but it was unusual in that regard. SARS likewise (although it was not influenza). There is speculation that H1N1 influenza's high mortality rate may also be cytokine storms. S
It's OK. The Spanish tradition was more lenient about that than the Eastern European one. But only ones wife, of course, and only at certain times of the month.
paging tony bourdain!
Which also means that people make embarrasing faux pas when they don't know this, but know enough hebrew to translate "white meat" into "basar lavan".
Also in regards to the pigs. it's basically shows the non orthodox ignorance of jewish law overall (albiet, plenty of orthodox jews are ignorant, though generally less so the rabbis)
see see for an explanation.
Right. After too many decades, my Spanish and Latin have gotten really rusty, and obviously mixed up.
If course we know it is "influenza porcina" if I haven't butchered my Latin.
Literally means "Influence of Pigs." Is this a statement about the fiscal apatites of our elected officials?
PlugInMonster:
And people keep telling me that society doesn't have enough religion.
Indeed. Many stores in religious neighborhoods don't stock pork products so as not to offend their customers, of course, but that's not by State compulsion.
Funny thing is that it was first detected in the U.S. and no single pig is infected with or has died from the Swine Flu.
How about the NO-SWINE FLU or the DON'T SNEEZE FLU, or the HUMAN FLU RELOADED, that would include any names like the Mexican flu, the American flu, the, French flu, the New Zeland flu, the Israeli flu, the Arab flu, the Canadian flu, the Spanish flu, the German flu.
I like it; you got my vote on it.
You know not how to use this name.
You do not play our language game.
Ludwig W., Green Eggs and Swine
I guess "Mexican Flu" is now out of the question.
Just as many American supermarkets don't sell horse meat because it might offend customers.
This is not some sort of religious prohibition; it's just Not Done. The word chazir ("pig") is considered mildly crude, and not used in polite company, except in technical contexts; much like "penis" in English. In medical contexts nobody objects to "penis", but it's not something one would say at the dinner table, and nor would it make an appearance in a children's story. The polite term for the animal is davar acher ("another thing"). (One could get away with telling children the story of The Three Little Other Things, but changing species is classier.)
PS: The official Hebrew translation of Green Eggs and Ham cleverly avoids naming the food in question at all. It is referred to throughout simply as "that".
Dov Fischer: Satu Mare does not mean "St Mary"; it means "big village".
Dov Fischer: Satu Mare does not mean "St Mary"; it means "big village". However there are indeed place names that Jews refuse to pronounce, and have instead come up with their own names. For instance, Deutschkreutz ("German Cross") is universally known by Jews as Tzelem ("image"); Gora Kalwaria ("Mount Calvary") is known by Jews as Ger ("convert"); and the problem of Christchurch is generally avoided by using only the general area's name, Canterbury (though I've seen people spell the city "Ch'ch", and heard them pronounce it "Tchuh-tchuh").
On the contrary, the Bybee memo is very much at home in the halachic tradition. It's easy to add layers and layers of safety margin, in order to safeguard the core law. But then a hard case comes along, and it's not enough to say "let's play it safe". When someone's health is at stake, or their chance to have children, or someone is facing financial ruin if a lenient ruling cannot be found, then it becomes necessary to peel back the layers, and carefully analyze where the line lies between core law and safety margin.
Safety margins are good, but in an emergency they may kill you; OTOH going all the safety margin may kill you just as dead, so you need to work out exactly how far you can safely go.
WHO to stop using term 'swine flu' to protect pigs -
I guess "Mexican Flu" is now out of the question.
I noticed that. I guess it's not parody when they do it.
Excuse me?
Not solely. I know people who raise piglets as pets for their kids. They're actually quite adorable. Only after they've grown sufficiently big and fat do they slaughter and eat their children's pets.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.