QuoteA welcome slice of American pie
A POINT OF VIEW
Forget greasy burgers, a growing enthusiasm for good local food in the US is getting the nation salivating, says Simon Schama.
Ask people in the UK what they think of American food and all too often their faces settle into the amused expression Mahatma Gandhi is said to have assumed when asked what he thought of Western civilisation. "It would," he replied, "be a very good idea." The same, many think, would be true of American food.
For most people in Europe, I suspect, it seems not so much food at all as fuel. The burgers and fries shovelled down while the car is idling at the drive-thru, or gobbled by marooned air travellers waiting for the "delayed" sign to flip so they can finally make their connection to Detroit.
Along the concourse plod the heavy herds in search of their own aviation fuel until at last they park their trolleys by the ketchup-stained corral, over which hangs a micro-climate of vaporised frying fat. Yum.
It could be worse. You might in a moment of desperation try the salad, or more tragically, the seasonal fruit. For an instant, these offerings - the greenery and the frighteningly livid cherry tomatoes, the day-glo cubes of pineapple - offer a tantalising resemblance to something you might actually want to put in your mouth. So you do. Big mistake.
What happens is more or less what happens after you've opened wide to the dentist and he's given you a shot of novocaine. You can't feel a thing. You're vaguely aware of something rolling around between tongue and gullet, but for the life of you you can't imagine what it is?
Could that papery thing glued to your tongue have once been a plant form? But the slimy pink cube purporting to be melon defeats you. You gulp and swallow only because it has to go somewhere and after all, you're in public.
At these human feeding troughs speed is what counts. In the 19th Century travellers to the US gazed in horror on river boats and in city taverns, at the spectacle of Americans sawing away at slabs of bloody beef. What particularly struck these foreigners was that all this brutal chewing precluded the activity which for them made a meal a social occasion - the act of speech.
Luscious
Most American eating seemed swift and silent, as befitted a bodily function. Except in the grandest society it was enacted for business rather than pleasure. "Are you still working on that?" a polite waiter will inquire to this day if you rest briefly from your labours. "Good job", a proud parent will congratulate little Kelly when she cleans her plate.
Pleasure could be had from the table, but it was what you merited when all that arduous work was accomplished. Pleasure was, above all things, pie. Not steak and kidney, but fruit. And not just the proverbially patriotic apple, but the particular fruit of your own back country. Wild blueberry, tiny and intense in northern New England, picked when the pale bloom lies on the purple skin like a coating of light frost, luscious dripping peaches in the deep south.
Saddle-sore dry goods peddlers, snake-oil quacks fresh off the stagecoach, itinerant ranters with dirty collars and pummelled prayer books, rustlers and wranglers, the highfalutin and the lowdown could all be brought to a state of grace with a forkful of pie.
FIND OUT MORE...
A Point of View, with Simon Schama, is on Fridays on Radio 4 at 2050 BST and repeated Sundays, 0850 BST
Or listen to it
Better yet, the whole thing would be brought to table and a stab through the puffed up pastry, made, if my wife - a Nevada hunter's daughter - is right, with bear fat, would liberate a clove-scented sugary steam that would draw you in.
A mouthful would take you to America's lost childhood. Your mama's at the hot stove, wiping her hands on a floury apron, while the Whippoorwills warble on a backyard hickory. The pie emerges, fills the kitchen with benevolence and all is right with your corner of the world.
But this is not a lament for the lost innocence of American eating. There's a place in downtown New York that dishes up a pretty fine sour cream apple pie. More important, though, I am here to announce that great American food is back, if indeed it ever went away.
Just don't go looking for it in places where they think fit to fob you off with a Caesar's salad that is merely a sorry bowl of lettuce in which lurk cardboard croutons, while the things that are supposed to be rendered unto Caesar's salad - raw egg yolk, lashings of anchovies and a heavy grating of fresh parmesan - have gone missing.
'Drooling respect'
Go look for the real McCoy in places where the locals tell you cooks guard their mysteries with their life. In an African-American section of Houston, Texas, some years ago I joined a line of expectant diners waiting for what was said to be the best barbecue chicken in the south. The place was nothing more than a roadside shack, presided over by the duchess of barbecue who did indeed keep her secrets close to her mighty chest.
You took the bird away in paper trays along with "dirty rice", red beans and collard greens slippery with oil. But the bird seemed to be disintegrating in its own juices, challenging you to get stuck in before it gave up on you as someone who knew no better than to let it go cold.
Crossing the lobby of the fancy hotel where I was staying, well-dressed crowds parted like the Red Sea to let me and my packet of pungency through, as it leaked juicily on to the corporate marble floor. Half of the guests recoiled in horror, half retreated in drooling respect. But I was in no mood to hand out samples to the covetous. I just wanted to be alone in my room with the barbecued fowl and its mystery sauce.
There have always been two great pots from which American nourishment, cultural as well as gastronomic, has stirred - ethnic immigration and the idyll of the family farm. Where those life forces of the republic flourish and resist homogenisation, so will its good food. Their nemesis has been the factory farms of antibiotic-stuffed poultry that are no more than water-pumped breasts mounted on claws.
But against the odds, ethnic eating and small family farms have not only survived, they are doing better than for many a year - a longed for antidote to the shrink-wrapped cheese of the supermarkets. New waves of immigrants - Vietnamese or Uzbek - have found markets in the big cities for their cooking.
Local farmers' markets are flourishing, bringing the produce of the season directly to customers. Right now in the Hudson Valley you can buy wild garlic shoots, fiddlehead ferns and spring morel mushrooms. Richard Harrison, who grew up in Sussex and farms in upstate New York, brings his own meat - rabbit and pork, lamb and chickens that taste like chickens should - to market, every week from spring until November.
Tears
Eleven-year-old Reese, growing up blonde and bony like his dad, and his older sister Grace sell the produce. Next to the Harrisons of Cowberry Crossing, you can buy the best cheese in the western hemisphere - soft or hard, sharp or barnyard ripe and a heel of dense, black, garlic-studded rye bread to eat with it.
This is the American food that has miraculously escaped the tyranny of agribusiness. And sometimes, in backwoods corners of the country, you encounter cooking that is the refutation of despair. I was reminded of just such a meal by the harrowing tragedy of the 29 coalminers killed on 5 April, in a methane explosion in West Virginia.
Some years back, filming in towns where the wreckage of the coal industry had torn the heart out of old communities, where abandoned derelict houses were collapsing into the roadway, our crew pulled up at a modest cafe expecting nothing more than a turkey and Swiss cheese sandwich. What we got was an excited welcome from the owner who every day waited for someone to come through her door wanting something more than turkey and Swiss.
She came from a Greek family, so what she set out for us was slow baked lamb, honeyed baklava and kataifi. She told us of her struggles against the banks, against slurry floods which twice had destroyed her place and her house, against the plagues of emphysema and joblessness stalking her world. But she wouldn't give up. Not when she could still make the lamb and the kataifi and see people like us spoon it up with grateful pleasure.
"I am so glad," she said. "I am so glad," through tears that suddenly came spilling on to the pastries. And so were we.
Fuck Britain. Simon Schama shouldn't have to apologize for America's culinary culture. We are fucking China rolled in India served in France compared to Britain's array of boiled-beef pies filled with vegetables whose texture would not be different if the cook had let them stew in his own stomach for a few hours before vomiting them into the the tasteless, fatty crust.
America has no cuisine. All of our most delicious foods come from other countries. What is our most innovative local invention? Hot dogs?
Quote from: Jaron on April 18, 2010, 02:57:15 AM
America has no cuisine. All of our most delicious foods come from other countries. What is our most innovative local invention? Hot dogs?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.timeinc.net%2Frecipes%2Fi%2Frecipes%2Fck%2F01%2F11%2Fjambalaya-ck-237722-l.jpg&hash=c8ea85bc403fdd3ae81e9ef27b1f00f2f98b6a36)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_JZ2-qB2eI4c%2FSqg5JNWLQnI%2FAAAAAAAACo4%2FPJi-CrgY7IQ%2Fs400%2Fchicken-fried-steak-2.jpg&hash=b4dac8b0f3a0e7e384bf2d26dcc324092fdc43f1)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2FwcuhdqQIYqnfowxuNlEcNsxFo1_500.jpg&hash=bd2c881bb49d297b7a8a25ea41083ec0f3e4831d) (Derives from an Italian dish, but is basically unrecognizeable)
as opposed to(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchileheadrush.homestead.com%2Ffiles%2FKevInvadesUK%2FHaggis.jpeg&hash=34d0227f8396ddbac763f3fad6080813d4f0a77f)
I love American food.
Haggis was actually fairly tasty.
Was amongst the best I had of "British" cuisine.
But yeah, if you ignored all the Indian restaurants, Britain was fairly disappointing in terms of food. Easily the worst place I've visited in Europe on that front.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2010, 03:42:12 AMBut yeah, if you ignored all the Indian restaurants, Britain was fairly disappointing in terms of food. Easily the worst place I've visited in Europe on that front.
You mean all of the Indian restaurants which serve curries which
British people invented? That is to say, the main curries to be eaten in Indian restaurants
are British cuisine.
But yeah, most Europeans (not just the British) look at American food in disgust. Squeezy cheese... seriously!? Your dairy industry is renowned for being rubbish. Also, the most famous American foods tend to be unhealthy and fried in some form (see: McDonald's "Restaurant" - though I do quite like McDonald's).
However, none of that is to say that our cuisine is particularly brilliant either (the traditional stuff like black pudding is particularly nasty :yuk:).
Isn't British food kind of the original terrible fast food? Stuff like Meat Pies and Soda Bread came out of the Industrial Revolution, when meat was increasing in quantity, dramatically decreasing in quality and rapid urbanization and the industrialization of agriculture resulted in really rapid change of the cuisine, damaging it in ways it never really recovered from.
Slightly related note: Do Europeans make pies? When I was in Germany, I couldn't for the life of me find a pie crust, or frozen fruit pie. Is it just a German thing, or pan-European thing?
Koreans also don't seem to make pies, either. Maybe its exclusively American.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 18, 2010, 04:21:09 AM
But yeah, most Europeans (not just the British) look at American food in disgust. Squeezy cheese... seriously!? Your dairy industry is renowned for being rubbish.
Our dairy industry IS rubbish, but most great American cuisines don't focus on cheeses. I'm hard pressed to think of a great American dish (besides our native-born types of pizzas) from outside of the Sun Belt that does give cheese the same kind of importance it might have in Italian.
Then again, Cheese isn't that important in most Oriental cuisines, so I fail to see why bad cheese should condemn an entire nation's cuisine.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 18, 2010, 04:37:04 AM
Slightly related note: Do Europeans make pies? When I was in Germany, I couldn't for the life of me find a pie crust, or frozen fruit pie. Is it just a German thing, or pan-European thing?
IIRC, the Dutch were supposed to have invented Apple Pie, and there are many varieties of disgusting pies in Britain.
I really don't find American food to be crap. They have very good steak houses, for starters. Baby back ribs, clam chowder and chili are excellent dishes. Even hamburger and hotdogs are thoroughly enjoyable if done right and in moderation.
Quote from: Jaron on April 18, 2010, 02:57:15 AM
America has no cuisine. All of our most delicious foods come from other countries. What is our most innovative local invention? Hot dogs?
That's simply not true. There are tons of dishes that originated in America, and most of the dishes we favor that originated in other countries are highly modified from their original form.
Quoterendered unto Caesar's salad
Heh.
Haggis is good yeah.
People always post pictures of it in that form to show how disgusting it is...by that reasoning though you should just post a picture of a dead chicken to show how bad chicken is. Haggis looks like fairly normal mince in its edible form.
And as for bashing meat pie....Thats just simply madness. A good steak and ale pie is one of the best foods in the world.
QuoteHaggis was actually fairly tasty.
Was amongst the best I had of "British" cuisine.
But yeah, if you ignored all the Indian restaurants, Britain was fairly disappointing in terms of food. Easily the worst place I've visited in Europe on that front.
You've avoided Scandinavia and the low countries then.
And thats being uncontroversial. I'd put French food below British too (the cliche is its awesome but really, what does it have going for it? Nice cheese and wine but not much in the way of good meals) and German stuff also (plastic sausages- bleh)
Quote(the cliche is its awesome but really, what does it have going for it? Nice cheese and wine but not much in the way of good meals)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4gifs.com%2Fgallery%2Fd%2F86198-1%2FYouMad.jpg&hash=ea016dc68b9db74bcba5990f72b466b9863ef0da)
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 02:50:29 AM
Fuck Britain. Simon Schama shouldn't have to apologize for America's culinary culture. We are fucking China rolled in India served in France compared to Britain's array of boiled-beef pies filled with vegetables whose texture would not be different if the cook had let them stew in his own stomach for a few hours before vomiting them into the the tasteless, fatty crust.
You don't disappoint. :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 04:36:37 AM
Isn't British food kind of the original terrible fast food? Stuff like Meat Pies and Soda Bread came out of the Industrial Revolution, when meat was increasing in quantity, dramatically decreasing in quality and rapid urbanization and the industrialization of agriculture resulted in really rapid change of the cuisine, damaging it in ways it never really recovered from.
Don't forget fish and chips (originally brought by Jewish immigrants).
American food isn't bad, neither is British, you just have to pay for it. Though you can pay very little if you want a dirty fry up, which is a joy. Whereas American food, in my limited experience, can be good at any price range.
Also quality of meat and ingredients don't necessarily matter, especially not for tradition peasant/earthy food. The great stews, for example, come from cheap cuts of meat because they're peasant food, most Chinese food is also focused on pretty cheap cuts.
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
:lol: Fair. Still it's not as bad as (from my experience) Eastern European food.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 06:12:27 AM
most Chinese food is also focused on pretty cheap cuts.
I vehemently disagree :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 06:32:22 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
:lol: Fair. Still it's not as bad as (from my experience) Eastern European food.
I find that to be quite surprisingly good. If a bit too....porky. In a sort of cheapish way.
Slovakian is awesome. Czechoslovakian dumplings and goulash is one of the best things ever.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 18, 2010, 06:35:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 06:12:27 AM
most Chinese food is also focused on pretty cheap cuts.
I vehemently disagree :contract:
There is no better cut than chicken feet
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 18, 2010, 04:37:04 AM
Slightly related note: Do Europeans make pies? When I was in Germany, I couldn't for the life of me find a pie crust, or frozen fruit pie. Is it just a German thing, or pan-European thing?
Koreans also don't seem to make pies, either. Maybe its exclusively American.
By this I'm assuming you mean fruit pies?
We do have them here in the UK, but I would estimate that about 95% of the fruit pies I've ever eaten have been home made. Most common would be apple pie, but blackberry and rhubarb pies are also common. Of course a lot of people have virtually zero cooking skills nowadays; their pie situation must be fraught indeed.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
You copy my thoughts. :lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on April 18, 2010, 06:35:10 AM
I vehemently disagree :contract:
Maybe it's a national price difference (and my personal taste), I associate Chinese food with feet, kidneys, belly pork. All of which, in the UK, are very cheap cuts. Similarly, in my experience, the beef is frying steak which is the cheapest cut of beef.
British food, if done properly, is great.
Of course, visitors to the country in Central London who have no idea where they're going are going to find the tourist holes where everything is stodgy and bland. What they are not going to find are the side-street gems or the clusters of outstanding, experimental and reasonably priced eateries in the outer areas.
I am fine with this: it keeps the hordes of overweight yanks in their bursting chinos and tucked in polo shirts out of the restaurants I go to.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 07:00:02 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 18, 2010, 06:35:10 AM
I vehemently disagree :contract:
Maybe it's a national price difference (and my personal taste), I associate Chinese food with feet, kidneys, belly pork. All of which, in the UK, are very cheap cuts. Similarly, in my experience, the beef is frying steak which is the cheapest cut of beef.
Try: Cantonese BBQ pork, Peking Duck, whole chicken dishes, steamed whole fish :mmm:
I think with Chinese food is its not so much they go just for the cheap cuts but they make the best of everything they get.
There is of course rich meaty Chinese food (especially in China :P) but generally it seems to be about stretching out a small amount of crappy meat and making it appear to be more. Which they're rather good at.
Though I must say I've gone off Chinese quite a bit in recent years.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
We are a really diverse place, and I'd say that our Cajun tradition has some of the greatest dishes native to the Americas. :)
The worst cuisine anywhere is the stuff dished up to tourists, especially in major cities. Iormlund and the Larch are having a good laugh; but I ate some memorably awful food in Madrid back in 1980..........comparable to Athens at it's worst :P
I think people are almost bound to see their native country's cuisine through rose-tinted glasses simply because they are less likely to make mistakes and buy food that they don't like.
Having said that, I still think the situation in Britain is notably below average. One has to be much more careful than in the USA and most of the continent. Even when the food is good it often is far too pricey for what it is.
I also agree with Tyr about France, one of the easier countries in Europe in which to be served garbage; though, OTOH, many of my most memorable meals (in the good way) have been eaten there :hmm:
Quote from: Monoriu on April 18, 2010, 07:03:27 AM
Try: Cantonese BBQ pork, Peking Duck, whole chicken dishes, steamed whole fish :mmm:
I will.
Also I'd add that I don't mean cheap cuts in a bad way. I am never so happy as when I've got a plate of stew in front of me. I love all the great stews enormously. If the French had stopped at the daube they'd have a winning cuisine in my opinion.
With Chinese foods one of the things I most love about it is the sheer variety of belly pork and like dishes, and how many ways chefs can make an inch of fat taste good :mmm:
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 06:52:57 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
You copy my thoughts. :lol:
Like our neighbors to the south, we have far surpassed the old country in that department. :contract:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2010, 07:13:40 AM
I think people are almost bound to see their native country's cuisine through rose-tinted glasses simply because they are less likely to make mistakes and buy food that they don't like.
Also it's our mother food. Comfort food that we can link back to our childhood and so on. I think no matter how much other stuff I ate from anywhere in the world I would always think that shepherd's pie followed by arctic roll is the peak of good eating. I feel similar about things like macaroni cheese, live and salt fish because I got hooked on them young by my dad's faltering steps into home management.
With the exception of the macaroni cheese (his secret: four types of cheese in the sauce) he cooked what he knew, which was what was available in post-war Liverpool. Every meal was an age of austerity. But that's one of the sorts of food I know love.
Spellus, stop with the goddamn Chicago pizza. :bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2010, 07:23:03 AM
Spellus, stop with the goddamn Chicago pizza. :bleeding:
Chicago pizza is not that good.
Cajun food and american barbecue are dishes we can be proud of. We should also get some credit for tex mex. The problem with new world foods is that we don't get credit for what we exported to europe, but europe gets credit for what the export back (even after we modify it). For example, tomatoes are from the new world, but I never hear of tomato based sauces from Italy having an American influence, but anything pasta or pizza based gets an italian label.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
Cajun food and american barbecue are dishes we can be proud of. We should also get some credit for tex mex. The problem with new world foods is that we don't get credit for what we exported to europe, but europe gets credit for what the export back (even after we modify it). For example, tomatoes are from the new world, but I never hear of tomato based sauces from Italy having an American influence, but anything pasta or pizza based gets an italian label.
Surely that's because pasta and pizza are techniques, tomatoes and potatoes are produce. We don't regularly refer to coffee as Yemeni, or Middle Eastern; but the technique or brewing coffee (or of spicing it) is referred to as Turkish/Arabic.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
The problem with new world foods is that we don't get credit for what we exported to europe, but europe gets credit for what the export back (even after we modify it). For example, tomatoes are from the new world, but I never hear of tomato based sauces from Italy having an American influence, but anything pasta or pizza based gets an italian label.
That's silly. Cusine is about human artistry. The fact that some European explorers grabbed some vegetables and took them back home does not reflect on the artistry of the Western Hemisphere.
Woops.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 07:41:18 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
Cajun food and american barbecue are dishes we can be proud of. We should also get some credit for tex mex. The problem with new world foods is that we don't get credit for what we exported to europe, but europe gets credit for what the export back (even after we modify it). For example, tomatoes are from the new world, but I never hear of tomato based sauces from Italy having an American influence, but anything pasta or pizza based gets an italian label.
Surely that's because pasta and pizza are techniques, tomatoes and potatoes are produce. We don't regularly refer to coffee as Yemeni, or Middle Eastern; but the technique or brewing coffee (or of spicing it) is referred to as Turkish/Arabic.
I don't know the history of who was the first person to make a tomato based sauce, but surely there was more going on in new world cuisine besides eating raw tomatoes, potatoes, and corn. If you ask for the American innovation related to the potato, you will here french fries and potato chips. I can't imagine we also shouldn't get credit for at least the baked potato.
What I find interesting is how much American food is associated with southern food; barbecue, fried chicken, etc. I wonder what counts as Yankee food?
Yankee food? Boiled cabbage, potato, and meat
Where I grew up Mexican was American food and I ate that every day.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2010, 07:13:40 AM
The worst cuisine anywhere is the stuff dished up to tourists, especially in major cities. Iormlund and the Larch are having a good laugh; but I ate some memorably awful food in Madrid back in 1980..........comparable to Athens at it's worst :P
Don't tell me about it, we serve most of our tourists really crappy stuff, and they still think it's great. I guess they're so thoroughfully schlossed out of their minds with cheap beer and sangría that they don't really care (or are able to notice anymore).
I would open this thread near lunchtime. :(
Quote from: Faeelin on April 18, 2010, 08:56:54 AM
What I find interesting is how much American food is associated with southern food; barbecue, fried chicken, etc. I wonder what counts as Yankee food?
Thanks giving fare seems to be based, at least partially, on New England tradition; cranberry sauce, turkey, various pies. New England Seafood, like lobster (Legal Seafood, :mmm: ). New England has a great tradition of Cider that was greatly damaged by the popularity of German-introduced beer. There is a lot of great Mid-Western Fare, but it tends to be of obvious German, Italian or Scandinavian origin. I think the South tends to produce more "original" American cuisine, due to the relative lack of migration compared to the North.
Also, I think it is possible that the presence of a real aristocracy in the South helped develop what is in many ways a superior cuisine. In Missouri and Indiana, German immigrants in the Cattle industry developed the Beef-brain deep-friend sandwich to save money and not waste other parts of the cow, while in the South decedent landowners could afford to be innovative and decadent, resulting in a batter cuisine.
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2010, 07:13:40 AM
The worst cuisine anywhere is the stuff dished up to tourists, especially in major cities. Iormlund and the Larch are having a good laugh; but I ate some memorably awful food in Madrid back in 1980..........comparable to Athens at it's worst :P
Don't tell me about it, we serve most of our tourists really crappy stuff, and they still think it's great. I guess they're so thoroughfully schlossed out of their minds with cheap beer and sangría that they don't really care (or are able to notice anymore).
Don't know about that. I can walk into a random place at La Malvarrosa, which is both touristry and unknown to me, and eat a very good paella. Meanwhile every single place I went to in London was absolute crap.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 07:09:04 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
We are a really diverse place, and I'd say that our Cajun tradition has some of the greatest dishes native to the Americas. :)
That is the whole issue. America is a tremendously diverse country. It would be easier to compare American Cuisine against European Cuisine as a whole. British Cuisine, for example, cannot compare to the variety and diversity of American Cuisine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 06:32:22 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:16:32 AM
Ah, culinary cripple fight.
:lol: Fair. Still it's not as bad as (from my experience) Eastern European food.
That's madness. I had great food in eastern europe.
Californian cuisine :wub:
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2010, 12:58:08 PM
Californian cuisine :wub:
Is that similar to Mediterranean cuisine?
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2010, 12:01:29 PM
That's madness. I had great food in eastern europe.
This is true. Although they could cook a little bit more fish.
Oh, and Spanish cuisine is overrated, at least by their nationals in this forum. :P
Quote from: clandestino on April 18, 2010, 01:29:56 PM
Oh, and Spanish cuisine is overrated, at least by their nationals in this forum. :P
Deep down you want to be one of us. We all know it. :cool:
Quote from: Strix on April 18, 2010, 11:42:16 AMThat is the whole issue. America is a tremendously diverse country. It would be easier to compare American Cuisine against European Cuisine as a whole.
Err, no.
This whole "America is so diverse that it compares to the whole of Europe in cultural/culinary/political diversity" is silly. It both tremendously overstates American regional differences and understates European differences. For that matter, Provençal cuisine in France is different from Lyonnais cuisine, and Scottish cuisine different from Cornish cuisine. The point is that the French in Lyon and in Provence recognize this as strong regional variation, but will know a magret de canard or a cassoulet, or any other staple of the cuisine whether they are in Rouen or Nice. They will likewise not know or recognize the main staples of British or Eastern European cuisine. Likewise, Americans will recognize their own variations, but I doubt any American will feel at loss in front of an "all-american" menu whether it is in Boston or L.A. The staples will be there, and the variation will be within the "known".
I'm not so sure about that. Having traveled throughout most of the US, there have been any number of "American" restaurants in other states - not meant for tourist traps - where I was lost on how the things on the menu could be considered "American". Californian, sure. Southern, absolutely. But "American"? No. Definitely regional.
To me, American foods are the kinds of things that are recognizable to most of the population. Growing up in Iowa, I'd never heard of or had Cajun food of any type, so it's hard for me to call Jumbalya American. It's southern. Avocado salad is Californian, not American. We'd have never had that growing up, and the first time I'd seen it was on the first 90210. I'd had plenty of New England food because my mom is from Connecticut, but a lot of my friends had never heard of Corned Beef sandwiches.
Sure, there are things that are known across the nation, but there are an awful lot of things that are so regional as to be alien to other areas.
I'm not totally convinced that your average inhabitant of Seattle will know the difference between Creole and Cajun Jambalaya, or know much about Tex-Mex other than what is offered at Chili's.
I would say that American cuisine is probably more diverse than that of any single European country, though this has far more to do with environmental factors; no country in Europe has the kind of environmental diversity we have here, and I'm not even totally sure Europe as a continent does (Grenada and Iceland, compare to El Paso and Northern Alaska) thus the ingredients will be different due to environmental reasons, rather than simple local variations between how how much/what kind of seafood is in paella.
Now, China is comparable in environmental terms, and probably has way more diversity, but that is another story.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 11:22:44 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2010, 07:13:40 AM
The worst cuisine anywhere is the stuff dished up to tourists, especially in major cities. Iormlund and the Larch are having a good laugh; but I ate some memorably awful food in Madrid back in 1980..........comparable to Athens at it's worst :P
Don't tell me about it, we serve most of our tourists really crappy stuff, and they still think it's great. I guess they're so thoroughfully schlossed out of their minds with cheap beer and sangría that they don't really care (or are able to notice anymore).
Don't know about that. I can walk into a random place at La Malvarrosa, which is both touristry and unknown to me, and eat a very good paella. Meanwhile every single place I went to in London was absolute crap.
I doubt that any foreign tourist would go there, they wouldn't leave their strongholds of Benidorm or Magalluf for that. :P
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 18, 2010, 01:42:12 PM
Likewise, Americans will recognize their own variations, but I doubt any American will feel at loss in front of an "all-american" menu whether it is in Boston or L.A. The staples will be there, and the variation will be within the "known".
:lol: If you think the "All American menu" is a cuisine, I'd say you missed the point of it entirely. It is the opposite of a cuisine: by definition it is the lowest common denominator menu, the "menu without surprises."
I am not surprised that you missed the whole point of local cuisine in the US; tourists seldom experience it. It is often hard to get locals to cough up the names of the places where they go.
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:05:55 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 11:22:44 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2010, 07:13:40 AM
The worst cuisine anywhere is the stuff dished up to tourists, especially in major cities. Iormlund and the Larch are having a good laugh; but I ate some memorably awful food in Madrid back in 1980..........comparable to Athens at it's worst :P
Don't tell me about it, we serve most of our tourists really crappy stuff, and they still think it's great. I guess they're so thoroughfully schlossed out of their minds with cheap beer and sangría that they don't really care (or are able to notice anymore).
Don't know about that. I can walk into a random place at La Malvarrosa, which is both touristry and unknown to me, and eat a very good paella. Meanwhile every single place I went to in London was absolute crap.
I doubt that any foreign tourist would go there, they wouldn't leave their strongholds of Benidorm or Magalluf for that. :P
Hmm paella.....the one thing I miss from my visit to Barcelona.....
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 01:33:34 PM
Deep down you want to be one of us. We all know it. :cool:
Why not? :cool:
We could be like the Brits in the EU and try to mine it from the inside. :P
Quote from: clandestino on April 18, 2010, 01:29:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2010, 12:01:29 PM
That's madness. I had great food in eastern europe.
This is true. Although they could cook a little bit more fish.
Oh, and Spanish cuisine is overrated, at least by their nationals in this forum. :P
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
On account of size and as Queequeg says the range of environments this covers I'd guess the US could well be more varied than a typical European country (though maybe not the foody ones. In Greece for instance I found huge variation between Corfu and Athens) but its definitely not up there with the entire continent.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2010, 02:16:09 PM
:lol: If you think the "All American menu" is a cuisine, I'd say you missed the point of it entirely. It is the opposite of a cuisine: by definition it is the lowest common denominator menu, the "menu without surprises."
I am not surprised that you missed the whole point of local cuisine in the US; tourists seldom experience it. It is often hard to get locals to cough up the names of the places where they go.
Yes. And so are the staples of every national cuisine: the lowest common denominator and things that have crossed the regional frontiers. Just like the magret de canard or the cassoulet. My point is that these sorts of regional variations exist everywhere.
As for "missing" or not the whole point of local cuisine, I have lived in Chicago for a year and have had enough friends in New Orleans to go beyond touristy stuff. But then, I guess I could also claim that people on the forum have also "missed" the whole point of every other foreign cuisine.
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
Where the portuguese go right is desert. There's a reason it leads the world in diabetes :lol:
Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2010, 02:49:01 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
Where the portuguese go right is desert. There's a reason it leads the world in diabetes :lol:
Where do the eggplants inject the insulin at?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 18, 2010, 02:45:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2010, 02:16:09 PM
:lol: If you think the "All American menu" is a cuisine, I'd say you missed the point of it entirely. It is the opposite of a cuisine: by definition it is the lowest common denominator menu, the "menu without surprises."
I am not surprised that you missed the whole point of local cuisine in the US; tourists seldom experience it. It is often hard to get locals to cough up the names of the places where they go.
Yes. And so are the staples of every national cuisine: the lowest common denominator and things that have crossed the regional frontiers. Just like the magret de canard or the cassoulet. My point is that these sorts of regional variations exist everywhere.
As for "missing" or not the whole point of local cuisine, I have lived in Chicago for a year and have had enough friends in New Orleans to go beyond touristy stuff. But then, I guess I could also claim that people on the forum have also "missed" the whole point of every other foreign cuisine.
Chicago actually is the lowest common denominator of American food. :(
Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2010, 02:49:01 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
Where the portuguese go right is desert. There's a reason it leads the world in diabetes :lol:
Fruits and teas as well, it's great to have colonial empires in exotic places for that. :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 01:54:01 PM
I'm not totally convinced that your average inhabitant of Seattle will know the difference between Creole and Cajun Jambalaya, or know much about Tex-Mex other than what is offered at Chili's.
I would say that American cuisine is probably more diverse than that of any single European country, though this has far more to do with environmental factors; no country in Europe has the kind of environmental diversity we have here, and I'm not even totally sure Europe as a continent does (Grenada and Iceland, compare to El Paso and Northern Alaska) thus the ingredients will be different due to environmental reasons, rather than simple local variations between how how much/what kind of seafood is in paella.
Now, China is comparable in environmental terms, and probably has way more diversity, but that is another story.
There's a wide variety of climates just within Spain. Tropical, oceanic, mediterranean, continental, arid, high altitude ... Climate here is less extreme and varied than in the US, but it is far from being uniform.
Every single region has its own cuisine. From Galicia to Valencia, from the Canaries to the Basque Country. Your paella comment tells a lot. Variety goes much further than whether paella has X or Y kinds of seafood (paella is a Valencian dish, for starters). Spanish cuisine is a compendium of several different styles and ingredients. You guys might have a point when it comes to smaller European states. But definitely not the big ones. Traditions and regional (or national according to some) differences are strong enough to have well over half a dozen languages and dialects still alive. Food is no different.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 02:50:54 PM
Chicago actually is the lowest common denominator of American food. :(
:lol:
I have actually eaten quite well in Chicago, if, indeed, mostly "trans-American food". Apart perhaps from pumpkin pie?
The best regional cuisine I have eaten in the US has to be either the Texan or New Orleans food. In San Antonio, a family of old rancheros had us for dinner (obviously they camouflaged their touristy spot under the guises of their own home). The slow cooked, mesquite smoked beef was amazing. The worst I have eaten is Lancaster County / Amish country in Pennsylvania. Such fresh produce, and so little taste!
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
Aparently there are 365 ways. :contract:
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 01:54:01 PM
I'm not totally convinced that your average inhabitant of Seattle will know the difference between Creole and Cajun Jambalaya, or know much about Tex-Mex other than what is offered at Chili's.
I would say that American cuisine is probably more diverse than that of any single European country, though this has far more to do with environmental factors; no country in Europe has the kind of environmental diversity we have here, and I'm not even totally sure Europe as a continent does (Grenada and Iceland, compare to El Paso and Northern Alaska) thus the ingredients will be different due to environmental reasons, rather than simple local variations between how how much/what kind of seafood is in paella.
Now, China is comparable in environmental terms, and probably has way more diversity, but that is another story.
There's a wide variety of climates just within Spain. Tropical, oceanic, mediterranean, continental, arid, high altitude ... Climate here is less extreme and varied than in the US, but it is far from being uniform.
Every single region has its own cuisine. From Galicia to Valencia, from the Canaries to the Basque Country. Your paella comment tells a lot. Variety goes much further than whether paella has X or Y kinds of seafood (paella is a Valencian dish, for starters). Spanish cuisine is a compendium of several different styles and ingredients. You guys might have a point when it comes to smaller European states. But definitely not the big ones. Traditions and regional (or national according to some) differences are strong enough to have well over half a dozen languages and dialects still alive. Food is no different.
Languish Fact is that regions in America are AT LEAST as different as different countries in Europe. Some Americans say so so it must be true.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 18, 2010, 03:05:56 PMThe worst I have eaten is Lancaster County / Amish country in Pennsylvania. Such fresh produce, and so little taste!
Tasty food is the tool of the devil.
Quote from: clandestino on April 18, 2010, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
Aparently there are 365 ways. :contract:
More power to you, but what about people who don't like cod? :P
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 18, 2010, 03:05:56 PMThe worst I have eaten is Lancaster County / Amish country in Pennsylvania. Such fresh produce, and so little taste!
Tasty food is the tool of the devil.
I sure understood that. Which is why I think Schama (and H. Levenstein, for instance) have a point about meals being (originally at least) as something to get over with rather than to enjoy as a social event.
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 03:11:47 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 18, 2010, 03:05:56 PMThe worst I have eaten is Lancaster County / Amish country in Pennsylvania. Such fresh produce, and so little taste!
Tasty food is the tool of the devil.
They sold their souls out for shoofly pie. Devilishly delicious.
Meh
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: clandestino on April 18, 2010, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
Aparently there are 365 ways. :contract:
More power to you, but what about people who don't like cod? :P
then there's sardines :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2010, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2010, 02:49:01 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
Cooking cod in 50 different ways is not a cuisine either, irmao. :P
Where the portuguese go right is desert. There's a reason it leads the world in diabetes :lol:
Where do the eggplants inject the insulin at?
The skip the insulin and go straight for the heart disease and early death :contract:
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2010, 02:41:13 PM
On account of size and as Queequeg says the range of environments this covers I'd guess the US could well be more varied than a typical European country (though maybe not the foody ones. In Greece for instance I found huge variation between Corfu and Athens) but its definitely not up there with the entire continent.
I think American food is homogenized to a far greater degree than European food, if that is what you mean. There are definitely American localized/regionalized foods, but nothing in the mainstream anything like the difference between Greek and Italian food within such a short distance. Americans have been too mobile and too entrepreneurial too long for that to be true.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 18, 2010, 02:45:59 PM
Yes. And so are the staples of every national cuisine: the lowest common denominator and things that have crossed the regional frontiers. Just like the magret de canard or the cassoulet. My point is that these sorts of regional variations exist everywhere.
Of course they do. Is someone arguing that food does
not vary by region?
QuoteAs for "missing" or not the whole point of local cuisine, I have lived in Chicago for a year and have had enough friends in New Orleans to go beyond touristy stuff. But then, I guess I could also claim that people on the forum have also "missed" the whole point of every other foreign cuisine.
I think you should make that claim about people who seem to have missed the whole point of other cuisines (I am not sure what a "foreign cuisine" even is; is it a cuisine that is different from the one one grew up with, like Cajun would have been to your Chicago-born friends in Chicago?). Even the "All-American style" menu will be different in different parts of the US. Grits are "All-American" in the South, but unheard of in the Northwest.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 02:57:40 PM
Traditions and regional (or national according to some) differences are strong enough to have well over half a dozen languages and dialects still alive. Food is no different.
I think food and language are a great analogy; enough so that I would bet the strongest local food traditions are in the areas with the strongest local language traditions.
In the culinary world, Americans only receive credit for foods they have innovated from " farm to fork" as they say. As such, taking a European dish is not fairly American cuisine anymore than putting Mayo on potato chips would be fairly called a European invention.
IF Chinese started to put soy sauce on a hot dog, would you call it authentic Chinese? I didn't think so.
"Americas" doesn't count either.
Canada has no unique cuisine to think of, and that leaves only America and Latin America. Although tacos, burritos, and such are common food in the US now, it would be unfair to think of them as American cuisines.
In truth the only true legacy of America is barbecue. Even fried chicken has some serious European roots that cannot be discredited.
BBQ is more heavily assosiated with Australia than the US though.
And of course its done by pretty much everyone to a greater or lesser extent.
Canadian food...hmm....Seal? :P
But myeh. Culinary nationalism is silly. Most dishes have routes in multiple countries.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2010, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2010, 02:41:13 PM
On account of size and as Queequeg says the range of environments this covers I'd guess the US could well be more varied than a typical European country (though maybe not the foody ones. In Greece for instance I found huge variation between Corfu and Athens) but its definitely not up there with the entire continent.
I think American food is homogenized to a far greater degree than European food, if that is what you mean. There are definitely American localized/regionalized foods, but nothing in the mainstream anything like the difference between Greek and Italian food within such a short distance. Americans have been too mobile and too entrepreneurial too long for that to be true.
Sort of true in Britain too.
There are without a doubt regional dishes but most of them have long since spilled over.
There are still some like haggis and eel pie you only find in their birth areas but stuff like yorkshire pudding and pasties are countrywide these days.
Where on Earth did you get this silly notion BBQ is more associated with Australia than the US? It has its roots in the Americas and has been an integral part of our culture for as long as those stars and stripes have flown over our cities.
Australia may have copied us with great success in the Commonwealth, but that does not change that the science of BBQ is very much an American innovation.
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2010, 03:50:29 PM
Canadian food...hmm....Seal? :P
Poutine and maple syrup (although not together :P )
Plus, I've never noticed the bbq on the menu at Outback. Course, I always get the steak anyway, so don't look very hard. :hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2010, 03:50:29 PM
BBQ is more heavily assosiated with Australia than the US though.
Really? I am astonished. Is the area where you find this to be true (I assume your own home area) closely associated with Oz, somehow? That's the only explanation for such an unusual concept that I can think of. Barbecue has been a style of cooking in the Americas (and known by that name) since long before Australia was even discovered.
I think Tyr is referring to grilled meats as barbecue, rather than what we think of as barbecue.
Quote from: Jaron on April 18, 2010, 04:01:02 PM
Australia may have copied us with great success in the Commonwealth, but that does not change that the science of BBQ is very much an American innovation.
America as in Caribbean, yes. Texas style smoking is a slightly different process than the original barbecue over coals.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 04:12:47 PM
I think Tyr is referring to grilled meats as barbecue, rather than what we think of as barbecue.
You can barbecue on a grill, but most often you grill on a grill. Agree that what Outhouse Steakback serves as "barbecue" is just grilled.
pfft the best of spanish cusine is Basque in origin :P
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 02:50:54 PM
Chicago actually is the lowest common denominator of American food. :(
<_<
Traitor. Aren't you a Chicagoan yourself?
Quote
There's a wide variety of climates just within Spain. Tropical, oceanic, mediterranean, continental, arid, high altitude ... Climate here is less extreme and varied than in the US, but it is far from being uniform.
Spain is very diverse for its size. On par with California. However, worth noting that it is on par with California, rather than with the entire US. Last time I checked, Santiago de Compostella wasn't covered in snow half the year. St. Paul and Alaska are.
Quote
Your paella comment tells a lot.
That's cause I was trolling. :lol:
Yes, it is a diverse place. Cuisine-wise, probably more diverse than huge chunks of the USA. More than the whole thing? Not sure about that.
Quote
"trans-American food"
America is the heartland, and therefore what you mean by trans-American is really Mid-Western.
Quote from: katmai on April 18, 2010, 04:19:45 PM
pfft the best of spanish cusine is Basque in origin :P
In other words, Spanish.
QuoteThe worst I have eaten is Lancaster County / Amish country in Pennsylvania. Such fresh produce, and so little taste!
I'd compare this to some British cuisine; functional, austere, not without its charm for Americans due to history/cultural connection, but I could understand why it might not have that for everyone else.
That said, I think 'traditional' American fare like sweet potatoes, American cider, rabbit, Clam Chowder, etc. are generally underrated. A lot of the best meals I've ever had have been in Virginia, often on what I would describe as fairly conservative American fare, likely quite similar to the cuisine of the Revolutionary period.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2010, 04:06:24 PM
Plus, I've never noticed the bbq on the menu at Outback. Course, I always get the steak anyway, so don't look very hard. :hmm:
Outback is American with Australian decorations
Oex, what is Quebec's cuisine like?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 18, 2010, 04:32:17 PM
Outback is American with Australian decorations
Kinda like pizza, tacos, sweet & sour chicken, etc.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2010, 04:38:53 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 18, 2010, 04:32:17 PM
Outback is American with Australian decorations
Kinda like pizza, tacos, sweet & sour chicken, etc.
What is like that at Outback? It's all standard steaks and burgers that you could find at any restaurant but with boomerangs on the wall. Even the bloomin onion is American and does not exist in Australia
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 04:23:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 02:50:54 PM
Chicago actually is the lowest common denominator of American food. :(
<_<
Traitor. Aren't you a Chicagoan yourself?
Sort of.
What is Chicago known for? Deep dish pizza, chicago dogs, and sausages. Deep dish pizza was probably developed by taking the ordinary pizza concept and making it as unhealthy as possible. Have they done a calorie count on those things? You know they are a disaster. Chicago has a great take on hot dogs and sausages, but then they are still hot dogs and sausages and Chicago was source for The Jungle.
As for the city, Chicago boomed by packing food to send back east--mass market food, not gourmet fare. And Chicago is the capital city of the midwest, which is the land of genetically modified corn designed to produce massive crops but is barely edible (that's okay because the corn is chemically treated to reduce it to basic sugar for consumption, or fed to animals on factory farms--where it would kill them, but the animals are slaughtered before the corn gets them).
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2010, 04:11:05 PM
Really? I am astonished. Is the area where you find this to be true (I assume your own home area) closely associated with Oz, somehow? That's the only explanation for such an unusual concept that I can think of. Barbecue has been a style of cooking in the Americas (and known by that name) since long before Australia was even discovered.
I think he's right for the UK in general. 'Throw another shrimp on the barbie...' and so on.
Can the British top Buffalo Wings? :showoff:
Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2010, 04:52:56 PM
Sort of.
What is Chicago known for? Deep dish pizza, chicago dogs, and sausages.
I would argue that Chicago is known for offering a wide diversity of foods from around the world. The little neighborhoods offer amazing food as they've come from their homelands, since the restaurants are geared for the immigrants. If one avoids the kitschy tourist restaurants or the mass-market restaurants, one can find a vast array of amazing international cuisine made by immigrants for immigrants.
All of this being said, I think that with the superfluous amounts of mass-market restaurants around the world, there is quickly coming a homogeneous style of preparing food no matter where you are. Sure, McDonald's in Hong Kong is different from the MickyDs in Chicago in many ways, but the essence is still pretty much the same. If I really wanted to, I could travel the world over twice and never stray from that which I've known my entire life.
And so far as I'm concerned, having the top cuisine from any country will probably be magnificent. It's the day-to-day fare that is what is questioned, I think, and that will be what people are most likely to defend. Who wants to be told that they have no taste?
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2010, 04:13:11 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 18, 2010, 04:01:02 PM
Australia may have copied us with great success in the Commonwealth, but that does not change that the science of BBQ is very much an American innovation.
America as in Caribbean, yes. Texas style smoking is a slightly different process than the original barbecue over coals.
That is what I said, yes. Texans also can't do a damn thing right.
Chicago invented saganaki, the finest thing ever made out of cheese.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 04:35:24 PM
Oex, what is Quebec's cuisine like?
Just like in the US, the traditional fares have been sorely mistreated by the advent of agroindustrial business and fast food. Much of what is considered traditional is of mixed British (perhaps even Scottish) and French origin: meat pies and patés (tourtières), pot-au-feu and stews (ragoûts), baked beans and ham. Fish and seafood used to be important (my granfather used to eat eels, which was traditional fare of his region) but was strongly pushed out of Montreal and inland cuisine. Very few Native influences made it to the Quebec table (apart from the produce themselves)
Quebec cuisine uses molasses (which the French never use), corn (which the French rarely use) and seldom rabbit (while it is a staple of Cajun cuisine), but a lot of pork. Desserts are based on apples, small berries and maple syrup. Cheese used to be mosty variation on the Cheddar, but now there are over 200+ varieties. There are now revivals of older traditions in some restaurants (but most restaurants are of "ethnic labels").
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2010, 05:43:42 PM
And so far as I'm concerned, having the top cuisine from any country will probably be magnificent. It's the day-to-day fare that is what is questioned, I think, and that will be what people are most likely to defend. Who wants to be told that they have no taste?
Indeed. This is perhaps where the bad reputation of British and American cuisine steer from, as being among those that use the most of already industrially transformed food: ready-made sauces, vinaigrettes, preserves, frozen meals, artificial flavoring. These usually require the food to be toned down in order to appeal to the largest demographics. The adaptation of immigrant food in the US has usually ended up in diluting the stronger tastes (not necessarily the "spicy" strength - the story of Heinz is really telling in that regard), adding lots of sugar and selecting produce more resistant to flash freezing (and therefore usually more bland and fibrous). Things might be changing, with a small backlash in the US, the extension of agrobusiness around the world, and the breakdown of culinary know-how in other countries.
Quote from: katmai on April 18, 2010, 04:19:45 PM
pfft the best of spanish cusine is Basque in origin :P
Not going to argue with that since it happens to be my favourite. My father once took me to a
caserío in Guipozcua close to the border. The owners were friends of my uncle and they wouldn't let us go until we had every single dish available. :licklips:
I think my dad got half his belly that day. :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 18, 2010, 04:23:39 PMSpain is very diverse for its size. On par with California. However, worth noting that it is on par with California, rather than with the entire US. Last time I checked, Santiago de Compostella wasn't covered in snow half the year. St. Paul and Alaska are.
Yeah, as I said, we don't get your extremes (except heat).
Quote
Yes, it is a diverse place. Cuisine-wise, probably more diverse than huge chunks of the USA. More than the whole thing? Not sure about that.
Well I didn't meant to imply that. Just to point out that the view you can get from the outside is quite flat and distorted. Many foreigners only see
sevillanas, flamenco, paella and
sangría. Those are actually fairly localized phenomena (from southern coastal areas). Personally I prefer the north, due to lower tourist density, milder climate and mountains. Food is excellent no matter where you go - though Larchie has a point and you should eat where the locals do.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2010, 05:43:42 PM
I would argue that Chicago is known for offering a wide diversity of foods from around the world. The little neighborhoods offer amazing food as they've come from their homelands, since the restaurants are geared for the immigrants. If one avoids the kitschy tourist restaurants or the mass-market restaurants, one can find a vast array of amazing international cuisine made by immigrants for immigrants.
All of this being said, I think that with the superfluous amounts of mass-market restaurants around the world, there is quickly coming a homogeneous style of preparing food no matter where you are. Sure, McDonald's in Hong Kong is different from the MickyDs in Chicago in many ways, but the essence is still pretty much the same. If I really wanted to, I could travel the world over twice and never stray from that which I've known my entire life.
And so far as I'm concerned, having the top cuisine from any country will probably be magnificent. It's the day-to-day fare that is what is questioned, I think, and that will be what people are most likely to defend. Who wants to be told that they have no taste?
Meri, I didn't get across what I was trying to say well. Chicago has fantastic places to eat, and fantastic food, but I don't think there have been many foods born in Chicago that I'd be proud of as far as cuisine goes. Chicago is still one of the best places to eat in the world.
When I eat locally I eat thai, sushi, chinese, italian, middle eastern, and mexican regularly. Those options are out there even in small towns now. In 50 years local tastes may be homogenized away.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 01:14:21 PM
Is that similar to Mediterranean cuisine?
Umm...no. :huh:
I'm hungry now.
How different is Chinese cuisine from Hong Kong to Urumqi?
Hong Kong- cats and dogs
Urumqi- horse
:D
Don't they mix yak blood and butter in with their tea in that part of China as well? :x
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2010, 06:12:29 PM
Well I didn't meant to imply that. Just to point out that the view you can get from the outside is quite flat and distorted. Many foreigners only see sevillanas, flamenco, paella and sangría. Those are actually fairly localized phenomena (from southern coastal areas). Personally I prefer the north, due to lower tourist density, milder climate and mountains. Food is excellent no matter where you go - though Larchie has a point and you should eat where the locals do.
I dunno. From my experience, food in the Basque country and Cantabria is superb the best I've had anywhere. Catalan food is very good too. Andalucian cuisine is much more hit and miss.
Chicago is one of the best places to eat in the world. Anyway, I don't think I can come up with anything that is so pervasive in the whole country that I can put my finger on it as "American" food. Even hamburgers are more a world-food than an American one. Invented by Germans and popularized by immigrants, IIRC. Hot dogs too. The only thing that came from the US are the names.
All our food is either regional or foreign. There is no US-cuisine.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2010, 05:43:42 PM
I would argue that Chicago is known for offering a wide diversity of foods from around the world. The little neighborhoods offer amazing food as they've come from their homelands, since the restaurants are geared for the immigrants. If one avoids the kitschy tourist restaurants or the mass-market restaurants, one can find a vast array of amazing international cuisine made by immigrants for immigrants.
I'm not sure that is really a unique feature of Chicago...
Yeah. It's certainly true in Boston as well. You all will laugh, but it's even true to a certain extent here. We have a large Cuban exile community, which means we have a number of outstanding Cuban restaurants. We also have a relatively large Indian community, so the Indian food scene is great as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 04:55:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2010, 04:11:05 PM
Really? I am astonished. Is the area where you find this to be true (I assume your own home area) closely associated with Oz, somehow? That's the only explanation for such an unusual concept that I can think of. Barbecue has been a style of cooking in the Americas (and known by that name) since long before Australia was even discovered.
I think he's right for the UK in general. 'Throw another shrimp on the barbie...' and so on.
Yeah, BBQs big rise back in the 80s/early 90s was as part of the Austraphilia going around at the time.
I think its more than just Britain too, many foreigners too seem to assosiate Australia with bbq.
And..I doubt Australia copied the US. BBQ is a fairly logical, basic way of cooking. When you're in a country with nice hot weather and plenty of meat...then its a given you'll want to BBQ and it'll become part of your culture.
Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:09:15 AM
Yeah, BBQs big rise back in the 80s/early 90s was as part of the Austraphilia going around at the time.
I think its more than just Britain too, many foreigners too seem to assosiate Australia with bbq.
And..I doubt Australia copied the US. BBQ is a fairly logical, basic way of cooking. When you're in a country with nice hot weather and plenty of meat...then its a given you'll want to BBQ and it'll become part of your culture.
Given that Australian "barbecue" is nothing of the sort (just what Americans generally call "grilling"), you are almost certainly correct that the Australians simply took the name and applied it to a very un-original way of cooking. In a way, that's a pity, because actual barbecue is wonderful stuff (though it takes forever to make), while grilling is very ordinary. Anyone thinking they are eating barbecue because the Australians convinced them that grilling is barbecue is losing out on the real thing.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2010, 11:07:58 PM
I'm not sure that is really a unique feature of Chicago...
I don't consider it unique. It's just what Chicago is most known for on the food front. At the same time, I think I remember a food critic article that claimed that only New York City has as many different cuisine styles as Chicago.
Quote from: merithyn on April 20, 2010, 06:21:12 AM
I don't consider it unique. It's just what Chicago is most known for on the food front. At the same time, I think I remember a food critic article that claimed that only New York City has as many different cuisine styles as Chicago.
:huh: Los Angeles?
I know you didn't say it--some food critic did--but it seems like it would go NYC-LA-Chicago to me.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 06:15:08 AM
Given that Australian "barbecue" is nothing of the sort (just what Americans generally call "grilling"), you are almost certainly correct that the Australians simply took the name and applied it to a very un-original way of cooking. In a way, that's a pity, because actual barbecue is wonderful stuff (though it takes forever to make), while grilling is very ordinary. Anyone thinking they are eating barbecue because the Australians convinced them that grilling is barbecue is losing out on the real thing.
hmm, my Finnish flatmate always refers to BBQing as grilling.I thought this was just him getting confused and not a actual British/American English difference.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 06:15:08 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:09:15 AM
Yeah, BBQs big rise back in the 80s/early 90s was as part of the Austraphilia going around at the time.
I think its more than just Britain too, many foreigners too seem to assosiate Australia with bbq.
And..I doubt Australia copied the US. BBQ is a fairly logical, basic way of cooking. When you're in a country with nice hot weather and plenty of meat...then its a given you'll want to BBQ and it'll become part of your culture.
Given that Australian "barbecue" is nothing of the sort (just what Americans generally call "grilling"), you are almost certainly correct that the Australians simply took the name and applied it to a very un-original way of cooking. In a way, that's a pity, because actual barbecue is wonderful stuff (though it takes forever to make), while grilling is very ordinary. Anyone thinking they are eating barbecue because the Australians convinced them that grilling is barbecue is losing out on the real thing.
In Canada at least, the term "barbeque" simply refers to cooking meat (and other things) over high direct heat - that is, what in the US would be called "grilling". What you refer to as "barbeque" - slow cooking over indirect heat and smoke - is a lot less common; here at least it is strongly associated with "southern US" style regional cooking, and is thought of as sora exotic, though I note that specialty stores are now selling smoking rigs.
Pretty well every backyard has a gas or charcoal "barbecue", but the meaning is the same as in Australia - most people simply grill their food directly over the heat.
This thread reminds me to get the big green egg out this weekend and fix up some brisket.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 20, 2010, 10:08:44 AM
This thread reminds me to get the big green egg out this weekend and fix up some brisket.
:mmm:
I have a smoker that cost me around $200. I looked up how much one of those egg things cost once. :blink:
Aye, I grew up cooking wood over a charcoal or propane, and we called it barbeque, and I'm not about to change just to please some southern US purists.
That being said I've been playing around with southern-style smoking, and it can produce some tasy results...
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 11:06:20 AM
Aye, I grew up cooking wood over a charcoal or propane, and we called it barbeque, and I'm not about to change just to please some southern US purists.
No reason to call grilling "grilling" rather than "barbecuing" so long as you don't pass up on real barbecue because you think it is merely grilled. It is like the "champagne" issue; those who drink California sparkling wine and call it "Champagne" are not wrong, but they should also not confuse what they are drinking with the product of the Champagne region.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 11:22:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 11:06:20 AM
Aye, I grew up cooking wood over a charcoal or propane, and we called it barbeque, and I'm not about to change just to please some southern US purists.
No reason to call grilling "grilling" rather than "barbecuing" so long as you don't pass up on real barbecue because you think it is merely grilled. It is like the "champagne" issue; those who drink California sparkling wine and call it "Champagne" are not wrong, but they should also not confuse what they are drinking with the product of the Champagne region.
My troll has failed. :cry:
I completely agree with what you said.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 11:22:11 AM
No reason to call grilling "grilling" rather than "barbecuing" so long as you don't pass up on real barbecue because you think it is merely grilled. It is like the "champagne" issue; those who drink California sparkling wine and call it "Champagne" are not wrong, but they should also not confuse what they are drinking with the product of the Champagne region.
It was a long time before I tried southern-style barbeque, partly for this very reason - because I did not know the difference in preparation. It is indeed very different, and very tasty. I'd try it myself, only it appears to be a lot of work.
The problem I have with making barbecue myself is that the closest restaurant to my house (only about a half mile away) is a BBQ pit with some of the best brisket and ribs I've ever had... and cheap to boot. So, why bother?
I still want to try a brisket in my smoker, but I doubt I'll top the other place.
I posted pics of that restaurant in another recent thread. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 10:37:56 AM
I have a smoker that cost me around $200. I looked up how much one of those egg things cost once. :blink:
How much was it? The website I looked at was playing coy with their pricing. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2010, 01:14:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 10:37:56 AM
I have a smoker that cost me around $200. I looked up how much one of those egg things cost once. :blink:
How much was it? The website I looked at was playing coy with their pricing. :rolleyes:
I paid 700 or so, IIRC.
Yeah, the standard sized model is like $700. They have a smaller model, but it's still outrageously expensive for its size. There's also a giant model that costs like $1,300.
How does your $200 smoker work Cal?
I tried 'smoking' something over indirect heat on my propane grill, but while it cooked, it really didn't taste smoked.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 11:22:11 AM
It is like the "champagne" issue; those who drink California sparkling wine and call it "Champagne" are not wrong, but they should also not confuse what they are drinking with the product of the Champagne region.
Supporting France? Supporting California? Which will I choose? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 01:34:48 PM
How does your $200 smoker work Cal?
I tried 'smoking' something over indirect heat on my propane grill, but while it cooked, it really didn't taste smoked.
You need to be burning wood to get the smoked flavor brah.
I've done burgers, chicken, brats, and ribs with the smoker. They all came out nice and smoky... too smoky in the case of the ribs, given that I used juniper wood to smoke them (by mistake), which made them taste like gasoline. :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 11:30:35 AM
My troll has failed. :cry:
I am not that concerned with popular names for things (though I don't mind the Languish meme which has me fighting over them). Technical or legal definitions are different, of course.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 01:34:48 PM
How does your $200 smoker work Cal?
I tried 'smoking' something over indirect heat on my propane grill, but while it cooked, it really didn't taste smoked.
There are planks you can cook on that apparently work pretty well.
...or, there's that. Never tried the plank thing myself.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 01:34:48 PM
How does your $200 smoker work Cal?
I tried 'smoking' something over indirect heat on my propane grill, but while it cooked, it really didn't taste smoked.
You need to be burning wood to get the smoked flavor brah.
I've done burgers, chicken, brats, and ribs with the smoker. They all came out nice and smoky... too smoky in the case of the ribs, given that I used juniper wood to smoke them (by mistake), which made them taste like gasoline. :(
I was using wood chips. :rolleyes:
I read somewhere that water vapour from the combustion of propane interferes with absorbing the smoke. But what do I know.
Yeah, I wouldn't have thought juniper smoke wood taste very good...
Been my friend uses a propane smoker just fine. Smoked halibut and smoked pork chops are what he makes most often.
Quote from: katmai on April 20, 2010, 03:36:03 PM
Been my friend uses a propane smoker just fine. Smoked halibut and smoked pork chops are what he makes most often.
But he has a specific propane smoker?
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 01:34:48 PM
How does your $200 smoker work Cal?
I tried 'smoking' something over indirect heat on my propane grill, but while it cooked, it really didn't taste smoked.
You need to be burning wood to get the smoked flavor brah.
I've done burgers, chicken, brats, and ribs with the smoker. They all came out nice and smoky... too smoky in the case of the ribs, given that I used juniper wood to smoke them (by mistake), which made them taste like gasoline. :(
Most conifers have nasty resin in 'em - cooking over them is not recommended, as they gum up your pots (and your food, if you grill directly over them).
If you can, use hardwoods.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 03:40:05 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 20, 2010, 03:36:03 PM
Been my friend uses a propane smoker just fine. Smoked halibut and smoked pork chops are what he makes most often.
But he has a specific propane smoker?
Aye he does.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2010, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 11:22:11 AM
It is like the "champagne" issue; those who drink California sparkling wine and call it "Champagne" are not wrong, but they should also not confuse what they are drinking with the product of the Champagne region.
Supporting France? Supporting California? Which will I choose? :hmm:
A significant portion of California sparkling wine production is controlled and distributed by the big Champagne marques: Moet (Chandon), Roederer (Roederer Estate), Mumm (Mumm Napa), Taittinger (Carneros).
So either way you will be supporting both.
I don't drink any of those kinds. ^_^
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2010, 04:24:40 PM
Most conifers have nasty resin in 'em - cooking over them is not recommended, as they gum up your pots (and your food, if you grill directly over them).
If you can, use hardwoods.
Yeah, I know, like I said it was accidental. I had a pile of hickory wood Princesca's uncle gave me from when they cleared the woods to build their cabin. But for some reason my brain mixed that pile up with the pile of mostly juniper wood which came from trees on
my property.
Now I use hickory chunks I bought at Lowe's, just to be sure, even though I could easily get more cheap hickory around here.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 07:05:20 AM
:huh: Los Angeles?
I know you didn't say it--some food critic did--but it seems like it would go NYC-LA-Chicago to me.
Having never been to LA, I don't have an answer for you. However, I've never heard of LA as being a hot-bed of international cuisine outside of Asian- and Mexican-style foods. Maybe that's my ignorant Iowan roots showing, I don't know.
I'm just guessing here too, Meri (having never been to LA myself).
Taco trucks.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 05:14:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2010, 04:24:40 PM
Most conifers have nasty resin in 'em - cooking over them is not recommended, as they gum up your pots (and your food, if you grill directly over them).
If you can, use hardwoods.
Yeah, I know, like I said it was accidental. I had a pile of hickory wood Princesca's uncle gave me from when they cleared the woods to build their cabin. But for some reason my brain mixed that pile up with the pile of mostly juniper wood which came from trees on my property.
Now I use hickory chunks I bought at Lowe's, just to be sure, even though I could easily get more cheap hickory around here.
I was going to ask if when you said "by mistake" you meant that you thought it was some other kind of wood, or if you meant that you though juniper would be good to smoke food over. The former I can see happening, but the latter is in "WTF were you thinking" territory.
Yes, I know that conifers are generally bad for smoking. I usually use applewood, hickory, and mesquite (though Princesca dislikes mesquite, so the latter is very rare now).
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 12:01:40 PM
The problem I have with making barbecue myself is that the closest restaurant to my house (only about a half mile away) is a BBQ pit with some of the best brisket and ribs I've ever had... and cheap to boot. So, why bother?
I still want to try a brisket in my smoker, but I doubt I'll top the other place.
I posted pics of that restaurant in another recent thread. :cool:
Which thread?
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 07:10:54 PM
Yes, I know that conifers are generally bad for smoking. I usually use applewood, hickory, and mesquite (though Princesca dislikes mesquite, so the latter is very rare now).
maple can be quite good as well.