Carrot Top

There are lots of folks who feed the younger children early, and eat while the child plays after dinner. Its more a convenience than snob thing. ← I only want to point out that the emphasis I tried to make was that the article was from an English periodical. There are aspects of English culture that escape most of us...one of them being that the "posh" people do not eat with their children. Children are served separately and, if they're posh enough, in a separate room! I've run into the English class system in another of my hobbies and it's not always rational. ← One of the things that parents *are* actually advised to do by "parenting experts" in the US is to have younger children eat separately, for the purposes of maintaining "intimacy" in the marriage. (I don't invent the news, I just report it, ma'am. ) P.S. *Whatever* can maintain intimacy in marriage, I'm all for it. Intimacy is a good thing.

Could be these women might need coachamatic.

Jelly Beans and Ketchup. God forbid. I can not even *believe* I have to put these two things in the same sentence, Daniel. It makes my head, heart, and stomach hurt, all at the same time. But excuse me for a moment, I have to go make the kids' lunches for school. Somehow, I forgot to say "just say no" somewhere along the line.

Speaking of bad... Wasn't it the Reagan administration that classified KETCHUP as a vegetable?? ← Great catch-phrase. . .that dinner table thing. . .wonderful to roll around on the tongue and there is such a sense of Family Values that sort of land on one while doing so! Ahhhh. . .wonderful feeling. But to me, it doesnt seem to hold up to close examination. Maybe if they'd added a word or two here or there. . .sort of to prove it. But then again, too much ketchup could have left their brains fried. One never knows.

Wow, this *is* one of those "blast from the past" threads. I'm glad to read of your successes, Andrea. Congrats, and wishes for more to come!

It comes to mind to wonder if Molly O'Neill's theory on Food Porn might have anything to say in ways about "foodie kids/fibbing moms". . .

I wanted to, Barbara. Really I did. But then I was becoming so impassioned while thinking of it that I didn't want to sully it by talking about it.

Here's a bit more from Rachel Lauden's "Culinary Modernism": and

Nah, I won't start in on the moong beans, Milagai. As long as you promise not to start in on the canned spaghetti. I don't know what "health food types" eat. All I know is that many of the health food stores that I've entered in my lifetime have seemed to have hired people that looked like they were not particularly healthy nor happy as compared to the other places I've shopped for food, usually the ubiquitous supermarket. What can I say? This does not encroach on any particular cultural legacy, as far as I can see. Maybe it's just a style thing, a style thing that is not to *my* particular taste. But that doesn't mean I'm going to say "my way is better than theirs". I do know many people who dislike even the idea of "health food" though, because of this apparent style thing.

Could be so. Yet another thing to worry about.

Perhaps. And I've seen grocery stores in both poorer rural and urban neighborhoods that did not have the buying options in terms of many items that its average middle-class equal would have. But as far as developing bad health from food, *if* what you are alluding to is obesity, I'll have to say that I've seen as many gourmands walking round the streets with what used to be called avoir-dupois as I've seen poor people of the same shapes who are assumed to be without the means or access to "finer food". And as far as the "health food" types, they often may be thinner, but often also appear depressed or otherwise weedy to me. Most of the people I've happened to see in my own sphere of life who do maintain their shape and their health seem to do so by some form of physical fitness regimen.

It's possible that I've done a very poor job of expressing myself, Daniel, but if you read what I've posted so far, my sympathies indeed have been with the poor as well as with several other groups. But the poor of yesteryear that created some of those great dishes you hint at are not the poor of today, in ways. Those dishes were created for the most part in agricultural economies that produced certain items that certain groups within the economy then had access to. Neccesity being the mother of invention, and human beings being a peculiarly inventive breed, and one of those groups being the woman in the kitchen with what was sitting before her that needed to be made into a meal, some absolute marvels were wrought. I'm not sure that I read in the original article that children were eating canned spaghetti and crap *alone*, but it may be there by inference. What bothers you most about that scenario - the fact of the "canned spaghetti and crap" that is being eaten by kids or the fact that kids are eating alone, or that the parents are eating something else. . .(?) I'm curious to find what seems the worst to you in this picture. . .

I don't quite "get it" either, Milagai. *But* there are many people to whom food is not something of major importance in their lives - among the working poor, it may be that the time it takes them just to keep body and soul together, and perhaps trying to get an education in order to move forward, sucks up any energy there may be to find out more about different ways with food. Among the middle-class here (this middle class that is enormous in size), there's something going on with status and foodie-ism that has to do with "lifestyle aspirations" sometimes rather than other things that might have to do with the actual food itself. Does that translate into good things or bad things in the long run? Both, it seems to me. I actually have to go do some other things but later I'll post some more from Rachel's article on Culinary Modernism. Interesting stuff to muse upon.

Sometimes when discussing issues like these, the lines can get blurred as to exactly what is being talked about. We've been talking about "taste" issues - comparative tastes. We've been talking about quality issues, both of the foods we eat and perhaps of the lives we live as they happen to intersect with what we eat and how we go about it. (Please note: The word 'eat' is being used here rather than 'dine' because it is rather the diminutive or basic form. It is eating food that is one of our basic needs for life, and though 'dining' is certainly a pleasant addition to life in very many ways, we likely would not die if we did not dine. Again, we're talking about "taste" issues but in a slightly more rarified sense than if we were just talking about the food itself ). We've even been talking about culture issues and maybe even class issues. (Honestly, I am beginning to detest the word "issues", but nevermind. ) From my own viewpoint, the taste issues are not paramount. To each their own is my motto. Personally I do not prefer fast food, boxed food, canned food, and most particularly not frozen food. But still, I feel there is an ample place for these things in the world. I don't prefer a cheeseburger or a pizza to a green or a mung bean, but that is just me. It seems that it would behoove me to keep my thoughts on this *mostly* to myself on a day to day basis, and not to become one of Busboy's aptly-named (to my mind) "nutritionistas". Ten points for word coinage, Busboy, and maybe even a free pizza at the restaurant of your choice. (What did you say? You want it from the best, the *most expensive pizza place* in DC?! Oh. Oh well, okay.) Moderation in all things, yeah. That old saw. Zealotry scares me, and I have no interest in bringing religion to the natives. Perhaps I am foodily agnostic. ........................................................................... I do also think that in discussing cross-cultural foods and foodways, it is always a good idea to *attempt* to not be ethnocentric, no matter what culture one originally hails from, or what current foodways we are accustomed to. ............................................................................ The article proposes the idea that fish fingers, chips, chicken nuggets, burgers, pizza (all made and served in ways that would be generally considered more healthy than not)- can all be good things to serve to children, for a variety of reasons - one of the reasons being that we live in That's the chicken nugget of contention that sticks in my own gullet. ..................................................................................... I recently read an essay by Rachel Laudan that seems to strike some of the same notes as this article, but of course in a different tonality, as Rachel is a historian and not only forms the words on the page differently, but has the scholar's bibliography at the end of the article for those who wish to see "where all these ideas came from, anyway". The essay is titled "A Plea for Culinary Modernism (Why We Should Love New, Fast, Processed Food)" and was published in Gastronomica (February 2001 issue). With Rachel's permission, I'm going to quote from her article: She goes on to take the reader through a history of food (as much as can be provided in an article rather than a book anyway) and how food has been produced and eaten through time (or not eaten, as in the case of people going hungry from lack of food). Another quote that struck me: What may be rare pleasure to one who has the leisure to cook fine fresh things, the pocketbook to do it with, and the desire to do so may be otherwise for those who do not have these boons. It's for those women (and/or men) that my heart aches for, within this culture of "it *should* be done *this way*" that we live in. Often no time, no pocketbook, and no heart for doing this have they. So I say, "Yaaaay!" to the idea of fish fingers, canned spaghetti, pizza from take-out and anything else, and I'll even think of these things as dressed in silk or satin. For to those who might need or want to eat them or even to dine upon them, they are not only friends, but well-dressed and pleasant ones.

"Food culture" can mean many different things, depending on what your focal point is. You can define "food culture" through the lenses of sociology, psychology, specific culture(s), history. . . it can be defined by connecting it to the new phrase "aspirational lifestyle" or even through myth, spirituality, or various religions. From Green Jello and other Sacred Delicacies It all depends on what you are trying to say, yourself, within the essay. To me, an essay is not about getting it "right". It's about the opportunity to explore the wide-ranging, vast land of ideas and personal feelings. It's an adventure, of the best sort. I hope that, when you do decide what your definition is, that you will share it here. . .rather as if it were a dish added to a banquet. P.S. Here is a link to how Wikipedia defines "culture". Just add "food", mix, and bake. P.P.S. Thinking about essays reminded me of something once read about how an elementary-school child described to his mother how he was taught to write one: "You tell them what you are going to say, then you say it, then you tell them what it is you said. " I love that.

On the eastern seaboard of the US, generally a hock is a smaller portion of a ham shank. Both are usually smoked and/or cured. Hocks are usually used in soups/stews/bean dishes, for flavor. Shanks are *usually* larger, with a lot more meat on them. But sometimes you will find a hock that is called a shank. You know how that is. Trotters are indeed feet, and are very good. Usually they are not cured or smoked. Sometimes they are cut in half, sometimes they are pickled in a jar. P.S. Unless it is a very large shank, which can be closer to a roast than a hock, a shank and a hock can be used interchangeably. If the shank is one of those huge "roast" portions, it might need to be trimmed down before using, or else get a very big pot if you intend to braise/simmer it.

Thank you for that thoughtful and thought-provoking post, Steve. ....................................... Campell's Soup did so very much for Andy Warhol. I guess it is just ridiculous to think that Chef Boy-Ar-Dee canned spaghetti could do as much for anyone else, ever.

There's at least several subjects that are being addressed within the article and with the subsequent responses to it. Questions raised: Do different cultures have different attitudes towards the food they eat? If so, what are those attitudes? How did they develop to be the norm? Are these food norms helpful/useful to (most of) the people living within the different cultures? Does the mass media do a good job or a bad job in terms of portraying the actual real-life "truths" about these food culture "norms"? Do you agree or disagree that feeding a child the equivalent of "fish fingers and spaghetti" is an acceptable option as a way to live? Do you think that children in general take to "easy-tasting" or processed foods more naturally than they do to what some might consider to be more "healthy" foods? Does how we think about food affect our daily lives, or our lives within our various cultures in any way? Beyond the simple fact that we all make decisions each day as what to eat and perhaps what to cook? Are women responsible in fact for most of the home food preparation/family food preparation across the board in all cultures? How does this affect the food being served? And perhaps not answerable in this forum, how does that affect women in general? And last but not least, would you like some canned spaghetti?

Yeah, I think the article was "dumbed down" to be more easily palatable. It also seems to me that it addresses more than one subject within the food world that would be worthy of serious discussion. It does so both directly and indirectly. To me, it's talking about some important things but with a sweet little smile pasted on its face. ( )

Interesting. You start with colors/aroma/emotion then move to a specific physical place then draw (to use a lightweight word, really, but I detest the word "convey" ) it through the food. I do rather the same thing. But (after the primary start of considering who it is that will be sitting at the table) rather, start with one single ingredient. One bright red pepper that seems about ready to burst out of its skin, a pepper that almost talks. (What would it say if it spoke? What language would it speak? Would it be funny and amusing, or angry and proud?) Anthropomorphism. Whatever it is that the food says, it leads then to a place. It might be anywhere, depending on whatever falls into my mind at that moment. My places are often filled with architecture, and that in the final run can lead to "shape" (specific) ideas. St. Petersburg, with spires and fog and mystery and power, where a red pepper would be a rare late summer treat? Sardinia, where the soil would seem volcanic and hot and the peppers would sprout like an excess of children in a crowded room, all toppling over each other, all demanding immediate attention NOW? Thinking of the place then leads to the mental file that holds knowledge of the traditional foods produced in that place, the palette that composes the palate. Methods of cookery used, fuels, tools, ways of familial dining, recipes based on tradition. Then taking that, some part of it (in order to make a shift into something that would or could actually be termed privately creative) must be re-shaped, re-sculpted, re-written with a different turn of phrase in some sense. Then the whole thing has to be considered as to actual taste (in the mind) and "workability" (what is the production level? will the space this will be produced in support the equipment needs and service demands? etc etc) and finally, (ah, yes, important part ) the people who are going to dine upon this must be again considered. Strange that people actually have to come into this equation, but it won't work otherwise, in the end run. If one actually knows the "audience" one can come closer to fitting one's artistic desires into their so-individual palates and hungers. I don't do all this a lot anymore - my mind has turned to wanting to play with words rather than with foods. In words, a story is told. In the things you've designed with food a story is also told for those who wish to listen. And how practical, that one actually gets to eat it, too!

Yiddish proverb: A man should lick if only to satisfy his curiosity. I may have heard that wrong, true. It may have been "live" not "lick". Live, lick, live, lick, what's the difference.

Patience and motherhood is like osso bucco and risotto milanese, don't you think?

Between the "bad" given off by a healthy child or adult eating a twinkie, and the "bad" given off by people who seek to put down other people's choices of what to eat, it's my opinion that the second is the worst influence upon the world. I eat a twinkie now and then. It hasn't seemed to affect my health nor my girlish figure. Whether it has made me crazier than I would have been otherwise is unknown and possibly moot.

I'm back. .................................................. I've thought about these "issues" or questions a lot, in the past, for I am very interested in the "meaning" of food, what food means to us as individuals, cultures, societies. . .and there is very deep meaning in what we eat and how it happens. That is one of the true beautiful things about the subject of food. Lately, I've been thinking about it even more, in trying to sort out things about my mother, and food - (my mother passed away about a year ago). Since I've learned to cook, I've tried to give love by preparing food. For me, technique is a (neccesary) second to the primary one of giving love or care, through feeding people. My mother did not cook very much or very well. She was also probably clinically depressed, though undiagnosed. She was often wrapped in anger, and when I was barely fourteen years old, I became a "throwaway" child. This is similar to a runaway, but is initiated by the parent. In years after, when I became a chef, it seemed to me that the way one should be is to cook "from scratch", fresh, vital, things all the time. I thought that the love came from the directness of relationship with the earth and soil, and with the time given in preparation, a sort of ritual that can involve both love and sometimes sacrifice of self in small ways (because often, giving to others, does). But lately I've been remembering the times, the few times, that my own mother was able to break through her difficulties, the few times when she *was* able to show love to me as a child (for she did love me, but simply could not break through the walls that held her prisoner in her heart and mind) through food. She did not enjoy cooking, so these times did not involve fresh vegetables or time sacrificed at the stove. These times that I felt my mother's love (which is the most precious thing on earth that a child can feel, a solid reality, a nurturance, a strength that goes on forever in memory) were when she made me a grilled cheese sandwich, a BLT, a can of spaghetti heated up. That was how she enjoyed "cooking", though she had a Ph.D and was otherwise not intellectually dullardly, and the tastes of those things mean "love" to me. So, love and care can be served by mothers in many forms. It's just important to find one's own way to do it, and to do it fully and without being cowed by how others say it should be done, and to not be ashamed of what you put on the table -as long as the love and care is there. A can or a box will not kill it.

Serving pizza for dinner to the children, for me, does not invoke guilt. Rather determinedly does not invoke guilt, I must say, for the frowns of disapproval certainly lurk in the "outside world". But no guilt. The children enjoy it, I enjoy it, dinner is a pleasure. They do not even need to whine and I do not even need to be tired for pizza to be served (or any other equally nutritionally *repulsive* food in its place. Of course we know that somehow pizza made at home from scratch removes itself from this category of Dispproved Foods. . .but I do order out when I feel like it). This does not bother me because I know that at some other meal, some other time, the kids will want to eat something "healthy" (like the dreaded green or mung bean) that balances it out. And those foods are here in the house, too. Food is supposed to nurture, to pleasure, to succor. Why not indulge urges where they can be indulged? I really do not think there is any such thing as "bad" food, merely bad ways of eating it - which translates to bad judgment on an ongoing basis which could show up in health issues. Some people are more prone to difficulties with what they eat and how it affects them, health-wise. Some are not. Each person or parent should be aware of this, of course. But a green bean fed to my child with a halo on my head does not make me an angel (nor does it make me even the slightest bit morally superior in any way), nor does a trip to Burger King make me the devil incarnate. Canned spaghetti? That's another story. I ate a lot of canned spaghetti growing up. I liked it. I figure that if I grew up (if indeed I did) to become a chef, to be someone that enjoys and knows how to cook all sorts of things, this lapse of gourmandism surely will not crimp my kids' styles in the future. MFK Fisher wrote an essay once, that disagreed with the general idea that one had to eat, and had to serve, certain things in a certain order at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That the meals had to be "balanced", each comprising certain things. Eat a meal of all fruit if you feel like it! she said. Eat a meal of cookies if you feel like it! she said. Neither you nor the world will be worse for it. And unless there are health issues involved, I have to agree. And have to extend that sort of guilt-less thinking to allow any and all sorts of "junk food" into our life here. Now where's that scarlet letter? I seem to have misplaced it.